On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:56:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Stephan Soller" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On 07.10.2010 11:02, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> >>> Not explicitly as far as I'm aware, but then neither does HTML aside >>> from URLs. And the PDF format does have provisions for files/data of >>> arbitrary types to be embedded into it. So that could be used to embed >>> HTTP URLs, or >>> any other form of network-oriented links, or any other >>> application-related >>> information/instructions/data you want. Then you could build >>> CSS/JS/CGI-like >>> stuff on top of all that. And all of a sudden "PDF-readers" become a >>> really >>> shitty application platform just like what happened with HTML and web >>> browsers. >>> >>> >> Interesting point of view. So PDF basically equals to HTML in that >> regard. Never thought about it that way but you're probably right. :) >> >> > Well, they were both created as document formats ;) > > >>> I usually like to minimize bitmapped stuff on pages too, just because >>> it's >>> simpler, it can still get acceptable results, and I'm no artist ;) >>> But then >>> when the client has a design they want it to look like and it includes >>> things that can only be done as images, well, then I just don't have >>> the energy or patience to try to talk them out of it - I'll just toss >>> in whatever I need to to make it work, even if that means tables, and >>> be done >>> with it. >>> >>> >> If I get a design from a client I do that to. I don't use tables but >> most often a combination of floats and relative/absolute positioning >> but usually with quite a lot of images in it. Even if they don't have a >> finished design arguing about it often is a lost cause anyway. However >> for my own personal project (or in case I have to do the design myself) >> these new CSS techniques come in quite handy (if the environment allows >> it...). >> >> I used it for my [personal website][1] and it was quite handy. The only >> images are the header image, icons and the background gradient. The >> gradient only because I was to lazy to look up the proper properties >> and do some cross browser testing (not sure if Opera support gradient >> yet though). >> >> [1]: http://arkanis.de/ >> >> > Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me: > > http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png > http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png > http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png > > Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it > finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those > screenshots.
I don't think the look has anything to do with JS. It looks perfectly fine on my computer, even with JS off. Here's a quote from another part of Stephan's web page, where he writes about the arkandis.de design itself: "This project also builds upon the new HTML5 semantic tags and uses CSS3 styles for almost everything in its design. Box shadows, rounded corners, transparency, HSL-colors, table positioning, etc. This page shows to a good degree what's possible if you ditch the old browsers and use the new stuff." I guess you haven't ditched the old browsers, then. ;) -Lars
