Miles Elam wrote:
But then again, this is all sophostry and rhetoric without something to look at or back it up with. So, getting to my point, I got bored today and made a mockup of http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/ in XHTML 1.0 Strict.Hm. Hmmmm. Why don't you give a shot at http://xml.apache.org/forrest/, the slightly more complicated skin we will be using on Forrestized Apache sites - such as xml.apache.org?
http://cocoon.iguanacharlie.com/
I hope this illustrates my point of view. Sure, it could use some tweaking (I just whipped it out), but it validates, looks pretty good for braille readers, looks pretty good for good browsers, and any browser should be able to get the content (including Mosaic holdouts who can't handle tables). Wasn't this the point of XHTML? Wasn't this the point of CSS?
I'm sorry if I'm starting another fight, but seeing non-standard pages on ASF sites has been paining me for some time. But rather than just complain, I'm trying an alternative and seeing how many people sigh. Given this, is it still worth avoiding CSS? (A hell of a lot easier to write XSLT for XHTML to be sure.)Nice work, I must admit. Lean and mean code - but we should check on older browsers - I'll be trying this with my rusty NS 4.07 on Linux.
I was also going to convert the GIFs to PNGs, but I'm quite sure that would've had me lynched before long because they most certainly don't show up in old browsers. Now pardon me while I duck the incoming bullets.
We could use some helping hands over at Forrest to finish our skins.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
