"Stephan Soller" <stephan.soller@helionweb.de> wrote in message news:i8k8k9$230n$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 07.10.2010 11:02, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Not explicitly as far as I'm aware, but then neither does HTML aside from
>> URLs. And the PDF format does have provisions for files/data of arbitrary
>> types to be embedded into it. So that could be used to embed HTTP URLs,
>> or
>> any other form of network-oriented links, or any other
>> application-related
>> information/instructions/data you want. Then you could build
>> CSS/JS/CGI-like
>> stuff on top of all that. And all of a sudden "PDF-readers" become a
>> really
>> shitty application platform just like what happened with HTML and web
>> browsers.
>>
>
> Interesting point of view. So PDF basically equals to HTML in that regard. Never thought about it that way but you're probably right. :)
>

Well, they were both created as document formats ;)

>>
>> I usually like to minimize bitmapped stuff on pages too, just because
>> it's
>> simpler, it can still get acceptable results, and I'm no artist ;)  But
>> then
>> when the client has a design they want it to look like and it includes
>> things that can only be done as images, well, then I just don't have the
>> energy or patience to try to talk them out of it - I'll just toss in
>> whatever I need to to make it work, even if that means tables, and be
>> done
>> with it.
>>
>
> If I get a design from a client I do that to. I don't use tables but most often a combination of floats and relative/absolute positioning but usually with quite a lot of images in it. Even if they don't have a finished design arguing about it often is a lost cause anyway. However for my own personal project (or in case I have to do the design myself) these new CSS techniques come in quite handy (if the environment allows it...).
>
> I used it for my [personal website][1] and it was quite handy. The only images are the header image, icons and the background gradient. The gradient only because I was to lazy to look up the proper properties and do some cross browser testing (not sure if Opera support gradient yet though).
>
> [1]: http://arkanis.de/
>

Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me:

http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png

Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those screenshots.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

<stuff/>

Thanks, that gave me a good laugh :) You should post more of your newsgroup rants on the bigger internet.

Walter Bright wrote:

> Stephan Soller wrote:
>> This is especially handy when doing a presentation about a
>> programming language since you can use JavaScript to write a small
>> syntax highlighter (the grammar in the D documentation was really handy
>> for that). :)
> 
> A javascript D syntax highlighter? Please post!


This is a popular javascript syntax highlighter: http://alexgorbatchev.com/SyntaxHighlighter/

I've written a D plugin for it (its trivial and not completely correct): http://github.com/Lutger/d_utils/blob/master/shBrushD.js

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:56:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Stephan Soller" <stephan.soller@helionweb.de> wrote in message news:i8k8k9$230n$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 07.10.2010 11:02, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> Not explicitly as far as I'm aware, but then neither does HTML aside
>>> from URLs. And the PDF format does have provisions for files/data of
>>> arbitrary types to be embedded into it. So that could be used to embed
>>> HTTP URLs, or
>>> any other form of network-oriented links, or any other
>>> application-related
>>> information/instructions/data you want. Then you could build
>>> CSS/JS/CGI-like
>>> stuff on top of all that. And all of a sudden "PDF-readers" become a
>>> really
>>> shitty application platform just like what happened with HTML and web
>>> browsers.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting point of view. So PDF basically equals to HTML in that regard. Never thought about it that way but you're probably right. :)
>>
>>
> Well, they were both created as document formats ;)
> 
> 
>>> I usually like to minimize bitmapped stuff on pages too, just because
>>> it's
>>> simpler, it can still get acceptable results, and I'm no artist ;)
>>> But then
>>> when the client has a design they want it to look like and it includes
>>> things that can only be done as images, well, then I just don't have
>>> the energy or patience to try to talk them out of it - I'll just toss
>>> in whatever I need to to make it work, even if that means tables, and
>>> be done
>>> with it.
>>>
>>>
>> If I get a design from a client I do that to. I don't use tables but most often a combination of floats and relative/absolute positioning but usually with quite a lot of images in it. Even if they don't have a finished design arguing about it often is a lost cause anyway. However for my own personal project (or in case I have to do the design myself) these new CSS techniques come in quite handy (if the environment allows it...).
>>
>> I used it for my [personal website][1] and it was quite handy. The only images are the header image, icons and the background gradient. The gradient only because I was to lazy to look up the proper properties and do some cross browser testing (not sure if Opera support gradient yet though).
>>
>> [1]: http://arkanis.de/
>>
>>
> Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me:
> 
> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png
> 
> Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those screenshots.

I don't think the look has anything to do with JS.  It looks perfectly fine on my computer, even with JS off.  Here's a quote from another part of Stephan's web page, where he writes about the arkandis.de design itself:

"This project also builds upon the new HTML5 semantic tags and uses CSS3 styles for almost everything in its design. Box shadows, rounded corners, transparency, HSL-colors, table positioning, etc. This page shows to a good degree what's possible if you ditch the old browsers and use the new stuff."

