[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Independence web site (new thread)

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> A lot of new users visit our page. A page full of links doesn't do any
> harm.

No, but a link to a site like linux.org should do it. Besides, most
people won't download the entire distribution. It's more probable that a
software reseller or a computer magazine will distribute it on a CD.

> If you can show me where the MSIE specific code is, go ahead. Everything I
> wrote was done by hand, but there were other contributors ( who used
> WYSIWYG tools. the end result is that I am dead set against these tools )

Ooops... My mistake, I thought I saw some <tbody> tags somewhere, but it
must have been another site (i often check peoples HTML codes, just for
the nerd fun value).

Anyway, you should remove the extra <title> tags! I don't think they are
on all the pages, but I found several pages containing double title

> someone with a different opinion comes along. If you stay with the project
> for a while, your opinions count for a lot. If you're new, your opinions
> only count if they don't make life difficult for everyone.

Like everyone else, I have my way of doing things. We all have! I don't
wish to put aside everyones suggestions, just because I may think my
ideas are better. I think that we should collect the ideas and
suggestions of each person and use the things that makes sense. You
mentioned yourself, that you are positive to the idea of using SSI, but
you don't agree on a redo of the entire web site. I think that's fine,
because I got one of my two suggestions through.

To put it in another way: You can't get everything done "your way", but
if it makes sense, it will be used.

> >        Style sheets are not supported widely in the "browser-market". By
> >        using them, you would make the page browser-specific and that is
> >        *not good*!
> Wrong. The CSS just enhances the logical markup  tags to
> make the pages look prettier in CSS enabled browsers. A browser that isn't
> CSS enabled just sees their browsers "interpretation" of the logical
> markup tags instead of mine. Can you name a browser for which the pages
> don't currently work ?

Style sheets are made to make all pages look the same, right??? But by
using them, all browsers would not show the same design! That is why I
don't like style sheets...

> > Use of SSI (or PHP?) should be used instead
> yes, but it puts more stress on the server, and it's a lot of work to
> implement. And I *still* don't see what's wrong with CSS.

Why is it hard to implement SSI??? (Examples)


> Why bother ? I've already browsed the site with lynx , and it's fine. The
> big problem with doing two sites is that it creates a maintennance
> issue. Maintennance issues are ***bad***.

By using text-only, you would only need *one* site. A logo (about 70*70
pix) could be used in a corner without interfering with the text


> we could try implementing SSI as a way of doing the page headers. This is
> the main place where I see that it could be useful.

That is only a simple use of SSI, but it's a start :-)

> >   1. Make a new, text-only web site (usable by any browser)
> First, you need to
> (a)     make a strong case that the current site isn't usable by any
> browser,

All pages can be made "usable" by any browser, but it's seen way to
often that only the big browsers (NN/MSIE) will make them look nice. So
it's not a question of usability, but of design!

> (b)     make a case that it will be feasible to maintain two pages.

No no no! I don't want two pages, just one that is easy to maintain! The
problem is, that I don't want partial compatibility with a browser like
lynx. Just because NN and MSIE have style sheet support, there are still
people who's browser will do a bad interpretion of the pages. Besides,
there are relatively few pages to maintain and the work of updating them
could be split between the group?

> >   2. Take care of updating some of the pages.
> Ah huh

??? Could you put that in words, please? :-)

> >   3. Do the administration of a "WWW group".
> Not sure what this means.

Administering the work of the web group... Not a very important job, but
then I had something to do!

The problem is, that when participating in a project like this, I wish
to do some active work. WWW is the only real thing I can do in this
project (besides a little page translation) and if I can't do that, I
have nothing to do, ergo I don't need to participate anymore. I might as
well just unsubscribe from this list and be a passive supporter!