On May 18, 2018 4:09:58 AM GMT+02:00, Ken M <k...@mack-z.com> wrote: >In all honesty I wasn't thinking of the suggestion as a cautious one >because of >bloat. I think bootstrap minified and compressed is like 20k. I mean >how big is >the entire man page collection?
Well, bloat isn't only measured in bits and bytes either. /Alexander > >I was more hesitant to make the suggestion because if there was ever a >community >that en masse browsed with js disabled I would think it would be this >one. > >Ken > >On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:08:25AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> Hi Ken, >> >> Ken M wrote on Thu, May 17, 2018 at 08:50:53PM -0400: >> >> > I will probably have to duck and run >> > for suggesting javascript as the answer here... >> >> Precisely. :) >> >> > But for the most part the modern industry standard to make pages >> > scale well across many devices and screen orientations is to use >> > a responsive design library, most notably bootstrap. >> >> We are talking about a simplistic one-column layout here, >> and avoiding that kind of bloat (in particular javascript) >> is among the top four design goals, together with support >> for hyperlinks, support for semantic annotations, and avoiding >> gratuitous presentational differences when compared to terminal >> output (just to avoid misunderstandings, not every difference >> is gratuitous: for example, terminals naturally use fixed-width >> fonts, HTML naturally uses proportional fonts). >> >> But no, javascript is an even worse suggestion than the >> original idea of "meta viewport". >> >> Yours, >> Ingo