I guess you haven't ditched the old browsers, then. ;)

-Lars

On 07.10.2010 14:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Stephan Soller"<stephan.soller@helionweb.de>  wrote in message
> news:i8k8k9$230n$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 07.10.2010 11:02, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> Not explicitly as far as I'm aware, but then neither does HTML aside from
>>> URLs. And the PDF format does have provisions for files/data of arbitrary
>>> types to be embedded into it. So that could be used to embed HTTP URLs,
>>> or
>>> any other form of network-oriented links, or any other
>>> application-related
>>> information/instructions/data you want. Then you could build
>>> CSS/JS/CGI-like
>>> stuff on top of all that. And all of a sudden "PDF-readers" become a
>>> really
>>> shitty application platform just like what happened with HTML and web
>>> browsers.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting point of view. So PDF basically equals to HTML in that regard.
>> Never thought about it that way but you're probably right. :)
>>
>
> Well, they were both created as document formats ;)
>
>>>
>>> I usually like to minimize bitmapped stuff on pages too, just because
>>> it's
>>> simpler, it can still get acceptable results, and I'm no artist ;)  But
>>> then
>>> when the client has a design they want it to look like and it includes
>>> things that can only be done as images, well, then I just don't have the
>>> energy or patience to try to talk them out of it - I'll just toss in
>>> whatever I need to to make it work, even if that means tables, and be
>>> done
>>> with it.
>>>
>>
>> If I get a design from a client I do that to. I don't use tables but most
>> often a combination of floats and relative/absolute positioning but
>> usually with quite a lot of images in it. Even if they don't have a
>> finished design arguing about it often is a lost cause anyway. However for
>> my own personal project (or in case I have to do the design myself) these
>> new CSS techniques come in quite handy (if the environment allows it...).
>>
>> I used it for my [personal website][1] and it was quite handy. The only
>> images are the header image, icons and the background gradient. The
>> gradient only because I was to lazy to look up the proper properties and
>> do some cross browser testing (not sure if Opera support gradient yet
>> though).
>>
>> [1]: http://arkanis.de/
>>
>
> Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me:
>
> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png
> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png
> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png
>
> Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it
> finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those
> screenshots.
>

Thanks for the screenshots. May I ask which version of Firefox (if I see that correctly) your're using? The JS stuff is quite interesting since the page actually does not use JS at all. The only situation where JS should actually be involved is for IE (because you need to introduce unknown elements to IE before using them). I'm not aware that any version of Firefox interprets IE conditional comments (although there was talk about it once) so this behavior is somewhat concerning.

However this page uses quite new and still in progress browser stuff (HTML5, CSS3) so it'll give old browsers a very hard time. It's more like a showcase for the new stuff. Take a look at [this screenshot][1] to see how it's supposed to look like. It was made with font antialiasing on a standard TFT but the text might look a bit awkward on CRTs or TFTs with a different subpixel layout (usually the OS takes care of that when rendering text). There's also the [design prototype][2] which does not use the "new" techniques. It should work on your browser (at least most stuff, I never IEified it nor did extensive cross browser testing since it's only a prototype).

[1]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v3/ubuntu.png
[2]: http://arkanis.de/weblog/2008-05-25-modern-ambience-design-prototype/

And finally there's also the [old design][3] which works in IE 5.5, 6 and 7 (ditched 4, 5, and 5.01 and I'm not sure about 8). It took about two weeks to make it work in IE 5.5 and 6 if I remember correctly.

[3]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v2/photo-ambience/

Happy programming
Stephan

On 07.10.2010 16:23, Lutger wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Stephan Soller wrote:
>>> This is especially handy when doing a presentation about a
>>> programming language since you can use JavaScript to write a small
>>> syntax highlighter (the grammar in the D documentation was really handy
>>> for that). :)
>>
>> A javascript D syntax highlighter? Please post!
>
>
> This is a popular javascript syntax highlighter:
> http://alexgorbatchev.com/SyntaxHighlighter/
>
> I've written a D plugin for it (its trivial and not completely correct):
> http://github.com/Lutger/d_utils/blob/master/shBrushD.js
>

Thanks for the link! I think I'll use that for my next D stuff. :)

When doing a presentation about a programming language I somehow tend to write a small and minimalistic syntax highlighter for it. Balances the odds of content creation vs. programming a bit I guess...

