View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Let me clarify this, though; I mean nothing against Walter.

There are plenty of people who have low-level programming down, or can 
understand things in science no one else can who don't know the 
standards.  There's nothing wrong with this and it means nothing less of 
the person.

But that doesn't mean, at least in my opinion, that the HTML should be 
invalid; it just means that making it valid should be someone else's 
responsibility.  Someone who knows *that* better than quantum physics or 
compiler optimization.

-[Unknown]


> So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
> HTML/CSS/etc., yes?
> 
> In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
> bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the 
> Test Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people 
> filled in wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - 
> because the school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if 
> they made a mistake in taking it.
> 
> Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
> standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
> markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
> text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but 
> it's also correct, plain and simple.
> 
> I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
> about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
> things I do is look at their website's HTML.  Good HTML shows me that 
> they either know what they're doing, or have put in the effort to hire 
> someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know what they're doing, 
> or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.
> 
> When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
> impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
> go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits 
> it had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was 
> enough to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.
> 
> Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
> office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having 
> invalid HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to 
> programmers like me, who are often a little too concerned about people 
> following the letter of the standards.
> 
> Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.  Even if the 
> site looks the same, the HTML will show that it is not from the 1990's.
> 
> Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that mean of 
> the language?  And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly 
> up-and-coming language from the 1990's?
> 
> -[Unknown]
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message
news:d6lq40$1qij$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Let me clarify this, though; I mean nothing against Walter.
>
> There are plenty of people who have low-level programming down, or can
> understand things in science no one else can who don't know the
> standards.  There's nothing wrong with this and it means nothing less of
> the person.
>
> But that doesn't mean, at least in my opinion, that the HTML should be
> invalid; it just means that making it valid should be someone else's
> responsibility.  Someone who knows *that* better than quantum physics or
> compiler optimization.

Would you care to download one of the fairly representative pages, and
reformat it into valid HTML, so I could use it as a template?
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:18:02 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> news:7uexcpoyya2y.1k7t264uje4f6.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:
>>
>>> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
>>> news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to
> accept
>>>> some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
>>>> some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
>>>> editorial/review work for yourself.
>>>
>>> Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of
> documentation
>>> <g>.
>>
>> I am a Nobody then.
>>
>> Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
>> (again) ambiguous.
> 
> If you're willing to help, then I accept!

Ok boss, what you want me to do?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 10:23:06 AM
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg@40tude.net...
> Ok boss, what you want me to do?

Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
with making it look better / be more html compatible.
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
> Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and 
> whatnot.
> Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, 
> professional
> looking web page, you design it that way.


That is what I'd like to think too. But reality shows pretty
often that the more professionalism (i.e. money) is behind
a web design the less sleek and the less simple the result
will be regardless if complexity is needed or not.

Furthermore lots of 'professional' designs seem to be
unable to fill more than 30% of screen real estate
on high resolution displays.

Otherwise I tend to agree to what you have mentioned.
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Bob W wrote:
>>Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and 
>>whatnot.
>>Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, 
>>professional
>>looking web page, you design it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I'd like to think too. But reality shows pretty
> often that the more professionalism (i.e. money) is behind
> a web design the less sleek and the less simple the result
> will be regardless if complexity is needed or not.
> 
> Furthermore lots of 'professional' designs seem to be
> unable to fill more than 30% of screen real estate
> on high resolution displays.
> 
> Otherwise I tend to agree to what you have mentioned.
> 
> 

Indeed, many websites for large corporate companies suck!
they suck because you can't access the information you need quickly and 
effectively. Ironically, this applies more to some "news" websites :/
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d6lpmm$1qa0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
> HTML/CSS/etc., yes?

Wrong. It my opinion it should be valid HTML, but my
blood pressure will remain stable even if it isn't,
provided contents are displayed correctly.

Using deprecated tags like <center> is not what
I'd use in my own HTML files. But if someone does
I wouldn't care much because browsers won't stop
rendering them correctly in the years to come.
If they did, they'd face obsoletion.



> In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
> bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the Test 
> Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people filled in 
> wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - because the 
> school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if they made a 
> mistake in taking it.
>
> Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
> standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
> markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
> text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but it's 
> also correct, plain and simple.

I am not suggesting invalid HTML, I am suggesting
to keep documentation as simple as possible.
Under normal circumstances readability can be
kept at a high level and browsing web pages will
usually benefit by using 'ancient' HTML design
methods. I would never suggest to go back to
the 90's if other features (corporate identity, etc.)
are the primary goal.



> I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
> about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
> things I do is look at their website's HTML.

You do,
I do rarely,
99.?% will never bother to look at the website's HTML.



> Good HTML shows me that they either know what they're doing, or have put 
> in the effort to hire someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know 
> what they're doing, or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.

Bad HTML is prevalent, but that will usually not suffice
to give you a clue about company policies.



> When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
> impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
> go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits it 
> had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was enough 
> to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.

What a difference! I was just looking at the D language specs
and was immediately impressed.



> Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
> office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having invalid 
> HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to programmers like 
> me, who are often a little too concerned about people following the letter 
> of the standards.

As mentioned before I do not advocate invalid HTML....



> Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.

Assuming valid HTML 4.01 - specifying the doctype would not
benefit me at all, because browsers are required to treat
documents as HTML 4.01 transitional if doctype is not specified.
Using CSS could be beneficial in some cases, but if CSS features
are not required, I would not attempt to convince anyone to use it.



> Even if the  site looks the same, the HTML will show that it
> is not from the 1990's.

No, it won't. If the site looks the same the vast majority
of visitors will not care about its HTML. I personally do not
care about HTML style as long as the D documentation remains
useful.



> Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that
> mean of the language?

It means that the language was conceived in the 90's.
( Ref.: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/intro.html )



> And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly up-and-coming 
> language from the 1990's?

I guess I do.
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Walter wrote:
> "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6kvu0$15ub$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Walter wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks, it's fixed now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>the design by contract link is still dead for me.
> 
> 
> I just tried it again. It works. I don't know what's happening for you.
> 
> 


Ah, I wasn't looking right!

Thing is, http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/designbycontract.html is still 
dead, but I realize now he didn't mean this specific link, but the link 
inside the page.
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:37:09 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Ok boss, what you want me to do?
> 
> Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
> with making it look better / be more html compatible.

Ok, I can do that, but I was more concerned about content rather than form.
I'll have a go at both, plus usability as well.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 10:13:05 PM
May 21, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
news:76b5w9dryppg.wrnexaox9l2k.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:37:09 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
> > "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> > news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> Ok boss, what you want me to do?
> >
> > Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
> > with making it look better / be more html compatible.
>
> Ok, I can do that, but I was more concerned about content rather than
form.
> I'll have a go at both, plus usability as well.

I'd rather do one issue at a time, it makes it a lot easier to focus. For
example, let's just do the form for the moment. If we do both form and
content at the same time, it's distracting.

I learned a long time ago that when I'm doing a code translation,
conversion, whatever, that it works best if I concentrate on the conversion
and resist the (often overpowering!) temptation to redesign/optimize/tweak
the algorithm at the same time. I do that after the conversion is complete.
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home