Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:45:17 +1100
From: Jeff Turner <jefft@apache.org>
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Message-ID: <20021111114517.GH3377@expresso.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
References: <3223D46D-EB56-11D6-A865-0030655555CE@adolos.co.uk>
 <3DCF78CC.2040301@geekspeak.org> <3DCF8414.1020604@geekspeak.org>
 <3DCF88A1.6090507@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3DCF88A1.6090507@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:38:25AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
> >Nowadays you can get a perfectly capable browser in an airport, a library,
> >and even a cell phone.  I worked for a company that used Mozilla as a
> >rendering engine prior to serialization to a Palm device.  Even Palm
> >devices are becoming CSS aware!  XHTML+CSS would be more efficient
> >for these access points especially when some of them have per kilobyte and
> >per minute charges.  The fact that links can render tables at all is 
> >amazing,
> >but who can't get a graphical browser these days?  The only people I can
> >think of who can't effectively use a graphical web browser are the visually
> >impaired -- and they aren't using links for text retrieval for the reasons
> >mentioned above.
> 
> It's not me you have to convince, it's an important user we have.

No-one has to convince anyone :)  Forrest provides the skins, users
decide.  We can provide as many skins as we can maintain.

How about we have a docs/ directory in each skin, describing the skin's
characteristics, with screenshots on various browsers?


--Jeff