Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

D

dorayme

John Hosking said:
See, e.g., http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ . The connection between
doctype and validation is different from (and secondary to) the
usefulness of avoiding quirks mode (by selecting a doctype).

And, may I say, El Kabong, you show some talent, certainly a firm
hand. Agree with all comments by others to date. You were asking
about the why of some code earlier. You will benefit from
approaching a page from the overall perspective of separating
style from content. In your HTML, try to lay it out in a logical
and meaningful manner with the thought that someone might just be
viewing it or hearing it with no styles, no colours. If it can be
useful in this situation, even though it is a less probable one,
you have achieved something significant. You have laid a
foundation for catering to all.

By crafting a stylesheet to make it look nice, fancy, whatever
you like, you then provide a further useful service to many if
not all people. It is also, in a more complicated case, a service
to yourself because you might later want to change the look
without having to pick over the html presentational bits and
pieces. This sort of thing comes into its own sitewise more than
pagewise. Small changes in a css sheet can have dramatic effects
on all the pages covered, whereas to achieve similar over a
number of pages otherwise means having to ferret out all the
styles scattered among all the different pages.

In this particular case you are constrained by using images that
function to display text. It is obvious why this is convenient
here. But ideally, you would replace even these and leave only
images that are simply either far too hard or impossible to
substitute with html text and css style. Ideally!

One advantage of using a strict doctype is that you are then
greatly encouraged to not use so much of the old presentational
html mark up like align="center". The idea of stict is that it is
a development of a higher standard whereas transitional is sort
of 'ok, you have old code and you want to improve, this will cut
you some slack".

Certainly not a good idea to ever display a W3C transitional
doctype congrats logo/link because though bikers will normally
not know about them, someone might give a rough translation and
you will be beaten to a pulp for being a wuss. With a strict
doctype, the translation will gain their respect and get you a
beer.

Then, of course, a severe beating for boasting with any logo. <g>
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

dorayme said:
Jonathan, I share most of your irritations on this one. But they
are less than you might believe on a Mac with a certain tiny
plugin reader. Single click, quick show.

I have the Adobe plugin, the time watching the throbber is due not to
loading the plugin but downloading the document which is *always* many
time larger than what can be done in HTML.

For example a club running a fundraiser had their announcement on their
site originally as a PDF at 332KB

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/k2262.pdf
k2262.pdf (application/pdf Object 332KB)

I redid in HTML (plus a little improved styling IMO)

http://www.canadianscottishterrierclub.org/2007national.html

and it is only 52KB. Less than 1/6 the size, which on dialup is
significant.

I my mind the only use for PDF online is where precise printing of the
document is required and the link should be will identified that it
links to a PDF and should have the document size listed.
 
B

BootNic

Jonathan N. Little said:
news: [email protected] [snip]
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/k2262.pdf
k2262.pdf (application/pdf Object 332KB)

I redid in HTML (plus a little improved styling IMO)

http://www.canadianscottishterrierclub.org/2007national.html

and it is only 52KB. Less than 1/6 the size, which on dialup is
significant.


The file size does not need be that great of differance.

64.2 KB (65,766 bytes)
http://home.earthlink.net/~bootnic/example.pdf

--
BootNic Sunday, May 13, 2007 2:08 PM

A well-developed sense of humor is the pole that adds balance to your
step as you walk the tightrope of life
*William Arthur Ward*
 
D

dorayme

"BootNic said:
news: [email protected] [snip]
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/k2262.pdf
k2262.pdf (application/pdf Object 332KB)

I redid in HTML (plus a little improved styling IMO)

http://www.canadianscottishterrierclub.org/2007national.html

and it is only 52KB. Less than 1/6 the size, which on dialup is
significant.


The file size does not need be that great of differance.

64.2 KB (65,766 bytes)
http://home.earthlink.net/~bootnic/example.pdf

Two things, Bootnic is right and pdfs can be prepared for the web
much smaller than they usually are. The skills needed for this (I
think export menu commands!) are less than the skills needed for
rendering the show in html. The other thing, it is not always
cost effective for a person or company to write or have things
written in HTML. Pity, true.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,763
Messages
2,569,562
Members
45,038
Latest member
OrderProperKetocapsules

Latest Threads

Top