On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:40:08 +0100
sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> Printable versions are often more enjoyable than the normal ones, too.
The worst thing in my humble opinion are those reflowing layouts, which
are _very_ slow and choppy.
At least, they provide a way to provide one content to both
* Charlie Kester 2014-02-21 23:54
> Or is the trend to create a separate, "mobile" version of the page,
> which simply changes the assumption to some smaller screen size?
>
> Or are people just ignoring the problem altogether?
When they don't do and build a mobile version, it is often more usable
* Hadrian Węgrzynowski 2014-02-21 22:16
> Even if it would work, I think that web shouldn't be pixel-perfect,
> because we could just use some glorified-PDFs. It's utter nonsense
> that correct rendering of page is depending on some specific font and
> specific font size. It's utter nonsense to not
Charlie Kester said:
> (As, for example, epub vs pdf.)
These formats serve different functions. It would be more fair to
compare PDF to PS and ePub to roff respectively.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 21:54:59
FRIGN napisał(a):
> A semantic web-browser is a great idea. It has already been partially
> realized in links. If X-support is compiled in, you can test it out
> with "lynx -g".
> It's blazing fast (!), but sadly gives insight into how unsemnatic the
> web has be
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 14:53:22
Charlie Kester napisał(a):
> On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 13:15:24 PST Hadrian W?grzynowski wrote:
> >
> >Even if it would work, I think that web shouldn't be pixel-perfect,
> >because we could just use some glorified-PDFs. It's utter nonsense
> >that correct rendering
On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 13:15:24 PST Hadrian W?grzynowski wrote:
Even if it would work, I think that web shouldn't be pixel-perfect,
because we could just use some glorified-PDFs. It's utter nonsense
that correct rendering of page is depending on some specific font and
specific font size. It's utt
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:15:24 +0100
Hadrian Węgrzynowski wrote:
> There should be separate stack for pixel-perfect device independent use
> and for semantic web (without CSS and JS), but then semantic web would
> probably just die...
>
> Even if it would work, I think that web shouldn't be pixel-
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 13:27:51
Ryan O’Hara napisał(a):
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Hadrian Węgrzynowski
> wrote:
> > It's utter nonsense to not restrict paragraph
> > length (at 80 characters or something). It's utter nonsense to
> > assume that everyone is using maximised browser wind
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Hadrian Węgrzynowski
wrote:
> It's utter nonsense to not restrict paragraph
> length (at 80 characters or something). It's utter nonsense to assume
> that everyone is using maximised browser window at 1080p.
>
80-character paragraphs don’t sound particularly seman
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 16:21:22
"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" napisał(a):
> > Thus, rendering issues are either originating from bad
> > browser-defaults or faulty CSS.
>
> I don't even touch CSS. And I just can't see any valid argument for
> existance of browser-defaults – the format that is suppose
Greetings.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:56:58 +0100 FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:18:33 +0100
> Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>
> > xml is not just markup but
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
> > (mandatory utf-8 and utf-16 support with bom)
>
> What's wrong with UTF-8?
BOM is wro
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:18:33 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> xml is not just markup but
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
> (mandatory utf-8 and utf-16 support with bom)
What's wrong with UTF-8?
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/XML_External_Entity_(XXE)_Processing
> (xml injection,
FRIGN said:
> > Actually, if parser behavior is simple and easily predictable, the task
> > of writing markup is easier. When I write correct HTML, I still have to
> > open browser to see how it renders, because I have no way to predict the
> > actual result (apart from my experience with different
* FRIGN [2014-02-21 12:03:00 +0100]:
> I really don't see your point why exactly XML should be bad for the
> web.
> If you write proper, well-formed markup, nothing really changes for
> you, except that the browser _knows_ it's dealing with proper markup
> and doesn't have to "fire up" it's forgiv
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:35:40 +0100
Eckehard Berns wrote:
> Fair point. For me HTML usually renders as I expected. But that's
> because I do this for over a decade, I guess. If it doesn't it usually
> is because of a misunderstanding in semantics (e.g. the broken
> block-model in IE until 7) and u
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:40:44 +0100
Eckehard Berns wrote:
> I see why you wish for a stricter approach. I don't believe this will
> happen anytime soon.
It's already happening! Everyone can choose for himself ;).
> I'm not sure about that. SGML has DTDs that describe what you're allowed
> to do
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Eckehard Berns said:
> > You only write a parser once. But you write some magnitude more markup
> > that is going to be parsed by it. So optimizing the markup specification
> > for authoring has a better net gain than to optimize the protocol just to
> > get away with a
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:07:32 +0100
"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" wrote:
> Actually, if parser behavior is simple and easily predictable, the task
> of writing markup is easier. When I write correct HTML, I still have to
> open browser to see how it renders, because I have no way to predict the
> actual r
Eckehard Berns said:
> You only write a parser once. But you write some magnitude more markup
> that is going to be parsed by it. So optimizing the markup specification
> for authoring has a better net gain than to optimize the protocol just to
> get away with a simpler parser.
Actually, if parser
> This would be an appropriate point if the SGML-parsers weren't lossy in
> this regard.
> I've read lots of HTML-markup and often ran into problems when people
> didn't take care of well-formedness.
> Often, they run into quirks and their Browser's SGML-parser fixes them.
> However, there's no gua
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:34:41 +0100
Eckehard Berns wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion why strict XML parsers don't belong
> in a browser. There even are XHTML enthusiasts that are against it.
Yes, I've been listening to both sides for a few years now.
> You only write a parser once. But
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:18:45AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:37:30 +0100
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > The web wouldn't be so successful if everything was strictly XML
> > based, more the opposite IMO.
>
> Why is that? Are you referring to the fact parsing HTML as XML requires
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
