On 7/10/2014 6:13 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> with an incompetent web
> designer to do it who arrived at the design by buying a premade page
> from some other's company's catalogue, then replaced the photos and
> charged a fortune for it...

Which leads to the question: Why the hell am *I* not doing that?! ;)

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:48:34PM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 22:25:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >I used to love pdfs in blissfully ignorance... until I recently looked up the format. You wouldn't believe this, but did you know that it's actually possible to embed a *video* in a pdf file?
> 
> I believe it, I've read the spec. It is a container format in spirit.

Most modern file formats are container formats in some form. Pdfs, though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser just to drive down the street to get groceries.


> >Content-less website splash pages seem pretty tame compared with
> >that(!), unfortunately.
> 
> Ok, but my experience is that content-less websites often have a content-full pdf hidden somewhere. Meaning, they know how to use Word. :)

Me, I usually look for a page named "sitemap" or something to that effect, which tends to have a far saner organization than the rest of the site. :-) Sad to say, many sites don't even have that.


T

-- 
Food and laptops don't mix.

On 7/10/2014 3:55 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Pdfs,
> though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used
> for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser
> just to drive down the street to get groceries.

It's an inevitable result of the success of the pdf format. Adobe was under pressure to sell upgrades by adding features.

> Sad to say, many sites don't even have that.

Including dlang.org. Wanna add one?

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 23:09:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/10/2014 3:55 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Pdfs,
>> though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used
>> for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser
>> just to drive down the street to get groceries.
>
> It's an inevitable result of the success of the pdf format. Adobe was under pressure to sell upgrades by adding features.
>
> > Sad to say, many sites don't even have that.
>
> Including dlang.org. Wanna add one?

Sure it does: http://dlang.org/sitemap.html

On 7/10/2014 6:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> pages of interest on the site *without* having to use its probably
> horribly-crippled navigation scheme.
>

I used to think a lot of sites had terribly broken navigation schemes...And then I started using mobile browsers...Now I'm *really* horrified and scarred! (And that's largely from the *mobile* versions of sites!)

It's staggering: Mobile browsers are terrible at browsing desktop sites, and even WORSE at browsing mobile sites.

And then there's "responsive" which *claims* to be "mobile-first design" (which would be ok), but in actual practice it's really more like "mobile-only design".

>>> (And they're even worse in this modern age where the only monitors
>>> *available* are slit-shaped: half-height and excessively wide.)
>
> Do they seriously not make 4x3 monitors anymore???

I'm fairly certain they don't. Heck, I can't even find a 5:4 anymore which at least isn't *as* bad as 16:9. Tolerable, at least.

Bizarrely, some of the public libraries around here have computers with screens that are nearly-square (not vertical, but still narrower than 4:3). I don't know where they managed to get those.

But as for *actual* 4:3, or even 5:4, I really do doubt they're still manufactured. I think the best bet for 4:3 is to just look for a used CRT. (Heck, at least they can display more than one resolution without looking bad.) I'm kinda jealous of those pro gamedevs with a dual-monitor, one of them being vertical, setup. I should do that. With one of those desks that can adjust to/from standing position. That'd be sweet :)

> Seriously, one of
> these days I'll really have to take up somebody's suggestion of rotating
> the monitor 90° sideways to make an extra-tall display instead.
>

I'm amazed that 90 degree rotating display stands aren't commonplace now that everything's LCD. It seems like such a simple no-brainer. (And it'd be *fantastic* for fans of vertical sh'mups!)

>
>> If it didn't work, people wouldn't be doing it.
>
> If the emperor didn't have any clothes, people wouldn't be saying he
> did. ;-)
>

I like that :)

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:09:04PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/10/2014 3:55 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >Pdfs, though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser just to drive down the street to get groceries.
> 
> It's an inevitable result of the success of the pdf format. Adobe was under pressure to sell upgrades by adding features.

Right, I forgot that old adage: No software is complete until it can read email. ;-)


> > Sad to say, many sites don't even have that.
> 
> Including dlang.org. Wanna add one?

Really?

	http://dlang.org/sitemap.html


T

-- 
Almost all proofs have bugs, but almost all theorems are true. -- Paul Pedersen

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 22:56:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Most modern file formats are container formats in some form. Pdfs,
> though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used
> for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser
> just to drive down the street to get groceries.

It is kinda difficult to build by hand, but can be debugged textually if you turn off compression. So it is kind of pragmatic in a post-scripty way, but lacks elegance… certainly.

It's an ISO standard too, like C++. Over-engineered is probably a pre-requisite for proper standardization. As a side note HTML is not a standard yet… They tried but gave up on it ISO/IEC 15445:2000. Probably too under-engineered.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:20:55PM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 22:56:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >Most modern file formats are container formats in some form. Pdfs, though, are just wayyyy over-engineered for what it's ostensibly used for. It's like building a nuclear-powered intergalactic space cruiser just to drive down the street to get groceries.
> 
> It is kinda difficult to build by hand, but can be debugged textually if you turn off compression. So it is kind of pragmatic in a post-scripty way, but lacks elegance… certainly.

One thing I repeatedly come across is malformed pdfs produced by non-compliant software. Often, the problem comes from certain assumptions about the format of PostScript *comments* in the file, which is kinda a scary thought, that changing comments can affect whether a particular application can process the file correctly.


> It's an ISO standard too, like C++. Over-engineered is probably a pre-requisite for proper standardization. As a side note HTML is not a standard yet… They tried but gave up on it ISO/IEC 15445:2000. Probably too under-engineered.

LOL... I think it's more a matter of corporate interest pushing it through the standardization process, that no independent individual would have the patience to do, than anything else. It's a funny thought, though, if the requirement to standardization is over-engineering.  I could dust of some of my 20-y.o. half-baked ideas, over-engineer them by adding needless layers of additional complexity on them, and submit them for standardization. :-P  Reminds me of this:

	"No, John.  I want formats that are actually useful, rather than
	over-featured megaliths that address all questions by piling on
	ridiculous internal links in forms which are hideously
	over-complex." -- Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

:-)


T

-- 
Старый друг лучше новых двух.

On 7/10/2014 4:11 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> Including dlang.org. Wanna add one?
>
> Sure it does: http://dlang.org/sitemap.html

Couldn't find a link to it from dlang.org. It should go on the bottom.

On 7/10/2014 4:54 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/10/2014 4:11 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>>> Including dlang.org. Wanna add one?
>>
>> Sure it does: http://dlang.org/sitemap.html
>
> Couldn't find a link to it from dlang.org. It should go on the bottom.

Eh, never mind. Just found it!