[webless-info] In response to "Webless FAQ".

[:D]

> We refer to the rendering/processing mechanism in the browser.
"Implementing CSS" means to create a system capable of understanding
CSS, not writing a CSS file (we maintain that the former is an
exceedingly hard (and indeed probably impossible) task).
Do you program? Do you program in ASM?
> Speed of navigation; the ease of getting to the information you're
looking for.
Uhm, CSS dramatically improves that. Typography and color being tools to  
improve navigation. Speed? I'm all for eliminating 'sites that design  
entirely in invalid html with over 9000 images and flash elements placed  
like they were vomited there, but CSS downloads quickly.
> Among other things, it encourages purely stylistic elements, and overly
"artistic" design as opposed to the "functional" viewpoint.
Encourages, yes. Then again, HTML encourages users to create crappy  
websites (90 percent of all Geocity pages for example). So this isn't  
really much of an argument. Many CSS designers come from the improved  
functionality. Which is to say, CLI was indeed functional, however now GUI  
allows things  to get done easier and  faster.
> Possibly, but it's not like much (or any!) sites respect those.
A heck-of-a-lot-more than you think. My site, for example.
> If you disregard rendering speed and consider only file size, this
might be true; but only when you want to force your stylistic choices on
the user.
Actually, no. Not if you disregard rendering speed. Any decent computer  
made within the last 12 years won't notice a difference. And "forcing  
stylistic choices"? That's just silly to even use as an argument.
> Simplicity for the most part IS "smaller and faster".
ASM is not simple, and the file-sizes are larger, but it's the fastest  
language out there.
> What I know or don't know about typography doesn't matter here. The
website should have no business in telling the browser how exactly to  
render
text - that depends on the user's setup, the installed fonts, font
sizes, and so on. *Maybe* you can *recommend* whether to use a serif or
sans-serif font, but even that should be (and mostly is) overridable by the
user.
Once again, this idea is silly. Enjoy every website looking the same,  
unless you customize each one by hand. Certain 'sites should have certain  
lay-outs. Let's take Google's lay-out for example; simple and  
straight-to-the-point. It's a search engine, it should be displaying  
mostly the results. However it uses CSS to stylize any unrelated content  
out of your way.
> Simple CSS is nowhere powerful enough to completely change the
structure of the presentation of a web page. You can plan everything in
advance and create very complex and sophisticated CSS to create a
flexible site; but even then, for bigger modifications in structure,
you'll have to change the HTML (and thus, the generating software).
Sorry, it's not 1999.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:05:07 -0500, Mate Nagy <mnagy at port70.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08:29AM -0500, :D wrote:
>> I'm not even sure by what you mean by the separation of content and  
>> design.
>  We mean the theoretical holy grail of separating the semantic structure
> and the stylistic structure of a document or web site.
>> The single CSS file that my website uses on every page on the site is
>> 6kb. It's linked externally so it's cached, so it doesn't have to
>> download every time.
>>
>> 	... hard to implement, and impossible to implement well.
>>
>> These are opinions. I find CSS extremely easy and simple to implement.
>  We refer to the rendering/processing mechanism in the browser.
> "Implementing CSS" means to create a system capable of understanding
> CSS, not writing a CSS file (we maintain that the former is an
> exceedingly hard (and indeed probably impossible) task).
>> 	... Today's computers are orders of magnitude faster than they were a
>> few years ago - but the Web experience is actually worse;
>>
>> What is worse about it?
>  Speed of navigation; the ease of getting to the information you're
> looking for.
>> 	... we think it's mostly CSS and its ilk's fault.
>>
>> You should state why.
>  Among other things, it encourages purely stylistic elements, and overly
> "artistic" design as opposed to the "functional" viewpoint.
>>
>> 	Note: the Friends List doesn't prohibit CSS as long as the page is
>> comfortably usable with a browser that doesn't support CSS.
>>
>> Pretty much W3C standards right there.
>  Possibly, but it's not like much (or any!) sites respect those.
>>
>> * So, how do you propose to "separate content and design"?
>> 	1. Whatever you put in HTML already specifies design, so you have to do
>> it on your server side with templates or something, if you want.
>>
>> Ever written a lengthy document? Imagine how much time in both labor and
>> render-speed (if not file-size) could be saved by using the following
>> CSS:
>>  p + p {
>>  indent: text-indent:1em;
>>  }
>> As a website grows in size, and as tags are used more and more, it
>> becomes more efficient in both file-size and rendering speed to use a
>> style-sheet. This is a fact.
>  If you disregard rendering speed and consider only file size, this
> might be true; but only when you want to force your stylistic choices on
> the user.
>> 	3. It might be high time to consider simplicity, usability, readability
>> more important than how elegant your styling system is, or how you can
>> move your three boxes from the right column to the
>> bottom row without chaging your software. (You have too many boxes!!)
>>
>> Simplicity != smaller or faster. Usability? Heh, yeah okay have fun
>> without CSS when making large websites. Readability: do you know  
>> anything
>> about typography? Also "changing your software"? CSS modifications are
>> quick and simple to implement. CSS allows you to make global
>> modifications rather than spending hours editing each HTML file by hand.
>  Simplicity for the most part IS "smaller and faster".
>  What I know or don't know about typography doesn't matter here. The
> website should have no business in telling the browser how exactly to  
> render
> text - that depends on the user's setup, the installed fonts, font
> sizes, and so on. *Maybe* you can *recommend* whether to use a serif or
> sans-serif font, but even that should be (and mostly is) overridable by  
> the
> user.
>  Simple CSS is nowhere powerful enough to completely change the
> structure of the presentation of a web page. You can plan everything in
> advance and create very complex and sophisticated CSS to create a
> flexible site; but even then, for bigger modifications in structure,
> you'll have to change the HTML (and thus, the generating software).
>
>>
>> * My HTML will look much uglier!
>> 	Well, tough. On the other hand, it will probably render ten times
>> faster, and on more platforms, too. We consider this more important.
>> (Obviously, if you use a font tag for your every letter, it
>> might be slower. But then you're doing it wrong.)
>>
>> It entirely depends on the coder.
>>
>> On a final note: you made a typo with the word 'changing'.
>  Thanks for noticing the typo, fixed.
>
>  Thanks for your feedback, we appreciate it. I forward this reply mail
> to the webless-info mailing list; if you want to continue the
> discussion, please consider doing so using the mailing list (you can of
> course just reply to me).
>
> Best regards,
>  Mate Nagy



-- 
Internets.