hi thomas and others i really liked/needed this summary of things.
Thomas Klausner wrote: > Should we design a great-looking page using "dirty tricks" or should we > design a nice-looking page without dirty tricks. > > I'm asking this because I think that Allan's last design (the two gifs) > really looks great, but I don't think we can implement it without "dirty > tricks" (i.e. misusing HTML for stuff it's not inteded to do) (The design > can shurly be implementd CSS-only, but it won't work on old browsers then) when you say dirty you are really saying "html"-tables and space.gifs, right? the fewer html tables in a design the better - no doubt. if an html-table is needed then use it. in other vords i still prefer good cross-browser experience before good standards as long as the html is valid anyway. anyway, we had this discusion before. > Which leaves us with tons of documentation and some advocacy. my humble and crude summary/view is this: a) we can have a design thats looks good without a _single_ table-tag and works 75% crossbrowser/platform this is none of the current designs b) we can have a design thats looks very good with very few carefully chosen table-tags and works 90+% crossbrowser/platform this is IMO more or less both the current design and thomas' current design c) a design where the non-content parts has html-tables, that looks better (IMO) and works 98% crossbrowser/platform this is IMO more or less "my" current design d) a design where everything could be tables/space gifs, whatever and works 100% crossbrowser/platform. all would be 100% html/css valid. maybe we dont all agree which one looks the best, but at least for the sake of argument lets asume so, ok? right. option a and d is totally irrelevant, currently. this leaves us with option b and option c. having read your summary i also _now_ understand that the site in its current form is two-folded and i _think_ that you and stas have been focusing more or less on the documentation-view, while i have more or less been focusing on the "hi manager, see what mod_perl can do, heres the link"-view. i am quite new to the mod_perl list myself and thinking about it now i guess that my design even would put a few people off. i mean, consider (dont compare) the www.apache.org site. this has always been extremely simple and fast and when they pepped their site up with a few colors that didnt change. so, i think we should go for option b, which is almost finished anyway, works well in a large percentage of the worlds' stupid browsers, has more of a "community"-look and is focusing on the most important part of this site, the documentation. comments on option b to follow ... ./allan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