Happy programming
Stephan

"Stephan Soller" <stephan.soller@helionweb.de> wrote in message news:i8kmuc$15t$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 07.10.2010 14:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Stephan Soller"<stephan.soller@helionweb.de>  wrote in message news:i8k8k9$230n$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> [1]: http://arkanis.de/
>>>
>>
>> Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me:
>>
>> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png
>>
>> Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those screenshots.
>>
>
> Thanks for the screenshots. May I ask which version of Firefox (if I see that correctly) your're using

v2.0.0.20

Which actually kinda surprises me because I could have sworn I was on a much later version of the 2.x line. I *know* there was a period where it kept updating itself seemingly all the time (which got quite irritating when I just wanted to go to a particular URL). But I guess that must have been the only 2.x version I was able to find after giving up on FF3. And IIRC, the built-in update won't let me update to anything less than FF3.

And yea, I know FF2 is really old, but I tried 3.0 and 3.5 and the JS was only marginally faster, it doesn't seem to fix any of the rendering bugs I've come across in FF2 (I have 3.5 on my Linux box, just for site testing), and every other change they made I hated and downloaded extentions to undo...until I realized there was no extention to un-unify the unified forward/back buttons (which I had thought was a good idea when IE7 came out -- until I actually used IE7), and realized the only winestripe-like things for FF3 weren't nearly as good as the real winestripe. So I figured "Why bog it down with even *more* addons just to turn it into a half-baked FF2, when I can just use the real FF2?" YouTube bitches to me about it, but well, fuck YouTube; never liked having over-compressed videos pre-embedded into a web-based player anyway.

> The JS stuff is quite interesting since the page actually does not use JS at all. The only situation where JS should actually be involved is for IE (because you need to introduce unknown elements to IE before using them). I'm not aware that any version of Firefox interprets IE conditional comments (although there was talk about it once) so this behavior is somewhat concerning.
>

Don't worry. Turns out it was just a quirk caused by one of the million add-ons I have installed to make the web bearable. When I disabled all of them, the behavior and results with JS on were exactly the same as with JS off.

> However this page uses quite new and still in progress browser stuff (HTML5, CSS3) so it'll give old browsers a very hard time. It's more like a showcase for the new stuff.

I see, that explains it. Personally, I'll have no interest in CSS3 unless MS decides to backport IE9 to XP. I hate Win7 and refuse to let XP die (Granted, Win7's not quite as bad as Vista, but it's close).

> Take a look at [this screenshot][1] to see how it's supposed to look like. It was made with font antialiasing on a standard TFT but the text might look a bit awkward on CRTs or TFTs with a different subpixel layout (usually the OS takes care of that when rendering text). There's also the [design prototype][2] which does not use the "new" techniques. It should work on your browser (at least most stuff, I never IEified it nor did extensive cross browser testing since it's only a prototype).
>
> [1]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v3/ubuntu.png
> [2]: http://arkanis.de/weblog/2008-05-25-modern-ambience-design-prototype/
>
> And finally there's also the [old design][3] which works in IE 5.5, 6 and 7 (ditched 4, 5, and 5.01 and I'm not sure about 8). It took about two weeks to make it work in IE 5.5 and 6 if I remember correctly.
>
> [3]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v2/photo-ambience/
>

Ahh. Yea, all of those do look better :) Actually, even I've ditched IE6 (it's *that* old). 'Course, part of that is because having multiple versions of IE installed is a PITA - if even possible at all. In fact, that's why I haven't upgraded to IE8 - I'd lose the ability to test on IE7 which I think is still fairly common.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:58:03 +0200, Stephan Soller <stephan.soller@helionweb.de> wrote:
> When doing a presentation about a programming language I somehow 
tend to 
> write a small and minimalistic syntax highlighter for it. Balances 
the 
> odds of content creation vs. programming a bit I guess...

Try also vim command:

:toHTML

"Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i8kko0$2o73$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> <stuff/>
>
> Thanks, that gave me a good laugh :)

:)

> You should post more of your newsgroup
> rants on the bigger internet.
>

http://www.semitwist.com/articles/

(I'd *really* like to fix that "Article Headlines" box though, it only shows the first three no matter what I do.)

But, yea, maybe I should update it with more of the stuff I put on here.

On this particular post though (ie, what you replied to), I wonder how many of those references people actually get. Some of them are kind of obscure, particularly the Hasbro Interactive one.

