Holly Bergevin wrote: >From: Tyson Tate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>Anyways: My rationale for not doing so on the list's wiki is because >>the wiki serves as a comprehensive resource whereas what I'm creating >>is a much quicker and more concise list. I don't plan on using >>outdated techniques or techniques that go against some of my general >>principles (validating code, works in IE 6 at minimum, doesn't use >>extensive hacks). >> >> > >I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the css-d wiki pages themselves are >outdated and full of hacks, or that they contain references to methods to >support outdated browsers. This latter is true, but "works in IE 6 at minimum" >is not my idea of the best way to approach building a webpage. (I tend more >toward the - make it work everywhere else and then get it to work in IE6 if >possible - school of thought.) > >
I completely agree with Holly's points here. As long as you're not planning to remove any information, just make it clearer what technique does what, and add to information, I'm all for it. But please don't remove links to methods that cater to old browsers. Some of us work for educational institutions and government agencies where NN 4.x is still common, for example. >>However, if no one on the list objects, I'd be happy to rework the >>list's wiki to include my techniques library. Is there anyone in >>"charge" of the wiki as far as major changes are concerned? >> >> > >If what you're suggesting is that you would completely redo the wiki to >eliminate anything that you thought didn't fit with your philosophy of web >design (etc.) then I for one object completely. No offense meant, but the >css-d wiki is a 3-4 year compliation of the best css minds that I know. I am >not familiar with you or your work techniques, but I have a great deal of >respect for the people who have already contributed to the css-d wiki. > > Agreed! I'm all for turning the many lists of links into a more useful resource. For instance, I've wanted to organize the rounded corner links into something more usable for a long time, but haven't had the time. It would be great if those links could be grouped by "requires extra markup," "allows horizontal expansion," etc. Your idea of a table with the features "checked off," Tyson, sounds great for this. I will add that I don't fancy the idea of having yet another wiki to go to. I'd rather keep the information centralized in our wiki. Cuts down my humungous bookmark list just that little bit. So please feel free to add to and improve our wiki. Zoe -- Zoe M. Gillenwater Design Services Manager UNC Highway Safety Research Center http://www.hsrc.unc.edu ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
