Bill Moseley wrote:
At 12:33 PM 12/31/01 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
There is no need to make group decisions. The mod_perl site should be properly viewable by *all* users using rendering user agents (aka browsers) implemented according to the wide open standards. We aren't a commercial body that decides to cut some users off, because let's say 90% is good enough for their profit making machine.
Actually, I was kind of making the point the commercial sites might not be on the cutting edge of the standards so that they don't cut people off, where we might be able to expect people looking at the mod_perl site to be using newer browsers.
that's actually very opposite in reality. But in theory you are correct.
What if we add the very minimum tables, so it'll look good with browsers not supporting CSS at all (or having a broken one).
Do you say that Thomas' design makes it un-readable for someone? I think in the worst case, if the browser doesn't support CSS, the user will get the menu on the top, followed by the content. Am I wrong?
Well, it's not really "un-readable", but it doesn't render that well. I'll attach a Netscape 4.08 on Windows screen shot.
But this is a different design, isn't it? We are trying to decide whether we can go with table-less skeleton from Thomas?
http://domm.zsi.at/modperl-site-domm/meta.html
Does Thomas' layout look as bad?
_____________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
