OT Suggestions on Web-Site
Sherman Cahal
started updating it more frequently. I get comments via e-mail almost every
day on the web-site and thoughtful opinions on what I should do, but with
time pressed until 3 weeks from now, I am going after 3 routes:
(A) Get my scanner compapable with Windows XP and scan in my map collection,
ranging from the 1920's to the 1990's from states from Colorado (1954),
South Carolina (1932), Ohio, and others.
(B) Place more pictures on my web-site for the roads and reshoot some
photos.
(C) Focus on new routes, such as Corridor H (US 48) in West Virginia, WV 2
Corridor Expansion, US 23 and US 33 in Ohio, I-670 in Ohio, and others. I
would like to focus more on Ohio and West Virginia, as those states I have
not done much research on.
With those options, I am also doing smaller updates as I have time, such as
posting new photo galleries that were taken offline about 5 months ago due
to web-space problems, and reopening and reconfiguring new pages.
What do you all suggest? Is the new web-site design compapable with all
browsers (IE 4+, NS 4+, No Opera or smaller browsers)? Just curious.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
towelie
together and came up with the following:
> I am curious in what I should be adding to my web-site, now that I
> have started updating it more frequently. I get comments via e-mail
> almost every day on the web-site and thoughtful opinions on what I
> should do, but with time pressed until 3 weeks from now, I am going
> after 3 routes:
>
> (A) Get my scanner compapable with Windows XP and scan in my map
> collection, ranging from the 1920's to the 1990's from states from
> Colorado (1954), South Carolina (1932), Ohio, and others.
A is the correct answer.
--
Don't forget to bring a towel!
Steve
Depends on what compapable means. ;)
(don't killfile me! ;)\
It is compaTible with Netscape 4.7.
--
Steve from New Jersey
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT
David J. Greenberger
> What do you all suggest? Is the new web-site design compapable with all
> browsers (IE 4+, NS 4+, No Opera or smaller browsers)? Just curious.
"No Opera or smaller browsers"? What's that supposed to mean?
FWIW, your site seems to work fine in Opera, at least what I've seen of
it.
But why not aim to have your site work for the entire World Wide Web
rather than for those who use specific versions of specific browsers on
specific platforms? That's the whole point of the web, and it's easier
to accomodate everyone (just use proper HTML) than to be exclusionary.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY
Sherman Cahal
Opera is a small browser that people do use, but it has some problems in
rednering certain aspects of web-site design. Hasn't happened yet so far on
any of mine.
Other small browsers is small ones that are text based, ones that do not
render CSS styles, plug-ins, etc... Some people (3 visits to my
cahaltech.com domain) have used off the wall browsers that I have not heard
of.
I try to keep with Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and a few other
big ones.
Mark Roberts
| But why not aim to have your site work for the entire World Wide Web
| rather than for those who use specific versions of specific browsers on
| specific platforms? That's the whole point of the web, and it's easier
| to accomodate everyone (just use proper HTML) than to be exclusionary.
The Linux version of Opera just flat gets some things wrong. The
attitude is that everyone should be using CSS to define placement,
background colors, etc. rather than hacking with tables. If the
makers of Opera want to buy me a copy of Dreamweaver, well, OK, but
otherwise, I wish they'd get off their high horse on this one.
Table hacks are so widespread they might as well be accomodated.
My site even runs into problems with that (still in 6.10) and
I try for cross-platform capability, with testing on Windows
(IE and Opera) and on Linux (Mozilla, Galeon, Opera) and even
on Solaris (IE). Only Opera on Linux runs into problems.
--
Mark Roberts | "Any device with the word "digital" on it sells better!
Oakland, Cal.| Never mind the quality."
NO HTML MAIL | -- Ruud Poeze, in rec.radio.broadcasting, 10-23-2002
David J. Greenberger
> Opera is a small browser that people do use, but it has some problems in
> rednering certain aspects of web-site design. Hasn't happened yet so far on
> any of mine.
It supports HTML. That's enough for me.
It also supports CSS, not that that's critical.
> Other small browsers is small ones that are text based, ones that do not
> render CSS styles, plug-ins, etc... Some people (3 visits to my
> cahaltech.com domain) have used off the wall browsers that I have not heard
> of.
Well, 3 visits that went reported as such. A browser can identify
itself as whatever it wants. Since some websites have browser
"sniffers" that refuse to send any useful content to browsers that they
haven't heard of, many lesser-known browsers identify themselves as MSIE
or Netscape.
I just tried to access http://www.cvs.com/ and was told that I had to
upgrade to Netscape 4.5 or MSIE 5.0. Upgrade? I'm using an Opera 7
beta that was released a few days ago. (Thanks to this example of
pointless exclusion, CVS lost a customer -- I couldn't find out when the
nearby CVS store closed for the night, so I went to the all-night Duane
Reade instead.)
> I try to keep with Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and a few other
> big ones.
I try to keep with HTML and CSS.
David J. Greenberger
> David J. Greenberger <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> had written:
>
> | But why not aim to have your site work for the entire World Wide Web
> | rather than for those who use specific versions of specific browsers on
> | specific platforms? That's the whole point of the web, and it's easier
> | to accomodate everyone (just use proper HTML) than to be exclusionary.
>
> The Linux version of Opera just flat gets some things wrong. The
> attitude is that everyone should be using CSS to define placement,
> background colors, etc. rather than hacking with tables. If the
> makers of Opera want to buy me a copy of Dreamweaver, well, OK, but
> otherwise, I wish they'd get off their high horse on this one.
> Table hacks are so widespread they might as well be accomodated.
> My site even runs into problems with that (still in 6.10) and
> I try for cross-platform capability, with testing on Windows
> (IE and Opera) and on Linux (Mozilla, Galeon, Opera) and even
> on Solaris (IE). Only Opera on Linux runs into problems.
I've never used table hacks in my life; I don't see the need for them.
What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
with CSS?
David Jensen
"David J. Greenberger" <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
<k7jckg...@myrealbox.com>:
Make it work with Netscape 4.x.
Sherman Cahal
> > attitude is that everyone should be using CSS to define placement,
> > background colors, etc. rather than hacking with tables. If the
> > makers of Opera want to buy me a copy of Dreamweaver, well, OK, but
> > otherwise, I wish they'd get off their high horse on this one.
> > Table hacks are so widespread they might as well be accomodated.
> > My site even runs into problems with that (still in 6.10) and
> > I try for cross-platform capability, with testing on Windows
> > (IE and Opera) and on Linux (Mozilla, Galeon, Opera) and even
> > on Solaris (IE). Only Opera on Linux runs into problems.
>
> I've never used table hacks in my life; I don't see the need for them.
>
> What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
> to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
> with CSS?
Dreamweaver and Coldfusion (the latter a very powerful scripting program)
makes uploading files and maintaining web-sites (when you change a file for
example, it is automatically reflected on the server; no need for time
consuming programs that are 3rd party). They make web-designing much easier.
I use CSS and tables interchangably and have nice results as a um... result
:-)
David J. Greenberger
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:45:19 GMT, in misc.transport.road
> "David J. Greenberger" <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> <k7jckg...@myrealbox.com>:
>
> >What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
> >to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
> >with CSS?
>
> Make it work with Netscape 4.x.
It won't work at all or it just won't look as pretty?
David J. Greenberger
> Dreamweaver and Coldfusion (the latter a very powerful scripting program)
> makes uploading files and maintaining web-sites (when you change a file for
> example, it is automatically reflected on the server; no need for time
> consuming programs that are 3rd party). They make web-designing much easier.
> I use CSS and tables interchangably and have nice results as a um... result
> :-)
I don't see what's so hard about running ftp once in a while. With a
shell account on the server, editing the files directly on the server is
an option, eliminating the need for ftp. And there are inexpensive
Windows programs that will allow you to mount a drive across ftp. I
don't see the connection to CSS.
There are two approaches to designing web pages. One is to somehow
(either by hand or through a so-called WYSIWYG editor) generate files
that look right in a bunch of test browsers. The other is to sit down
and write the HTML that accurately captures the structure of the
information, optionally tack on a CSS file to control presentation, and
run it through a test browser or two as a sanity check. The second
approach is more flexible and yields maximum exposure (search engines
included).
Sherman Cahal
program)
> > makes uploading files and maintaining web-sites (when you change a file
for
> > example, it is automatically reflected on the server; no need for time
> > consuming programs that are 3rd party). They make web-designing much
easier.
> > I use CSS and tables interchangably and have nice results as a um...
result
> > :-)
>
> I don't see what's so hard about running ftp once in a while. With a
> shell account on the server, editing the files directly on the server is
> an option, eliminating the need for ftp. And there are inexpensive
> Windows programs that will allow you to mount a drive across ftp. I
> don't see the connection to CSS.
I meant no connection. I should have paragraph breaked it.
Dreamweaver acts as a FTP manager with files updated if the timestamp does
not match the server files. Makes it easier I believe.
> There are two approaches to designing web pages. One is to somehow
> (either by hand or through a so-called WYSIWYG editor) generate files
> that look right in a bunch of test browsers. The other is to sit down
> and write the HTML that accurately captures the structure of the
> information, optionally tack on a CSS file to control presentation, and
> run it through a test browser or two as a sanity check. The second
> approach is more flexible and yields maximum exposure (search engines
> included).
I use Dreamweaver MX, which is a WYSIWYG editor, but it does an excellent
job of removing excess code (Front Page is full of bloatness). I also do a
lot of hand coding with Cold Fusion, since that is not a WYSIWYG editor. To
design a layout, I usually draw it out via layers and have thep rogram
convert them to tables. Afterwards, I spend upwards of an hour removing the
empty cells and refining the layout before I call it complete.
David Jensen
It messed up CSS fairly badly, to the point that some became unreadable.
Tables were much more reliable.
David J. Greenberger
> [David wrote:]
> > I don't see what's so hard about running ftp once in a while. With a
> > shell account on the server, editing the files directly on the server is
> > an option, eliminating the need for ftp. And there are inexpensive
> > Windows programs that will allow you to mount a drive across ftp. I
> > don't see the connection to CSS.
>
> I meant no connection. I should have paragraph breaked it.
Mark implied a connection. I thought you were elaborating on it, since
I didn't understand. I'll wait for his response.
> Dreamweaver acts as a FTP manager with files updated if the timestamp does
> not match the server files. Makes it easier I believe.
Good. If it makes your life easier, enjoy.
> > There are two approaches to designing web pages. One is to somehow
> > (either by hand or through a so-called WYSIWYG editor) generate files
> > that look right in a bunch of test browsers. The other is to sit down
> > and write the HTML that accurately captures the structure of the
> > information, optionally tack on a CSS file to control presentation, and
> > run it through a test browser or two as a sanity check. The second
> > approach is more flexible and yields maximum exposure (search engines
> > included).
>
> I use Dreamweaver MX, which is a WYSIWYG editor, but it does an excellent
> job of removing excess code (Front Page is full of bloatness). I also do a
> lot of hand coding with Cold Fusion, since that is not a WYSIWYG editor. To
> design a layout, I usually draw it out via layers and have thep rogram
> convert them to tables. Afterwards, I spend upwards of an hour removing the
> empty cells and refining the layout before I call it complete.
The problem is that WYSIWYG and HTML are incompatible concepts. HTML is
a markup language, not a layout language. HTML defines structure, not
positioning (recall that HTML is device-independent, and different
devices have different positioning capabilities). Browsers take the
structure defined in HTML and present it in some fashion, perhaps taking
the advice of a style sheet. The two most popular browsers
manufacturers have done a disservice by insisting on rigid presentation
guidelines, very similar to each other and with only small adjustments
possible for the end user.
Use HTML as it was designed and you won't have to worry about oddball
browsers (unless they're very buggy), PDA browsers, search engines, or
phone-in aural browsers.
If HTML were a layout language, then your approach would work just fine.
But HTML isn't a layout language, and that's one of its biggest selling
points. Let's take advantage of the inherent flexibility of HTML.
David J. Greenberger
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:22:37 GMT, in misc.transport.road
> "David J. Greenberger" <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> <y97sqi...@myrealbox.com>:
>
>
> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:45:19 GMT, in misc.transport.road
> >> "David J. Greenberger" <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> >> <k7jckg...@myrealbox.com>:
> >>
> >> >What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
> >> >to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
> >> >with CSS?
> >>
> >> Make it work with Netscape 4.x.
> >
> >It won't work at all or it just won't look as pretty?
>
> It messed up CSS fairly badly, to the point that some became unreadable.
> Tables were much more reliable.
In other words, the program was badly buggy. I wouldn't use it and I
wouldn't bother trying to support it.
Alan Hamilton
<davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In other words, the program was badly buggy. I wouldn't use it and I
>wouldn't bother trying to support it.
So what happened to creating a web site that works on any browser?
And I'll bet there are more NS 4.x users than Opera users.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Arizona Roads -- http://www.arizonaroads.com
Sherman Cahal
> >wouldn't bother trying to support it.
>
> So what happened to creating a web site that works on any browser?
> And I'll bet there are more NS 4.x users than Opera users.
And I'll bet that there are 10x more users on Internet Explorer 4.0+ (4.0+
renders the pages the same, 3.0 somewhat) than NS 4.x and Opera. NS 4.x was
what I designed for until about 2 years ago, when my site stats showed many
more IE users. Main reasons: NS took too long to load, was bulky, and could
not render pages with CSS, layers, and so forth. Don't even get started with
ASP, PHP2, and Cold Fusionp ages ;-)
John R Cambron
Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> I am curious in what I should be adding to my web-site, now that I have
> started updating it more frequently. I get comments via e-mail almost every
> day on the web-site and thoughtful opinions on what I should do, but with
> time pressed until 3 weeks from now, I am going after 3 routes:
>
> (A) Get my scanner compapable with Windows XP and scan in my map collection,
> ranging from the 1920's to the 1990's from states from Colorado (1954),
> South Carolina (1932), Ohio, and others.
>
> (B) Place more pictures on my web-site for the roads and reshoot some
> photos.
Use compression in your JPG images, hold them to something under
60k Use clickable thumb indexes or linked image descriptions.
The number one thing that chases me away from going deeper in to
any web site is when the creator of a web site places multiple
100+k images in a page and exspects me to wait 5 miniuts for all
of the images to load.
> (C) Focus on new routes, such as Corridor H (US 48) in West Virginia, WV 2
> Corridor Expansion, US 23 and US 33 in Ohio, I-670 in Ohio, and others. I
> would like to focus more on Ohio and West Virginia, as those states I have
> not done much research on.
>
> With those options, I am also doing smaller updates as I have time, such as
> posting new photo galleries that were taken offline about 5 months ago due
> to web-space problems, and reopening and reconfiguring new pages.
>
> What do you all suggest? Is the new web-site design compapable with all
> browsers (IE 4+, NS 4+, No Opera or smaller browsers)? Just curious.
Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or North Beach MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Mark Roberts
When I first started doing web pages, tables didn't exist. Tables
were a Netscape 3 invention.
| What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
| to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
| with CSS?
This actually stems from a desire to stop handcrafting every bit of
HTML on my site. What I'm really looking for, I think, is a cross
between OpenOffice and Bluefish but the best I've been able to do
is Bluefish alone. It's a great assisted editor, and helps keep
track of hyperlinks really well, but it doesn't help on CSS (though
it will check CSS syntax for you).
The analogy I draw is that I shouldn't have to handcraft RTF in
order to exchange a document, nor should I really want to handcraft
HTML (or XHTML for that matter) in a web page. Nor do I really
have the time to do so. At least I now have a design that's
relatively easy to update even when doing so by hand. But it
took nearly a year to get there.
