tain.totalcodex.net

Here's the StoneHeart RDF Readme - let me know what you think.

I'm planning on putting this version (v2.1g - with fixes from v1.1g/v2.0g) on the OoH Downloads page along with Triskelion v1.0g this week. I did a couple of cosmetic tweaks to the Triskelion Readme as well.

I want us to play both of these a couple of times before I post them on The Tain to be sure I didn't introduce any last minute bugs.

Looks good.

If I were you, I would try to utilize the powers of CSS more though. It will make life easier and you will be able to improve (and adjust) much more.

css are kwel but most of the great functions aren't showing properly with internet explorer 6 and less (but cool ppl will use firefox so it's ok).

t o x y n wrote:Looks good.

If I were you, I would try to utilize the powers of CSS more though. It will make life easier and you will be able to improve (and adjust) much more.

css is over-rated.

vinylrake wrote:

t o x y n wrote:Looks good.

If I were you, I would try to utilize the powers of CSS more though. It will make life easier and you will be able to improve (and adjust) much more.

css is over-rated.

lol

(puts on nerd helmet)

You're right. Getting rid of ugly tables, repetitive/ugly coding, and the need to adjust everything a million times is totally over-rated.

</sarcasm>

Also, Enc, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'cool' features, but I've seen IE display CSS stuff better than Firefox. You just can't adjust things in your coding for a certain element that differ from what is set for that element in your CSS- IE will get confused. IE has issues with displaying PNG images and flash files, but there are fixes for those via simple javascripts and html code.

While I generally use CSS whenever I can, since it's the future, my experience has been that stuff using the old html ways is much better supported.

When I use CSS, it requires more work to make sure the page is displayed correctly everywhere. But all browsers know how to display tables perfectly. With time this will change, of course, and CSS implementations will have less bugs.

Aye, I decided not to use CSS throughout (for example to replace all tables) for two reasons:

(1) I don't have the time
(2) For something static like this readme, the extra time/effort involved to check cross-platform compatibility, etc., makes no sense

These readmes are something I'm not going to edit/upgrade in anything but extremely small ways (if ever) in the future.

Otherwise I would definitely do so.

Also: There are places where tables should still be used, namely for "tabular data" such as the few grids I use. I'd use the CSS box model instead of tables for doing layout, but not for the grids.

t o x y n wrote:lol

(puts on nerd helmet)

You're right. Getting rid of ugly tables, repetitive/ugly coding, and the need to adjust everything a million times is totally over-rated.

</sarcasm>

Please note I didn't say the *goals* of css are over-rated. I think the goals are perfectly good ones, it's just the implementation of CSS - the STATE of css that falls so far short of it's goals which is what makes me say it is overrated. If something fails to live up to it's promises it is imo over-rated.

And when you can show me a *simple* css script that will consistently render a standard 3 column page layout with a full page width header and floating full page width footer I will probably jump on board. Seriously, it's such a basic page design, css should be able to do that relatively simply right?

Until then - for this basic reason that there's no convolution-free way to use css to layout the kind of pages I want to do, plus the inconsistencies between browsers in how the niftier css features are presented (not css's fault I realize, but the effect on me is still the same), and the fact that I can whip out a page really simply in 5 minutes or less using tables that guarantee consistent visual presentation across browsers, I'll stick with my current patois of tables and text-CSS.

lol

rgr

I'm totally on VR's bandwagon in this scenario. It's just a huge pain to get things to display flawlessly across the board.

I'd say somewhere around 2009/2010 the dust should settle completely and CSS will be consistent across 96% of browsers.

By then we'll probably be using something else.