[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Nasty X + Mozilla bug...

Hi Karsten, 

Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2002 08:17 schrieb Karsten M. Self:

> >  [...]
> > but I'm wondering if it breaks the page layout.
> Define "breaking page layout".  

According the meaning of css-capabilities I define it as arranging 
page-elements pixel-by-pixel.

> My experience is that websites
> render consistently and readably.  

Do you mean: In the manner of 'I can literally read the phrases'?

> If they're predicated on text
> sizing to specific dimensions, they're broken by design already. 

Page-design not usually breaks readable text, but maybe too often.

> I've only seen one site that fails to render readably.  For the
> most part, standardizing results is far preferable to seeing the
> crud webmonkeys are churning out these days.

css comming up to be a standard. I agree that there is really cruel 
design out there on the net: Unuseful and overwhelming with it's 
flicking and flashing effects.

> Let's repeat together:  "HTML is not a presentation language. 
> Flash is crap to five nines."

Crap to 'five nines' relative to what? No, I don't agree referring 
to flash, the design made by some flashdesigners is not always that 
bad. And last but not least: Images and sounds got the power to 
communicate things too.

HTML is not a presentationlanguage, but css is.

But you're right: people have forgotten the meaning of HTML these 
days. They often don't think on it in a communicative manner. And I 
think they're paying for it these days.

Fortunateley there is a bugfix for mozilla out now. Web designers 
are not limited by such a bug.

But they are nevertheless responsible to fit to a culture of 
communication, considerate to the netcitizens.

> Peace.



ps: sorry about my poor english 

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: