Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3DCFA137.6070907@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:23:19 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
References: <3223D46D-EB56-11D6-A865-0030655555CE@adolos.co.uk>
 <3DCF78CC.2040301@geekspeak.org> <3DCF8414.1020604@geekspeak.org>
 <3DCF88A1.6090507@apache.org> <20021111114517.GH3377@expresso.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Jeff Turner wrote:
> 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.

Exactly, I think we shouldn't maintain 2 visually identical skins.
And it's more about switching to current version, and for this the users 
(us too as far as our site is concerned) must be convinced.

IMHO it's not too hard to convince users about a CSS design, as long as:

1) browsers don't crash
2) the content is decently visible on all browser
3) it plays nicely with text browsers (no hacks and only content-images)
4) standards compliant and validated

The proposed skin doesn't look far off, I'd be very happy to have a CSS 
version of our skin.
And remember, to me "less bandwidth" is a magic word ;-)

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

+1

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