Problem with list-style-type IE6

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andrew, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Hi,

    I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
    language:
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ancient_greek.html

    and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
    letters:

    ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

    This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling the
    list items instead:

    ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

    but still nothing + Google was no help. Can anybody help me out here?

    Thanks,

    Andrew.

    PS The list is next to the 'real' Homer on the page :)
    --

    Andrew
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
     
    Andrew, Jul 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
    > language:
    > http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ancient_greek.html
    >
    > and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
    > letters:
    >
    > ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}
    >
    > This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling the
    > list items instead:
    >
    > ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}
    >



    According to quirksmode, browsersupport for list-style-types:
    decimal (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    decimal-leading-zero (Moz, Op, iCab)
    lower-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    upper-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    lower-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
    upper-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
    lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
    lower-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    upper-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)

    Unfortunately.
    Cross-browser options seem to be: none, decimal, lower-roman, upper-roma,
    lower-alpha, upper-alpha.

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:45:17 +0200, "Rik" <>
    wrote:

    >Andrew wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
    >> language:
    >> http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ancient_greek.html
    >>
    >> and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
    >> letters:
    >>
    >> ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}
    >>
    >> This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling the
    >> list items instead:
    >>
    >> ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}
    >>

    >
    >
    >According to quirksmode, browsersupport for list-style-types:
    >decimal (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    >decimal-leading-zero (Moz, Op, iCab)
    >lower-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    >upper-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    >lower-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
    >upper-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
    >lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
    >lower-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    >upper-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
    >
    >Unfortunately.
    >Cross-browser options seem to be: none, decimal, lower-roman, upper-roma,
    >lower-alpha, upper-alpha.
    >
    >Grtz,


    Hi,

    Thanks very much for that! I guess IE users will only get to see the
    default list-type then, other browsers get the cream :)

    Thanks again,

    Andrew.
    --

    Andrew
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
     
    Andrew, Jul 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    >>> and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
    >>> letters:
    >>>
    >>> ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}
    >>>
    >>> This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling
    >>> the list items instead:
    >>>
    >>> ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

    >>
    >> According to quirksmode, browsersupport for list-style-types:
    >> lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
    >>
    >> Unfortunately.
    >> Cross-browser options seem to be: none, decimal, lower-roman,
    >> upper-roma, lower-alpha, upper-alpha.
    >>
    >> Grtz,

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Thanks very much for that! I guess IE users will only get to see the
    > default list-type then, other browsers get the cream :)


    Tssk, I both applaud that statement, and yet disapprove of it :) Although
    it's often rather tempting to put an image on your site saying "If you had a
    decent browser, it could look like this", I still like my sites to be as
    similar as possible in various browsers.

    > Thanks again,


    Well, thank Peter-Paul Koch, who went through the trouble of testing it all,
    I'm just echoing :)

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 13, 2006
    #4
  5. On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:

    > I still like my sites to be as similar as possible in various
    > browsers.


    Then you are setting yourself a goal which is not merely pointless,
    but actively counter-productive.

    The end users care, at the first priority, about the content that
    you're making available to them, and at the second priority, that it
    looks presentable without having to wait *too* long for the furniture
    to arrive.

    Hardly any of them (*not even* those who use several browsers) are
    going to display the same page in different browsers and deduct points
    for any merely cosmetic differences.

    Even "looking the same" on Firefox and on Firefox is not necessarily a
    good idea, if their respective users have widely different needs
    (visual acuity etc.).

    And one of the main aims of the WWW was to present the same content
    across a wide range of presentation situations. Sure, the
    presentation situations that we had then were quite unlike the ones
    that we have today, but the principle is the same.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jul 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:
    >
    >> I still like my sites to be as similar as possible in various
    >> browsers.

    >
    > Then you are setting yourself a goal which is not merely pointless,
    > but actively counter-productive.
    >
    > The end users care, at the first priority, about the content that
    > you're making available to them, and at the second priority, that it
    > looks presentable without having to wait *too* long for the furniture
    > to arrive.
    >
    > Hardly any of them (*not even* those who use several browsers) are
    > going to display the same page in different browsers and deduct points
    > for any merely cosmetic differences.
    >
    > Even "looking the same" on Firefox and on Firefox is not necessarily a
    > good idea, if their respective users have widely different needs
    > (visual acuity etc.).
    >
    > And one of the main aims of the WWW was to present the same content
    > across a wide range of presentation situations. Sure, the
    > presentation situations that we had then were quite unlike the ones
    > that we have today, but the principle is the same.


    You've got a point.
    However, if I take on project, the client usually wants a certain layout,
    which I have to match as much as possible in standard browsers. So that's
    what I'll try. Not meaning pixel-perfect, but as near as possible.

    There are limits to this offcourse:
    1. I never, ever, use CSS hacks: workarounds are OK, hacks are ugly, and
    unreliable.
    2. The site has to be scalable for users using larger fonts.
    3. The page has to make sense with no CSS applied (I thoroughly like Opera's
    options here).

    When making a page, my list in order of importance:
    1. Must be valid HTML & CSS (duh..).
    2. All main functionality must work in pure HTML (allow for no javascript,
    no flash, etc).
    3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
    4. Has to be readable in any browser (not text disappearing by incorrect
    sizes/margins etc.).
    5. Will keep the use of presentational HTML (such as <img>'s across the top)
    to a bare minimum, if at all.
    6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point 3
    offcourse).
    7. Has to look/feel the same in all main browsers.

    Offcourse, let's not forget that CSS is not only for layout in browsers, but
    can also be used for print, handheld devices, text-to-speech
    whatjamacallit's etc.

    In this case, when faced with the options to style a list, I'd choose the
    option that will make it generally look the same in most major browsers.

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 13, 2006
    #6
  7. In article <3da5$44b62cae$8259c69c$>,
    "Rik" <> wrote:
    > > Thanks very much for that! I guess IE users will only get to see the
    > > default list-type then, other browsers get the cream :)

    >
    > Tssk, I both applaud that statement, and yet disapprove of it :) Although
    > it's often rather tempting to put an image on your site saying "If you had a
    > decent browser, it could look like this", I still like my sites to be as
    > similar as possible in various browsers.


    Rik,
    I like that too, and I also agree that it isn't very nice to make users
    feel bad about the browser they're using. However, IMO isn't one of the
    goals of a well-designed site that it will be /useable/ in every browser
    rather than visually similar? If IE6 users to my site find it less nice
    than those using AOMB (Any Other Modern Browser), that's just the same
    as if someone was using a mobile browser or a screen reader to browse my
    site. Does that analogy sound reasonable to you?

    In short, I think that if the OP uses IE conditional comments to give a
    different stylesheet to IE <= 6 that defines alternative list bullets,
    he's not doing anyone a disservice.

    Cheers

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
     
    Nikita the Spider, Jul 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Nikita the Spider wrote:
    > In short, I think that if the OP uses IE conditional comments to give
    > a different stylesheet to IE <= 6 that defines alternative list
    > bullets,
    > he's not doing anyone a disservice.



    Normally I'd say it's no problem.

    But what if 2 users discuss a portion of the site, and one user sais: look
    at point gamma?
    As long as it's not information it's alright.
    In this case, an ordering in the list CAN be seen as information
    unfortunately.

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 13, 2006
    #8
  9. In article <dc28c$44b65835$8259c69c$>,
    "Rik" <> wrote:

    > Nikita the Spider wrote:
    > > In short, I think that if the OP uses IE conditional comments to give
    > > a different stylesheet to IE <= 6 that defines alternative list
    > > bullets,
    > > he's not doing anyone a disservice.

    >
    >
    > Normally I'd say it's no problem.
    >
    > But what if 2 users discuss a portion of the site, and one user sais: look
    > at point gamma?
    > As long as it's not information it's alright.
    > In this case, an ordering in the list CAN be seen as information
    > unfortunately.


    Oops, I missed the fact that it was an ordered list. My mistake. Thanks
    for the correction.

    Cheers

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
     
    Nikita the Spider, Jul 13, 2006
    #9
  10. On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:

    > However, if I take on project, the client usually wants a certain layout,
    > which I have to match as much as possible in standard browsers.


    First of all, let's be clear that this has become a subthread about
    generalities, and not specifically about "list-style-type IE6".

    > So that's what I'll try. Not meaning pixel-perfect, but as near as
    > possible.


    That's what worries me. In so many pages I meet on the world-wild
    web, I see bucket-loads of javascript that's trying desperately to
    force exactly the same visual result no matter what the user may need.
    As often as not, disabling JS results in a better-behaved page, aside
    from all that extra JS clutter that was downloaded from the server and
    then not used. In a minority of cases, the author has sabotaged this
    flexibility, and when JS is disabled they'll do a NOSCRIPT that tells
    the user that the page *needs* javascript, despite the fact that it
    really doesn't. It's all so unnecessary and pointless.

    Seems to me that if the sponsor of the site insists on close adherence
    to their prescribed visual display, no matter what the consequences,
    then the web designer had roughly three options:

    * sell themselves cheap, do what the sponsor demands no matter how
    silly it may be, take the money and run. I think those people are
    typically called web monkeys.

    * sell themselves dear, try to educate the sponsor into the nature of
    the web, and reach a compromise between what will best meet the
    sponsor's needs in web terms, and what the sponsor misguidedly says
    they want.

    http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/ may be
    useful, particularly its analogy with the mistakes of early TV as
    "radio with pictures". Here we have "the web as printed brochures".
    In both cases the mistake is failing to capitalise on the strengths of
    the new medium, and cripple it by insisting that it mimic something
    which it never aimed to be.

    * When a sponsor insists on their concept despite your advice,
    walk away.

    It's no secret that I'm an academic, and don't have to deal with this
    on an everyday basis. But I've got enough contacts in the commercial
    world who say that those who charge for their expertise, and walk away
    from projects that won't take their advice, are by no means short of
    work, whereas web monkeys who do their sponsor's every bidding are
    working their fingers to the bone and getting paid peanuts.

    tot ziens
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jul 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:
    >
    >> However, if I take on project, the client usually wants a certain
    >> layout, which I have to match as much as possible in standard
    >> browsers.

    >
    > First of all, let's be clear that this has become a subthread about
    > generalities, and not specifically about "list-style-type IE6".


    It's way off topic indeed.

    >> So that's what I'll try. Not meaning pixel-perfect, but as near as
    >> possible.

    >
    > That's what worries me. In so many pages I meet on the world-wild
    > web, I see bucket-loads of javascript that's trying desperately to
    > force exactly the same visual result no matter what the user may need.
    > As often as not, disabling JS results in a better-behaved page, aside
    > from all that extra JS clutter that was downloaded from the server and
    > then not used. In a minority of cases, the author has sabotaged this
    > flexibility, and when JS is disabled they'll do a NOSCRIPT that tells
    > the user that the page *needs* javascript, despite the fact that it
    > really doesn't. It's all so unnecessary and pointless.


    It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page has to
    look the same with & without. Javascript is nice for some shortcuts that
    would otherwise require a submit/trip to the server and back. And that's all
    I use it for. It's debatable, but I'm very satisfied if I have good working,
    user friendly pages without a drop of js. A NOSCRIPT telling the user they
    need javascript is the same as admitting you don't know what the hell you're
    doing.

    I won't overdo it either in the similarity, if a border/margin/linebreak is
    different in several browsers, I don't really care as long as they're small.
    What I do care about is the way the site feels. Color, style etc. A company
    that takes itself seriously has somewhat of a house-style (what's the word
    here? I don't think this bas tranlation from dutch is what I mean..), that
    also will have to be incorporated in the website.

    In this particular case, lower-greek or bullets or 2 very different things.
    Maybe not from a coding standpoint, but certainly for design and the feel of
    a site.

