#881 From: "Yuri Prokushev" <
yuri_prokushev@mail.ru>
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Re: OSFREE - garbled front page prokushev
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
** Reply to message from menchie@... on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:37:35 -0600
> > Page formatted correctly. Netscape shows it's incorrectly. And it's problem
of
> > Netscape. For example, some sites reports content type as text/text instead
of
> > text/html. And Mozilla shows such pages as text. Is it problem of Mozilla?
No.
> > It is problem of site maintainer. But in our case used correctly created
> > HTML/SS with correct content type. If's problem of browser.
> Perhaps I am not being plain...I *understand* that NS 4.78 does not support
CSS.
> It's CSS I object to....I don't like frames either - but....
> > > How can you justify not making a small change to a site's page, to
> > > get it readable by anyone's browser - yet write an Operating System?
> > > :-/
> > Hey, please read before writing.
> I always do....
Heh. And you still consider I don't want to fix the problem?
> > I'm not told about not making changes but
> > about making it without voodoo. If browser supports feature incorrectly
> > (exmaple Netscape's "support" of CSS) then it is problem of browser. I just
> My point has always been this - use of non-basic formats limits your audience.
> I know people that still use *LYNX* to browse webpages....
HTML/xml is basic structuring layer. CSS is formatting/decorating layer. Mixing
of formating and structuring (markingup) layers bring lot of locigal and
technical problems (example - html). And it's not solution to use historical
but incorrect approach. Historically formating done using tables. It is
absolutely not logical. Presenting not tables (by logic) by tables confusing
and brings more presentation problems in comparation with layered model. And
layered model supports things like text-only browsers, html 3.2 only browsers
and other better. Problems is only with browsers wich ties to support such
model, but absolutely in incorect form. It's easely to disable one layer for
such browsers. If use, for example, tables for formatting then I must test
pages manually with all possible browsers and try to find such solution wich
works less or more for all of then. It is lot of work. I have no time and don't
want to do such stupid work.
> I'm discussing *marketing*, not coding style.
Heh. Then, again, read carefuly . I'm not trying to limit browsers wich
possible to use. I'm only about coding style. I fixed (I hope) problems with
Netscape 4.x now. But not in way which Jeff proposed, because it's can make
problems with other browsers, but in another way, which will not have such
problems in future.
Current widely used "basic" format has more problems in comparation with
standard formats. Just stopid font-size customisation can bring more problem.
It is because all layers mixed. Pages contains as layering approch as mixed
approach. CSS mixed with html attributes plus table-formatting... Brr... It's
hell and only problems. It's real problem if thing like "best viewed by...",
"optimized for...", etc.
> > disable correponding feature for such browser and let user use limited
version
> > of site. And not depending on things like version x supports one subset of
> > "feature" but version y uses another subset. Such way can bring more problem
> > instead of solutions. Netscape 4.8 can start support @import statament but
CSS
> > processing will be still broken. As result I must add another voodoo to
solve
> > problems with CSS. No, thanks. As I sayd, I prefer to solve such things only
> > once.
> What I'm suggesting is to use straight HTML, without CSS. Virtually every
browser
> will support it, and you widen your audience.
Heh. It's why I used layered approach. CSS is addition not requirement. Turn of
CSS (or use browser wich doesn't supports CSS) and you'll see plain HTML. Only
problems with middleway browsers (like netscape 4.x) because they try to
"support" thing wich not really support. Result was inpredictable.
> CSS is (to me) useless extra code -
> if someone's browser does not support it, the page is unreadable.
Not correct. If browser support it incorrectly then page is unreadable. But if
browser doesn't support CSS - you'll see just plain CSS.
> If you have a
> page without whatever CSS is giving you, it's not a big loss - I'm not getting
> the "style elements" - which is the digital equivalent of wearing a silk suit
> to the grocery store as far as I'm concerned.....
Look at any site. Most of them uses tables, hidden images, non-breaking space
and lot of other things to do "style elemets". And I always see various
problems with warious browsers. And I can't control such pages. I can't turn
off styles, because some fonts/colors controlled by attributes another by
styles. I can't turn off images, because they used as navigation, but doesn't
contains alt attribute. And much more other problems. It's result of "browsers
war". I don't remember any page wich was created using netscape for visual
control and works just fine with IE. I looked at IE version 2 months later of
page publishing and all was just fine. And it's works just fine with "stoneage"
text-browser. And works fine with HTML 2.0 browser. Only problem was with
Netscape, wich considers support CSS but it doesn't. Most probably same problem
with "I all know bette" IE browser (older versions). Don't know. I have not
seen any report about pages before now.
> Why do we have to run to keep up with standards, when we are just fine walking
> along the road with what we have?
Heh. Why do we use dead OS, when we are just fine walking along the road
with what we have?
> Good Grief, you guys are making an OS2 clone - don't you think that *maybe*
some
> of the OS2 users you are trying to reach are using antiquated browsers? <sigh>
Yes. And it's why layered model was used.
> > If browser shows it incorrectly - just inform me. And I'll disable one or
> > another feature for such browsers and all will work ok. I can't check it for
> > all browsers. And don't want do so.
> >
> > PS: Please read before writing. Stressing "just for fun" is not good idea at
> > all.
> I am, you are not getting the thrust of my argument.
> (I've had this discussion half a dozen times in the past with others)
> (imagine that!)
Really? You told to someone "do in such way, not in your" alredy? And was
succesful??? I think no. You asked about fixing problems - I said ok. You start
talking about changing "coding style" I said no. And this is not because I
don't want to fix a problem. It because proposed approch bring me more problems
in future. Remember, I told "I fix it and here is temporary solution". You said
"Hey! You limits me in browser selection". Remember, I not propsed your to
change browser or upgrade to newer version.
wbr,
Yuri
PS: I propose to stop talking about nothing. I really consider W3C way is
better when Netscape's one.
PPS: Bugreports still welcomed