Tidy will generate inline CSS but I'm not sure I want to go there.
I'd also rather integrate CSS with the rest of my update/creation
processes. If I'm going to lump it off with intermediate files, I
might as well re-learn TeX and generate multiple formats off a
common source. The current limitation of my site (and of many other
sites) is that the source is also the presentation, with the
exception of the route logs. Usually that's harmless, but you
can't do any transforms on it either when your presentation object
is also your source object.
Sherman Cahal
collection,
> > ranging from the 1920's to the 1990's from states from Colorado (1954),
> > South Carolina (1932), Ohio, and others.
> >
> > (B) Place more pictures on my web-site for the roads and reshoot some
> > photos.
>
> Use compression in your JPG images, hold them to something under
> 60k Use clickable thumb indexes or linked image descriptions.
>
> The number one thing that chases me away from going deeper in to
> any web site is when the creator of a web site places multiple
> 100+k images in a page and exspects me to wait 5 miniuts for all
> of the images to load.
Most images on my web-site that are not special sections are often under
60k. I can achieve this by compressing the images using Macromedia Fireworks
MX Batch Command, and does not result in loss of quality. I also use
thumbnails which help out a lot.
Chris Lawrence
> Tidy will generate inline CSS but I'm not sure I want to go there.
> I'd also rather integrate CSS with the rest of my update/creation
> processes. If I'm going to lump it off with intermediate files, I
> might as well re-learn TeX and generate multiple formats off a
> common source. The current limitation of my site (and of many other
> sites) is that the source is also the presentation, with the
> exception of the route logs. Usually that's harmless, but you
> can't do any transforms on it either when your presentation object
> is also your source object.
FWIW, I'm expermienting with going to pure CSS layouts; my new blog is
fully CSS + HTML 4.01, with no tables or frame stuff in sight. The
backend is all database-driven with PostgreSQL, which I wouldn't
necessarily recommend for a mostly-static site. But the CSS stuff with
proper external stylesheets is nice to play with.
I've done some templating in the past but overall I found it relatively
useless; i69info.com doesn't use it, despite the similarity of the
"section" pages. I probably will just use a gallery tool for any new
photo pages to simplify things; I've had some success with igal.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
Sherman Cahal
> useless; i69info.com doesn't use it, despite the similarity of the
> "section" pages. I probably will just use a gallery tool for any new
> photo pages to simplify things; I've had some success with igal.
I don't use templetes, but rather reuse the top and left sides of my pages
and use some nifty PHP coding (which is why you have a long URL). It
prevents me from recreating the same page over and over...
David J. Greenberger
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:26:21 GMT, "David J. Greenberger"
> <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >In other words, the program was badly buggy. I wouldn't use it and I
> >wouldn't bother trying to support it.
>
> So what happened to creating a web site that works on any browser?
Any browser that properly interprets HTML and either properly interprets
or ignores CSS, as per their formal standards.
> And I'll bet there are more NS 4.x users than Opera users.
Probably. Their loss. I can gear my efforts to specific versions of
specific browsers on specific platforms or I can gear my efforts to the
World Wide Web and anything that happens to support its standards.
David J. Greenberger
> David J. Greenberger <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> had written:
> | I've never used table hacks in my life; I don't see the need for them.
>
> When I first started doing web pages, tables didn't exist. Tables
> were a Netscape 3 invention.
My first foray into the world of HTML was in 1995 or so. I don't think
tables existed then.
> | What's wrong with using CSS? Why do you need Dreamweaver? (CSS is easy
> | to write by hand.) Is there something you can do with tables but not
> | with CSS?
>
> This actually stems from a desire to stop handcrafting every bit of
> HTML on my site. What I'm really looking for, I think, is a cross
> between OpenOffice and Bluefish but the best I've been able to do
> is Bluefish alone. It's a great assisted editor, and helps keep
> track of hyperlinks really well, but it doesn't help on CSS (though
> it will check CSS syntax for you).
