home.html

["Piroumian, Konstantin" <KP...@flagship.ru>]

Hi!

Is there any special/political/technological reason for using so much 'div's
for HTML layout? I am absolutely sure that it's possible to get the same
layout using simple 'table's and 'span's. That will make pages editable with
a visual tool (e.g. DreamWeaver). And maybe that is the cause that makes
pages unaccessible for 4.x browsers?

FYI: trying to open home.html with Netscape 4.7 crashed it with Dr. Watson.

Regards,
    Konstantin

RE: home.html

[Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>]

Stefano wrote:

>
> Guys, we have to decide if we go static or dynamic first!
>

There's not too much to decide if the hosting facility prefers static
HTML for the time being, no?

I'm in favour for going dynamic, but who will host that? I still believe
we should start with a common-browser edition of the site using
Cocoon-CLI to publish to the live site. If and when
infrastructure@apache.org is convinced of the fact that Java webhosting
is a feasible thing with the current servers, we can easily switch to a
dynamic site supporting any favourite brand of web browser/WAP phone/you
name it.

If one of our build targets is a neatly packaged cocoon.war (or .cb, or
whatever will be decided upon on cocoon-dev), I'm sure we will find
people collaborating with us to do some load tests to argument the
'dynamic-is-feasible' case.

Or should we start the infrastructure@apache.org discussion upfront?
I'll be happy to support that case, although I doubt whether the timing
is right ATM.

</Steven>

Re: home.html

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

"Piroumian, Konstantin" wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Is there any special/political/technological reason for using so much 'div's
> for HTML layout? 

Lightness. But I'm fully aware the above doesn't work on 4th generation
browsers and below.

The HTML layout is *not* the final result, but only there to show people
where we're going.

> I am absolutely sure that it's possible to get the same
> layout using simple 'table's and 'span's. 

Oh, of course.

> That will make pages editable with a visual tool (e.g. DreamWeaver). 

So? nobody is ever going to edit those pages with a external visual tool
anyway since they will be generated out of XML.

> And maybe that is the cause that makes
> pages unaccessible for 4.x browsers?

yes, we have already agreed on that.
 
> FYI: trying to open home.html with Netscape 4.7 crashed it with Dr. Watson.

Guys, we have to decide if we go static or dynamic first!

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: home.html

["Piroumian, Konstantin" <KP...@flagship.ru>]

> From: "Piroumian, Konstantin" <KP...@flagship.ru>
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Is there any special/political/technological reason for using so much
> 'div's
> > for HTML layout? I am absolutely sure that it's possible to get the same
> > layout using simple 'table's and 'span's. That will make pages editable
> with
> > a visual tool (e.g. DreamWeaver). And maybe that is the cause that makes
> > pages unaccessible for 4.x browsers?
> >
> > FYI: trying to open home.html with Netscape 4.7 crashed it with Dr.
> Watson.
>
> Nested tables are deemed as bad by many, although I cannot speak for
others
> since I personally don't care how it's done.
> HTML should be content and CSS style? Let's get real. CSS support is at
most
> wavy in many browsers (IE5 and 6 have also different inheritance
mechanism),
> and Netscape 4 crashes on some CSS (this is a known issue, BTW).
>
> For me content is XML. Style is XSL+CSS. HTML is just a presentation
format.

Yes, sure, I didn't say a word against that. But we should generate usable
HTML for any more or less modern browser. I'd suggest having two different
versions: advanced (for 5+ browsers) and simple (for all others), but this
is the future...

>
> Konstantin, see what you can do on that layout using the least possible
> nested tables.
> What must IMO be avoided though is the dreaded <style> tag.
You mean 'style' attribute?

> Instead, use CSS styles, using the class attribute.

Ok. There is no a single 'style' in home.html.

KP

>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Re: home.html

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

From: "Piroumian, Konstantin" <KP...@flagship.ru>

> Hi!
>
> Is there any special/political/technological reason for using so much
'div's
> for HTML layout? I am absolutely sure that it's possible to get the same
> layout using simple 'table's and 'span's. That will make pages editable
with
> a visual tool (e.g. DreamWeaver). And maybe that is the cause that makes
> pages unaccessible for 4.x browsers?
>
> FYI: trying to open home.html with Netscape 4.7 crashed it with Dr.
Watson.

Nested tables are deemed as bad by many, although I cannot speak for others
since I personally don't care how it's done.
HTML should be content and CSS style? Let's get real. CSS support is at most
wavy in many browsers (IE5 and 6 have also different inheritance mechanism),
and Netscape 4 crashes on some CSS (this is a known issue, BTW).

For me content is XML. Style is XSL+CSS. HTML is just a presentation format.

Konstantin, see what you can do on that layout using the least possible
nested tables.
What must IMO be avoided though is the dreaded <style> tag.
Instead, use CSS styles, using the class attribute.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------