"Ludovic Silvestre" <ludovic.silvestre@gmail.com> wrote in message news:lgmfvnqiiwxuctpgqsbq@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>
>> In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. On the user's side, content and view have become completely married together. That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a very large effort put into standard file formats and general computer-to-computer interop, it used to be that any content could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style, any anything the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age! But once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out the window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with content once again (and vice versa - content comes inseparably bundled with the interface). While model-view separation is popular among webdevs, that separation exists completely on the developer's side, not the user's side. Of course in this particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...
> Check out this: http://axr.vg/

Interesting. At a glance, it sounds like it still doesn't address my rant above (though I don't see how it could). And I would have preferred to see XML abandoned and have a unified language for content and presentation (note that doesn't preclude separation of actual content and presentation - I'd just like to see them both use a single common langauge...and no XML).

But other than that, it sounds very similar to what I've been wanting to do. Definitely worth a closer look.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jhh0dg$1ah0$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 2/15/2012 2:55 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the
>> interface
>> look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also
>> mobile
>> devices.
>
> Working well on mobile devices is essential. I was pleased to find that dfeed works well on an iPod and a Kindle Fire.
>
> Mobile devices are also very sensitive to bandwidth, so staying with no javascript and small html files is a big win.
>
> The response on Reddit made one thing really, really clear - people LIKE the high performance of dfeed in a big way. That makes me very, very reluctant to endorse any changes that would slow things down.

(I didn't want to say this *on* reddit, but I think I'm safer here...)

It kinda makes sence that the reddit croud would find it to be notably super-fast. Reddit itself really *is* very, very, VERY slow when you have JS on. Particularly on pages like that with many posts. And that's even with all the ad stuff blocked.

On 2012-02-15 22:34, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Ludovic Silvestre"<ludovic.silvestre@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:lgmfvnqiiwxuctpgqsbq@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>>
>>> In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. On the
>>> user's side, content and view have become completely married together.
>>> That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a very large effort put into
>>> standard file formats and general computer-to-computer interop, it used
>>> to be that any content could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style,
>>> any anything the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age!
>>> But once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out the
>>> window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with content once again
>>> (and vice versa - content comes inseparably bundled with the interface).
>>> While model-view separation is popular among webdevs, that separation
>>> exists completely on the developer's side, not the user's side. Of course
>>> in this particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of
>>> different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...
>> Check out this: http://axr.vg/
>
> Interesting. At a glance, it sounds like it still doesn't address my rant
> above (though I don't see how it could). And I would have preferred to see
> XML abandoned and have a unified language for content and presentation (note
> that doesn't preclude separation of actual content and presentation - I'd
> just like to see them both use a single common langauge...and no XML).
>
> But other than that, it sounds very similar to what I've been wanting to do.
> Definitely worth a closer look.

It looks interesting. But I think it was a mistake to use JavaScript as one of the languages.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

By the way: The title in digitalmars.D changes to digitalmars.D.learn when you open a topic.

On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 14:24:23 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> By the way: The title in digitalmars.D changes to digitalmars.D.learn when you open a topic.

This was caused by a mailing-list user mistakingly replying to a thread on dm.D.learn, then changing the destination address to the dm.D list. As a result, the thread now contains posts across two groups. The same effect will happen with cross-posted messages.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> http://forum.dlang.org/
>
> This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.
>
> Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Could you change the link Forums on the sidebar of the dlang website to this?

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 20:52:46 Nathan M. Swan wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > http://forum.dlang.org/
> > 
> > This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.
> > 
> > Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!
> 
> Could you change the link Forums on the sidebar of the dlang website to this?

I would think it would be better to have a page which is similar to what's there now (though a dlang.org page rather than a digitalmars.com page which includes unnecessary C++ stuff) but make the http web interface link point to the new stuff (and maybe something else to make it more obvious). We don't want to hide the newsgroup information, only make it easy to find the web interface.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property "word-break":

Done.

On 2012-02-17 03:06, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property "word-break":
>
> Done.

Cool, that works great on the iPhone, thanks.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

After posting it couldn't redirect automatically to the topic Instead of having to click on the message "View Message" ?