forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miles Elam <mi...@geekspeak.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2002 02:52:46 GMT
Steven Noels wrote:

> Miles Elam wrote:
>
>> But then again, this is all sophostry and rhetoric without something 
>> to look at or back it up with.  So, getting to my point, I got bored 
>> today and made a mockup of http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/ in XHTML 1.0 
>> Strict.
>>
>> http://cocoon.iguanacharlie.com/
>>
>> I hope this illustrates my point of view.  Sure, it could use some 
>> tweaking (I just whipped it out), but it validates, looks pretty good 
>> for braille readers, looks pretty good for good browsers, and any 
>> browser should be able to get the content (including Mosaic holdouts 
>> who can't handle tables).  Wasn't this the point of XHTML?  Wasn't 
>> this the point of CSS?
>
>
> Hm. Hmmmm. Why don't you give a shot at 
> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/, the slightly more complicated skin we 
> will be using on Forrestized Apache sites - such as xml.apache.org?

How much margin do I have?  Those tabs have rounded edges.  Does the 
page have to be pixel for pixel?   Are squared edges okay as an 
alternate?  Can the tabs be made a uniform width?

Other than those questions, doesn't seem too tough.  The rounded edges 
mean that I have to use images of course.  Nevermind.  Not a big deal. 
 It's not like the page doesn't have logos et al.  

I have a radio show to do tonight, but I'll try to get to it soon.

> Nice work, I must admit. Lean and mean code - but we should check on 
> older browsers - I'll be trying this with my rusty NS 4.07 on Linux. 

I would think that it would look more bland, but definitely readable in 
NS 4.07.  Since NS4 doesn't support the @import CSS directive, it 
doesn't even know there's CSS basically.  What you end up with is a page 
with header tags and paragraphs (akin to 1995 pages) that look pretty 
good in Lynx (and by association, readers for the visually-impaired). 
 But then again, that's the question I wanted to make: how much do 
people really care about the aesthetics vs. just the content when using 
two generation old browsers?  Content is 100% available for all, layout 
is minimal for old, and layout is like a magazine for new.

> We could use some helping hands over at Forrest to finish our skins.

I have to admit, I have my hands full with my radio show website for the 
short term.  I was scrapping all the cruft in exchange for a 100% 
standards compliant and accessibility compliant website. 
 It's...um...taking a while as I un-learn all of my old HTML skills.

Then again, I procrastinate a lot.  We'll see.  I can't promise, but 
working on Apache pages is definitely up there in my book of reasons to 
procrastinate on my own site.  ;-)

- Miles



Mime
View raw message