perl-docs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From allan <lambre...@inet.uni2.dk>
Subject Re: finding a common ground
Date Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:26:35 GMT
hi thomas and others

i really liked/needed this summary of things.


Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Should we design a great-looking page using "dirty tricks" or should we
> design a nice-looking page without dirty tricks.
> 
> I'm asking this because I think that Allan's last design (the two gifs)
> really looks great, but I don't think we can implement it without "dirty
> tricks" (i.e. misusing HTML for stuff it's not inteded to do) (The design
> can shurly be implementd CSS-only, but it won't work on old browsers then)

when you say dirty you are really saying "html"-tables and
space.gifs, right?

the fewer html tables in a design the better - no doubt. 
if an html-table is needed then use it.
in other vords i still prefer good cross-browser experience
before good standards as long as the html is valid anyway.
anyway, we had this discusion before.


> Which leaves us with tons of documentation and some advocacy.

my humble and crude summary/view is this:

a) we can have a design thats looks good without a _single_
table-tag and works 75% crossbrowser/platform
this is none of the current designs

b) we can have a design thats looks very good with very few
carefully chosen table-tags and works 90+% crossbrowser/platform
this is IMO more or less both the current design and thomas'
current design

c) a design where the non-content parts has html-tables,
that looks better (IMO) and works 98% crossbrowser/platform
this is IMO more or less "my" current design

d) a design where everything could be tables/space gifs,
whatever and works 100% crossbrowser/platform.

all would be 100% html/css valid.

maybe we dont all agree which one looks the best, but at
least for the sake of argument lets asume so, ok?


right.
option a and d is totally irrelevant, currently.

this leaves us with option b and option c.

having read your summary i also _now_ understand that the
site in its current form is two-folded and i _think_ that
you and stas have been focusing more or less on the
documentation-view, while i have more or less been focusing
on the "hi manager, see what mod_perl can do, heres the link"-view.
i am quite new to the mod_perl list myself and thinking
about it now i guess that my design even would put a few
people off.
i mean, consider (dont compare) the www.apache.org site.
this has always been extremely simple and fast and when they
pepped their site up with a few colors that didnt change.

so, i think we should go for option b, which is almost
finished anyway, works well in a large percentage of the
worlds' stupid browsers, has more of a "community"-look and
is focusing on the most important part of this site, the documentation.

comments on option b to follow ...


./allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org


Mime
View raw message