Re: Looking for a wysisyg html editor for linux

[Steve Carroll]

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C4EAF7EC.D540C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
> Jrfxk.29037$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 9/8/08 1:00 PM:
>
>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> stated in post
>>> 70uac41dvd4fnj2k3...@4ax.com on 9/8/08 12:08 PM:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope. It is not just *my* preferences.
>>>>> You are trampling on the preferences of a *lot* of people with
>>>>> such a design. You are forcing *your* preferences on others.
>>>>> Extremely bad design
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not bad from Shit's perspective. He loves to annoy people,
>>>> you know...
>>>
>>> Just for fun I decided to Google fixed-with vs. liquid. The
>>> prevailing wisdom *clearly* agrees with me and not Peter (surprise
>>> surprise, LOL!). Here is a sampling:
>>>
>>> <http://www.webreference.com/authoring/style/sheets/css_mastery2/>
>>> -----
>>> Fixed-width layouts are very common as they give the
>>> developer more control over layout and positioning. If you
>>> set the width of your design to be 720 pixels wide, it will
>>> always be 720 pixels. If you then want a branding image
>>> spanning the top of your design, you know it needs to be 720
>>> pixels wide to fit. Knowing the exact width of each element
>>> allows you to lay them out precisely and know where
>>> everything will be. This predictability makes fixed-width
>>> layout by far the most common layout method around.
>>> -----
>>
>> However, the original intent of HTML was /not/ to produce fixed
>> layouts.
>
> Irrelevant to how it is used today.
>
>> It was to produce readable web sites under a wide variety of
>> conditions, and to encourage sites that could be understood by those
>> who had to rely on hearing alone.
>>
>> The rest of your quotes were simply opinions, and opinions that do
>> not take into account the needs of all people.
>
> What is good or bad design is, largely, opinion... though there are
> specific goals that can be looked at and how well or how poorly a
> specific design meets those goals can be measured. And, of course,
> there is a benefit to doing things in ways that a user will be
> familiar with (such as my navigation on the left hand side... very
> common).
>
>>> For Peter to say it is "extremely bad web design" is just silly...
>>
>> He exaggerates. However, fixed width web sites are gauche and
>> impolite.
>
> What do you base this on? Looking for opinions of different
> designers I certainly do not find this to be the case.
>
>>> and shows
>>> off how little he knows in the areas of web design. Seriously, is
>>> there *any* technical topic he is not amazingly ignorant on?
>>
>> Trolling sign-off noted.
>
> Peter - again - lashed out at me on a technical issue and stuck his
> foot in his mouth. Pointing out how he repeatedly does this is a
> fair response to his BS.

You troll everyone you know is better than you. And that means everyone.
Maybe you should stop hating yoruself so much.

--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit