|Gert Bultman (Xi)||Aug 14, 2002 3:03 am|
|Yann Dirson||Aug 14, 2002 3:13 am|
|Gert Bultman (Xi)||Aug 14, 2002 4:14 am|
|Ramon Casellas||Aug 14, 2002 5:54 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 14, 2002 10:19 am|
|Bob Stayton||Aug 14, 2002 7:17 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 14, 2002 10:08 pm|
|John R. Daily||Aug 14, 2002 10:36 pm|
|Bob Stayton||Aug 15, 2002 12:17 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 15, 2002 11:47 am|
|Bob Stayton||Aug 15, 2002 1:41 pm|
|John R. Daily||Aug 15, 2002 1:52 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 15, 2002 10:31 pm|
|John R. Daily||Aug 15, 2002 11:04 pm|
|John R. Daily||Aug 15, 2002 11:23 pm|
|peter riegersperger||Aug 15, 2002 11:27 pm|
|ed nixon||Aug 16, 2002 5:24 am|
|John R. Daily||Aug 16, 2002 7:07 am|
|David Cramer||Aug 16, 2002 7:39 am|
|ed nixon||Aug 16, 2002 7:40 am|
|John R. Daily||Aug 16, 2002 8:30 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 16, 2002 10:46 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 16, 2002 10:55 am|
|John R. Daily||Aug 16, 2002 10:59 am|
|John R. Daily||Aug 16, 2002 11:23 am|
|Norman Walsh||Aug 16, 2002 12:01 pm|
|ed nixon||Aug 16, 2002 12:09 pm|
|John R. Daily||Aug 16, 2002 12:32 pm|
|Bob Stayton||Aug 16, 2002 12:39 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 16, 2002 12:58 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 16, 2002 1:01 pm|
|Paul Grosso||Aug 17, 2002 1:01 am|
|Jens Stavnstrup||Aug 18, 2002 11:49 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 19, 2002 9:58 am|
|Norman Walsh||Aug 20, 2002 6:32 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 20, 2002 10:36 am|
|Subject:||Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting|
|From:||Dave Pawson (dav...@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk)|
|Date:||Aug 16, 2002 12:58:42 pm|
At 12:09 16/08/2002, ed nixon wrote:
Thanks, Dave. Such a diplomat you are!
lol. No I'm not Ed. Should see my comments on the SVG list :-) I'm a Yorkshireman. However, the group on this list are so polite/helpful etc, that its rarely necessary to 'get up steam'. Usually if there's a strong statement its for a good, technical reason, hence I'm interested in hearing it!
My only concern has been that we not break anything in terms of the existing CSS usage, i.e. class="docbookElementName".
On the other hand, anything that allows more flexibility for CSS styling on the HTML (or for that matter XML) output side is, by definition, a good thing. Go for it.
Quite agree, as I said early on. When John suggested we could have our cake and eat it though, I'm all for it, if its fairly broadly supported. (Also answering Norm's later comment) If CSS can resolve the blue/red priority (Am I looking at John again :-) then I'm for it.
Please excuse me if I sound shrill. I have been following discussions on the CSS list that Eric Meyer runs. The sum total of what I've learned seems to be that there are as many spoofs and work arounds to get reasonable cross-browser CSS formatting (not even considering Version 4 level browsers) as there were spoofs and work arounds to get plain ol' HTML to work consistently back in the bad old days. And the new spoofs are even more obscure, e.g. strategically placed, partial comment strings and mis-placed slashes -- back and forward.
Agreed. Since all we are asking the stylesheets to do is put forward the opportunity to use the 'spoofs' (or ignore them) then I've no problem. My CSS stylesheets are usually about 5 liners. My only 'real' use of it would be to id the 'answers' in the faq with some marking or other.
I'm to the point with my own web work of simply writing to the latest Mozilla or IE 6 running in "standards mode" (have you heard about that yet?) and placing polite, hidden (by CSS) text that suggests to the version 4 viewer that they upgrade (or work with fully functional but 1993 views of the content.)
KISS works nicely with HTML. It may be boring, but people can get the information they want, which is always my intention.
No offence taken btw, I would have to look hard around here to see the script kiddies with *&% html :-)