Conal Elliott wrote:
I've been wondering for a while now what a well-designed alternative to CSS
could be, where well-designed would mean consistent, composable, orthogonal,
functional, based on an elegantly compelling semantic model (denotational).
Me too. I think there are several aspects
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
I don't believe that it's possible to draw a clear destinction between
concerns the programmer and concerns the designer. In fact, I get
offended by the notion that I'm inherently incapable of distinguishing
readable from
wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
I can see LaTeX as demonstrating that there is no such (single)
language. It seems to me that the elementary units (chapters,
sections, paragraphs,...) depend almost entirely on the domain of the
document (a book, an article,...).
This is what I had
Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@cs.york.ac.uk wrote:
I would go with Bret Victor's argument (http://worrydream.com/
MagicInk/) that the concept of user interface as primarily
_interaction_ is misguided.
I tend to disagree. But then I'm a game developer, not an HTML monk...
what definitely
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
[Spin-off from the haskell-cafe discussion on functional/denotational
GUI toolkits]
I've been wondering for a while now what a well-designed alternative
to CSS could be, where well-designed would mean consistent,
composable, orthogonal, functional,
amen amen! thanks, achim.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
[Spin-off from the haskell-cafe discussion on functional/denotational
GUI toolkits]
I've been wondering for a while now what a well-designed