Understood. I use SSI for a similar purpose (which explains why my IMG
tags don't have WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes, as they should). But (at
least if used as designed) CSS is quite simple, IME, to write by hand,
and you shouldn't need more than a few CSS files for an entire site (I'm
not sure why you'd need more than one, in fact).
> Tidy will generate inline CSS but I'm not sure I want to go there.
> I'd also rather integrate CSS with the rest of my update/creation
> processes. If I'm going to lump it off with intermediate files, I
> might as well re-learn TeX and generate multiple formats off a
> common source. The current limitation of my site (and of many other
> sites) is that the source is also the presentation, with the
> exception of the route logs. Usually that's harmless, but you
> can't do any transforms on it either when your presentation object
> is also your source object.
I realized that my site had the same problem in 2000. I started to
correct it in December, and in January all my work abruptly went into a
black hole for a few months. I eventually got it back, but I'm redoing
everything from scratch now. (As I type this, I'm feverishly scanning a
large backlog. Right now I'm on I-80 in Pennsylvania on September 5,
returning from Illinois. Only ten 36-exposure rolls to go!)
David J. Greenberger
> Use compression in your JPG images, hold them to something under 60k
That's not always realistic.
I used to try to keep my image files to 50k or less, and I ended up with
boxy results like this:
http://plover.net/~green/?hsp-signs_3
http://plover.net/~green/?121st-proceed
http://plover.net/~green/?bmb-toll
When I upped that threshold to 100k, and treated even that as flexible,
I began getting much better results:
http://plover.net/~green/?cisl-cislbr
http://plover.net/~green/?hhp-nb-ex-fttryon_5
http://plover.net/~green/?baltsub-jhh
> The number one thing that chases me away from going deeper in to
> any web site is when the creator of a web site places multiple
> 100+k images in a page and exspects me to wait 5 miniuts for all
> of the images to load.
Agreed -- unless it's clear in advance that the page has multiple 100+k
images.
Mark Roberts
|
| > On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:26:21 GMT, "David J. Greenberger"
| > <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
| >
| > So what happened to creating a web site that works on any browser?
|
| Any browser that properly interprets HTML and either properly interprets
| or ignores CSS, as per their formal standards.
|
| > And I'll bet there are more NS 4.x users than Opera users.
|
| Probably. Their loss.
The problem with Opera, as I discovered, is that it is easy to
configure it should that it won't work with CSS. You have to allow
the site to set the styles and fonts for it to work correctly with
Opera. I discovered this the difficult way, by trial and error. The
implications of "use my styles" in Opera aren't as well documented
as they should be, in my opinion. Mozilla doesn't have quite this
level of configurability, I believe, and so runs into fewer
problems in this case.
--
Mark Roberts |"Isn't whining about not getting a fair shake from the media
Oakland, Cal.| about 50% of what it means to be a conservative in America?"
NO HTML MAIL | -- Josh Marshall, _Talking Points Memo_, 12-5-2002
Mark Roberts
| mark...@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) writes:
|
| > David J. Greenberger <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> had written:
| > | I've never used table hacks in my life; I don't see the need for them.
| >
| > When I first started doing web pages, tables didn't exist. Tables
| > were a Netscape 3 invention.
|
| My first foray into the world of HTML was in 1995 or so. I don't think
| tables existed then.
Sounds about right.
| Understood. I use SSI for a similar purpose (which explains why my IMG
| tags don't have WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes, as they should). But (at
| least if used as designed) CSS is quite simple, IME, to write by hand,
| and you shouldn't need more than a few CSS files for an entire site (I'm
| not sure why you'd need more than one, in fact).
The problem I have had is not with the CSS files themselves but in
getting the HTML pages to use them properly. I just haven't had the
ability to focus on this particular learning activity.
I've made the decision that, for now, the best use of my time is to
focus on the site content and, at some point down the road, work on
bringing it into XHTML. Probably one in fifty site users will
actually care about what's going on "under the hood" anyway.
There are a couple of features I want to add to the site before
going back and working on the plumbing which, as you've discovered,
can take quite a bit of time while not showing much in the way of
readily apparent results.
