Re: The Independence web site (new thread)

[Donovan Rebbechi <elflord@pegasus.rutgers.edu>]

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Rune Christiansen wrote:

> No, but a link to a site like linux.org should do it. Besides, most

linux.org is far from definitive. In fact It's almsot a good candidate not
to link to.

> 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
> tags.

I'll check up on this.

> 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

this sounds reasonable. SOme of your ideas are quite 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...

If you define "design" in terms of *logical* page layout, then all
browsers will show the same design since the style sheets are different
ways of interpreting the logical tags. Netscape and lynx will render a
<H1> tag differently no matter how you slice it, but the logical context
is the same.

If you mean *physical* page layout, well this is impossible with or
without CSS, because no matter how you put it, Netscape always will render
a <H1> tag differently to lynx.

> > 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)

well it's definitely *some* work. And the site is doing just fine with the
CSS.

Better, I'd like to see some proposals as to where we could put the SSI

> By using text-only, you would only need *one* site. A logo (about 70*70

yes, and it would look awful in all browsers besides lynx. The site we
have now uses *no* physical markup (only logical markup, which lynx
handles quite well ), and very few tables. It is quite readable in lynx.

> > 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 :-)

perhaps you can tell us more about what can be done with ssi. I haven't
played with it much.

> 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!

The structure of the pages is browser independent since there are no
physical markup tags on the site. So the "design" is much the same
regardless of the browser used.

The best way to write html for lynx is use a lot of logical markup tags
and not too many tables. The site already does this. What else should it
do ?

> No no no! I don't want two pages, just one that is easy to maintain! The

Cool

> problem is, that I don't want partial compatibility with a browser like
> lynx. 

Until you explain why the page isn't fully compatible with lynx, you are
just babbling. CSS does *NOT* destroy lynx compatibiility. It merely
redefines IE3-5 and NS4's interpretation of logical markup tags. 

> 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,

I strongly disagree. Lynx does fine at interpreting logical markup tags
such as <H1> <H2> <H3> , <EM> , <STRONG> , etc. 

If you want to make lynx CHOKE, the best way to do it is to AVOID logical
markup, and use <FONT> tags (and other physical markup) , which lynx will
(usually) ignore. IOW, CSS is the best
way to write html that is friendly to lynx *and* 4.0 browsers. The
alternative, <FONT> tags, are lynx's worst enemy.

> there are relatively few pages to maintain and the work of updating them
> could be split between the group?

THis is what I was thinking.

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

Still not sure what you mean. SOunds reasonable though.

-- Donovan