forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Koberg" <>
Subject RE: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:46:31 GMT
Hi - my two cents:

I like the iguancharlie layout. I think it degrades very nicely for Nav4.

You could put a hidden div at the top stating something like:
'the Forrest proj supports standards initiatives. The page layout was designed
in accordance with this. The browser you are using does not support CSS and
therefore you are seeing a degraded version, but all the relevant content is

nice job iguanacharlie!

The tableless layout is much easier to change into many different views. In
fact, I think the whole concept of how you use the word 'skins' leads to
confusion. You are saying the XSL is the skin when it is more like a skeleton or
actually a bag of bones. The CSS is the skin. XSL=structure, CSS=style. By going
tableless you get closer to the separation of concerns ideal where you can
change the entire layout just by dropping in a new CSS - no regeneration and
possibly solely in the hands of a designer (though I have yet to work with one
who can actually use the power of CSS).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley []
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:18 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > Miles Elam wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > Okay, I finally had enough free time to work on a CSS version of
> > >
> >  >
> >  > The mockup is at
> >  >
> >
> > Awesome work. This should be translated in a skin.
> >
> > All: please cross-check with your favorite browser/OS and tell Miles
> > what you think. If it degrades gracefully, we could consider this making
> > the default.
> Here are shots of Mozilla and Netscape (4.79) on Linux.
> However, i think that the most important thing is not the "look",
> but how the result performs against "Standards Compliance".
> If they want to use an older browser, then they have to suffer
> the poorer appearance.
> --David

View raw message