    > Seems to me that if the sponsor of the site insists on close adherence
    > to their prescribed visual display, no matter what the consequences,
    > then the web designer had roughly three options:
    >
    > * sell themselves cheap, do what the sponsor demands no matter how
    > silly it may be, take the money and run. I think those people are
    > typically called web monkeys.
    >
    > * sell themselves dear, try to educate the sponsor into the nature of
    > the web, and reach a compromise between what will best meet the
    > sponsor's needs in web terms, and what the sponsor misguidedly says
    > they want.
    >
    > http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/ may be
    > useful, particularly its analogy with the mistakes of early TV as
    > "radio with pictures". Here we have "the web as printed brochures".
    > In both cases the mistake is failing to capitalise on the strengths of
    > the new medium, and cripple it by insisting that it mimic something
    > which it never aimed to be.
    >
    > * When a sponsor insists on their concept despite your advice,
    > walk away.


    I'd think I'll fall into the second category. I'll do my best, but I won't
    sacrifice validity/semantics/functionality for it.

    > It's no secret that I'm an academic, and don't have to deal with this
    > on an everyday basis. But I've got enough contacts in the commercial
    > world who say that those who charge for their expertise, and walk away
    > from projects that won't take their advice, are by no means short of
    > work, whereas web monkeys who do their sponsor's every bidding are
    > working their fingers to the bone and getting paid peanuts.


    I think the causality is somewhat reversed here. People who actually know
    what they are doing and are good at it, will not take on projects that won't
    work, will work badly or are evil... The 'monkeys' as you call them are
    usually not as good in what they do, and so will have less serious, genuine
    projects. And they'll also have to pay rent, zo they'll jump through more
    hoops just to get some assignments.

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Andrew

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Rik" <>
    vouchsafed:

    > It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page has
    > to look the same with & without.


    If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
    dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
    replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > To further the education of mankind, "Rik"
    > <> vouchsafed:
    >
    >> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
    >> has to look the same with & without.

    >
    > If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
    > dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
    > replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.


    Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
    presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which is as
    bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

    I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most of the
    time, with IMO good reason. That doesn't mean I don't want to see a nice
    page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more likely to turn of
    the CSS then turn the javascript on.

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Andrew

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Rik" <>
    vouchsafed:

    >>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
    >>> has to look the same with & without.

    >>
    >> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
    >> dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
    >> replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.

    >
    > Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
    > presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
    > is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).


    You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that javascript
    _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as can css or any
    other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting functionality' has
    nothing to do with it except to denigrate the language.

    > I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most
    > of the time, with IMO good reason.


    Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue to do
    so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make javascript any
    less viable a styling method.

    > That doesn't mean I don't want to
    > see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
    > likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.


    Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does, indeed,
    matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Andrew

    Rik Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > To further the education of mankind, "Rik"
    > <> vouchsafed:
    >
    >>>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
    >>>> has to look the same with & without.
    >>>
    >>> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is
    >>> really dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet
    >>> or even replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of
    >>> validity.

    >>
    >> Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
    >> presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
    >> is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

    >
    > You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that
    > javascript _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as
    > can css or any other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting
    > functionality' has nothing to do with it except to denigrate the
    > language.
    >
    >> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most
    >> of the time, with IMO good reason.

    >
    > Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
    > to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
    > javascript any less viable a styling method.


    But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
    turned of.

    >> That doesn't mean I don't want to
    >> see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
    >> likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.

    >
    > Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does,
    > indeed, matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?


    I refer you to my earlier comment :)

    "3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
    6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point 3
    offcourse)."

    Grtz,
    --
    Rik Wasmus
     
    Rik, Jul 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Neredbojias wrote:
    > To further the education of mankind, "Rik" <>
    > vouchsafed:
    >
    >>>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
    >>>> has to look the same with & without.
    >>> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
    >>> dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
    >>> replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.

    >> Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
    >> presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
    >> is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

    >
    > You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that javascript
    > _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as can css or any
    > other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting functionality' has
    > nothing to do with it except to denigrate the language.
    >
    >> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most
    >> of the time, with IMO good reason.

    >
    > Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue to do
    > so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make javascript any
    > less viable a styling method.


    Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
    sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack is
    into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
    abuse....

    JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
    structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
    interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
    content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
    some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed and
    stop doing through my web browser...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Andrew

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Rik" <>
    vouchsafed:

    >>>>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
    >>>>> has to look the same with & without.
    >>>>
    >>>> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is
    >>>> really dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet
    >>>> or even replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of
    >>>> validity.
    >>>
    >>> Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
    >>> presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
    >>> is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

    >>
    >> You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that
    >> javascript _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as
    >> can css or any other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting
    >> functionality' has nothing to do with it except to denigrate the
    >> language.
    >>
    >>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of
    >>> most of the time, with IMO good reason.

    >>
    >> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
    >> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
    >> javascript any less viable a styling method.

    >
    > But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
    > turned of.


    By all reasonable accounts, that's around 10%. People are stupid. Even
    Bush got a majority...

    I do expect the percentage to go up in time, however, but also expect
    j/s to be "tempered" by the browsers a bit more which will counteract
    that trend. In any event, I think j/s is here to stay.

    >>> That doesn't mean I don't want to
    >>> see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
    >>> likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.

    >>
    >> Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does,
    >> indeed, matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?

    >
    > I refer you to my earlier comment :)
    >
    > "3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
    > 6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point
    > 3 offcourse)."


    Did you hear about the new xhtml3, referring to the "progressive"
    heading thing? Oh, it's wonderful (according to some people.)

    Yeah, right. Semantic markup is pretty much a myth. The only
    "semantics" that count for anything are how one piece of information is
    separated from another and what emphasis is placed on each. Everything
    else is tripe including almost all of the relational aspects so dearly
    beloved of the pseudo-grammaticists.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Andrew

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> vouchsafed:

    >>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of
    >>> most of the time, with IMO good reason.

    >>
    >> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
    >> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
    >> javascript any less viable a styling method.

    >
    > Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
    > sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack
    > is
    > into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
    > abuse....


    No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.

    > JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
    > structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
    > interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
    > content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
    > some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed
    > and stop doing through my web browser...


    I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs under
    its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd things via
    my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to enhance the styling
    and functionality of a page in a constructive way, and that's what I do.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 15, 2006
    #18
  19. Neredbojias wrote:
    > To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"
    > <> vouchsafed:
    >
    >>>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of
    >>>> most of the time, with IMO good reason.
    >>> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
    >>> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
    >>> javascript any less viable a styling method.

    >> Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
    >> sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack
    >> is
    >> into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
    >> abuse....

    >
    > No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.


    DIE DIE DIE! How's that! Actually MS's perversion of JavaScript, JScript
    can link in the with COM and do some pretty scary things!

    >
    >> JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
    >> structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
    >> interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
    >> content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
    >> some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed
    >> and stop doing through my web browser...

    >
    > I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs under
    > its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd things via
    > my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to enhance the styling
    > and functionality of a page in a constructive way, and that's what I do.
    >


    Agree, the resizing windows and the hiding of browser components is not
    desired, but form element pre-checking and interactive form element not
    requiring a server call is an efficient and desirable use.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 15, 2006
    #19
  20. Andrew

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> vouchsafed:

    >> No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.

    >
    > DIE DIE DIE! How's that! Actually MS's perversion of JavaScript,
    > JScript can link in the with COM and do some pretty scary things!


    Don't forget, though, that po' li'l ol' Microsoft needed some way to
    interface with the convolutions of their system and give the registry some
    validity as well. We really shouldn't be too hard on the close-minded
    because it's probably a disease like herpes.

    >>> JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
    >>> structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
    >>> interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
    >>> content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
    >>> some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed
    >>> and stop doing through my web browser...

    >>
    >> I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs
    >> under its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd
    >> things via my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to
    >> enhance the styling and functionality of a page in a constructive
    >> way, and that's what I do.
    >>

    >
    > Agree, the resizing windows and the hiding of browser components is
    > not desired, but form element pre-checking and interactive form
    > element not requiring a server call is an efficient and desirable use.


    Javascript is good for styling, too. Css doesn't do everything and j/s
    makes a nice compliment to it (-the usual caveats blah blah...)

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 16, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ivor O'Connor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    921
    Isofarro
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Peter Mount
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,001
    Peter Mount
    Jan 31, 2006
  3. Ken Varn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    526
    Ken Varn
    Apr 26, 2004
  4. Pugi!
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    260
    Pugi!
    Feb 5, 2007
  5. timothytoe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    177
Loading...

Share This Page