David J. Greenberger
> David J. Greenberger <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> had written:
> | Alan Hamilton <al...@arizonaroads.com> writes:
> |
> | > On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:26:21 GMT, "David J. Greenberger"
> | > <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> | >
> | > So what happened to creating a web site that works on any browser?
> |
> | Any browser that properly interprets HTML and either properly interprets
> | or ignores CSS, as per their formal standards.
> |
> | > And I'll bet there are more NS 4.x users than Opera users.
> |
> | Probably. Their loss.
>
> The problem with Opera, as I discovered, is that it is easy to
> configure it should that it won't work with CSS. You have to allow
> the site to set the styles and fonts for it to work correctly with
> Opera. I discovered this the difficult way, by trial and error. The
> implications of "use my styles" in Opera aren't as well documented
> as they should be, in my opinion. Mozilla doesn't have quite this
> level of configurability, I believe, and so runs into fewer
> problems in this case.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Style sheets are called cascading for
this very reason. Don't make any assumptions about how your page will
actually look in the end (since CSS doesn't make any guarantees) and you
shouldn't run into any problems.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
Mark Roberts
| this very reason. Don't make any assumptions about how your page will
| actually look in the end (since CSS doesn't make any guarantees) and you
| shouldn't run into any problems.
|
| Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
Opera allows the user to override site-specified CSS with one's own
style (even if there isn't any). Preferences -> Document -> Page
Style, then check or uncheck boxes in Author Mode and User Mode
sections as desired. (Opera 6.11 on Linux)
Brian Polidoro
Authors can make parts of their style sheets 'important' so that user style sheets cannot override the author's style.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#important
I don't like how they put their example. It confused me at first as to how the important keyword fit in. So here's how I would
write the example:
H1 {
color: black ! important;
background: white ! important
}
P {
font-size: 12pt ! important;
font-style: italic
}
Opera can violate this part of the CSS recommendation and it can follow it. It depends on the users settings. If both user and
author style sheets are checked then opera will follow the important rule. The user cannot override an author's important style.
But if the author style is unchecked then none of the authors style is used and the user style is used even though parts of the
author style is supposed to be important. I'm split about whether I like this ability. The important rule is there so the author
can preserve the most important parts of his style. Important parts to me are mainly positioning styles. Without the positioning
styles the page probably becomes unreadable, unusable, or both. But allowing the user to override font sizes and font family is
usually ok. Font color is in the gray area. The author usually will pick an acceptable color so his color should take precedence.
The reason I think opera allows users to remove author's style sheets is because of bad authors. Many authors don't test their
styles on opera and the pages don't come out right on opera so the user turns off the author style sheet. It could be better that
way and it could be worse. But the option is there.
IE breaks this rule. If you specify a user style it'll override even an important author style. The only styles used from the
author are the ones not overridden by the user. Even classes are overridden by a user style sheet. An example: I have an H1 that
uses a class defined in the author sheet with an important style. And I have a non-important h1 style in the user sheet. And it
overrides the class. I don't like that. It currently doesn't affect me because I don't use the important rule in my styles. And I
probably won't use them because only opera does it right and the browsers below don't even use user style sheets. Plus as I stated
above important styles to me are positioning ones and I'm not currently using positioning styles.
Mozilla, Netscape 6/4, and Kmeleon do not have the option to use user style sheets. But Mozilla and N6/4 allows the user override
text, background and link colors in the preferences.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"Mark Roberts" <mark...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uvaqvbk...@corp.supernews.com...
|
| Opera allows the user to override site-specified CSS with one's own
| style (even if there isn't any). Preferences -> Document -> Page
| Style, then check or uncheck boxes in Author Mode and User Mode
| sections as desired. (Opera 6.11 on Linux)
|
| --
| Mark Roberts |"Isn't whining about not getting a fair shake from the media
| Oakland, Cal.| about 50% of what it means to be a conservative in America?"
| NO HTML MAIL | -- Josh Marshall, _Talking Points Memo_, 12-5-2002
|
|
|
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----