On 07.10.2010 23:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Stephan Soller"<stephan.soller@helionweb.de>  wrote in message
> news:i8kmuc$15t$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 07.10.2010 14:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Stephan Soller"<stephan.soller@helionweb.de>   wrote in message
>>> news:i8k8k9$230n$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://arkanis.de/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me:
>>>
>>> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png
>>> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png
>>> http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png
>>>
>>> Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it
>>> finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those
>>> screenshots.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the screenshots. May I ask which version of Firefox (if I see
>> that correctly) your're using
>
> v2.0.0.20
>
> Which actually kinda surprises me because I could have sworn I was on a much
> later version of the 2.x line. I *know* there was a period where it kept
> updating itself seemingly all the time (which got quite irritating when I
> just wanted to go to a particular URL). But I guess that must have been the
> only 2.x version I was able to find after giving up on FF3. And IIRC, the
> built-in update won't let me update to anything less than FF3.
>
> And yea, I know FF2 is really old, but I tried 3.0 and 3.5 and the JS was
> only marginally faster, it doesn't seem to fix any of the rendering bugs
> I've come across in FF2 (I have 3.5 on my Linux box, just for site testing),
> and every other change they made I hated and downloaded extentions to
> undo...until I realized there was no extention to un-unify the unified
> forward/back buttons (which I had thought was a good idea when IE7 came
> out -- until I actually used IE7), and realized the only winestripe-like
> things for FF3 weren't nearly as good as the real winestripe. So I figured
> "Why bog it down with even *more* addons just to turn it into a half-baked
> FF2, when I can just use the real FF2?" YouTube bitches to me about it, but
> well, fuck YouTube; never liked having over-compressed videos pre-embedded
> into a web-based player anyway.
>

Maybe you should consider looking into some other browsers? Opera, Chrome and other Gecko based browsers might give you a better experience that the newer Firefox versions. This is the reason why there are different browsers after all.

Staying with FF2 for to long might really hurt your browsing experience since quite a bunch of functionality was added to the browsers itself lately. And trust me, it's really way easier to use the new stuff than all the old workarounds (e.g. webfonts, svg, css based animations, transparency, dropshadows, video, and the list goes on...). I really expect many people to use this stuff in the near future, not only because it's cool but mainly because it's so much easier than the old stuff.

I've seen people holding on to Netscape 4 because they didn't like the newer versions. They could endure a surprising amount of totally broken pages but the internet wasn't fun for them. Fortunately we have a lot more alternatives today. :)

>> The JS stuff is quite interesting since the page actually does not use JS
>> at all. The only situation where JS should actually be involved is for IE
>> (because you need to introduce unknown elements to IE before using them).
>> I'm not aware that any version of Firefox interprets IE conditional
>> comments (although there was talk about it once) so this behavior is
>> somewhat concerning.
>>
>
> Don't worry. Turns out it was just a quirk caused by one of the million
> add-ons I have installed to make the web bearable. When I disabled all of
> them, the behavior and results with JS on were exactly the same as with JS
> off.
>
>> However this page uses quite new and still in progress browser stuff
>> (HTML5, CSS3) so it'll give old browsers a very hard time. It's more like
>> a showcase for the new stuff.
>
> I see, that explains it. Personally, I'll have no interest in CSS3 unless MS
> decides to backport IE9 to XP. I hate Win7 and refuse to let XP die
> (Granted, Win7's not quite as bad as Vista, but it's close).
>
>> Take a look at [this screenshot][1] to see how it's supposed to look like.
>> It was made with font antialiasing on a standard TFT but the text might
>> look a bit awkward on CRTs or TFTs with a different subpixel layout
>> (usually the OS takes care of that when rendering text). There's also the
>> [design prototype][2] which does not use the "new" techniques. It should
>> work on your browser (at least most stuff, I never IEified it nor did
>> extensive cross browser testing since it's only a prototype).
>>
>> [1]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v3/ubuntu.png
>> [2]: http://arkanis.de/weblog/2008-05-25-modern-ambience-design-prototype/
>>
>> And finally there's also the [old design][3] which works in IE 5.5, 6 and
>> 7 (ditched 4, 5, and 5.01 and I'm not sure about 8). It took about two
>> weeks to make it work in IE 5.5 and 6 if I remember correctly.
>>
>> [3]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v2/photo-ambience/
>>
>
> Ahh. Yea, all of those do look better :) Actually, even I've ditched IE6
> (it's *that* old). 'Course, part of that is because having multiple versions
> of IE installed is a PITA - if even possible at all. In fact, that's why I
> haven't upgraded to IE8 - I'd lose the ability to test on IE7 which I think
> is still fairly common.
>

Actually you could run IE 5 up to 6 on one WinXP. You only needed a couple of DLLs and the iexplorer.exe of the corresponding IE version. The [Evolt browser archive][1] provided these nice standalone versions of IE. I used it for a long time since it is considerably faster than using VMs but I'm not sure if this still works with IE 7 and 8. Because of that I switched to VMs a few years back (one VM for IE 6 on XP, one for IE 8 on XP which will give you IE 7 by using the compatibility mode and one for IE 8 on Win7 because of the fonts).

[1]: http://browsers.evolt.org/

Happy programming
Stephan