Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 10:34:26PM -0600, Modulok wrote: > > looks like what i need NOW is a debugger, :-) i have virtually > > zero design skills except "keep it simple" > > To quote Albert Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, > but > not simpler". > > > As far as editors and such, I personally write all of my code in a text > editor, > regardless of the language. I have used hand-written code in a text editor to > implement websites for multi-million dollar companies. Ironically enough, I'm > a > visual effects artist. > > Anyway, I think I have likely gotten off topic myself and haven't contributed > much to solving your original problem. Enough rambling out of me for now. Best > of luck, Gary. > > -Modulok- A day or two ago I found a site that offers free templates. most use javascript--which I can hack, or *discard*!--; all of these will give me some ideas to change my "www" and other pages. And hold to my Keep-It-Simple philosophy. I have virtually zero design talent, so tht forces to to rip off other's creativity and mold it into something that works for me. gary PS: I'll fess up; my present homepage was based on something I saw circa 1998 or '99. -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> looks like what i need NOW is a debugger, :-) i have virtually > zero design skills except "keep it simple" To quote Albert Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Much of the problem with the web today is the reliance on 'designers,' who are primarily concerned with making things look pretty, rather than ensuring the delivering of the underlying content. The latter of which far supersedes the former in its importance. To that end, the less reliance your page has on the client's environment, something that is entirely beyond your control as a developer, the higher the probability of successfully delivering the content. (Which should be your main objective: If the content cannot be delivered, what was the bloody point?) JavaScript, CSS, browser plugins,... despite modern trends, should be avoid where possible. If they must be used, ensure that they do not compromise the delivery of the content, in the event those mechanisms are un-available to the client. For example, hyperlinks implemented solely in JavaScript is a sad state of modern affairs. The web is constantly evolving and may trends come and go, I can recall the days where JavaScript was the hot new thing and everyone used it to do utterly pointless things, like having snowflakes follow the pointer. Eventually it was realized that this was pointless, annoying, and hampered the delivery of the underlying content. Its usage faded out. Following this, was the rise of websites built around the then Macromedia Flash. Flash was the new web, going to replace conventional markup. This too was largely a commercial failure, as the delivery of the content was impaired. Eventually, the long-forgotten JavaScript had a resurgence with a new name and a few new friends (AJAX). Unfortunately, it comes with all of the same old problems. Though solutions to many of these problems exist, rarely are they used consistently and correctly. Additionally, one must question if the added functionality is worth the reduction in the probability of successful delivery. Telling people to upgrade their browser, or enable certain features is a cop-out which harkens back to the days of "make your browser this wide," followed by a horizontal rule. As far as editors and such, I personally write all of my code in a text editor, regardless of the language. I have used hand-written code in a text editor to implement websites for multi-million dollar companies. Ironically enough, I'm a visual effects artist. Anyway, I think I have likely gotten off topic myself and haven't contributed much to solving your original problem. Enough rambling out of me for now. Best of luck, Gary. -Modulok- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Shute > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 5:51 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Gary Kline; FreeBSD Mailing List > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:07:56PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Gary Kline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:14 PM > > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > Cc: Kevin Downey; FreeBSD Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chill down a bit, okay? first, (as the OP), i did not know > > > thaat there was *this** great a disparity in thee rendering > > > between classes of browsers. i used to stick pretty close > > > to the w3.org (or whatever it was). i didn't think the > > > difference extended to how the stuff was parsed. > > > > > > > Gary, the problem is that the majority of people out there use > > IE, most IE7, but still a lot of IE6, and a few deihards IE5. > > > > Then there are the older versions of Safari on the Mac - there's > > still a lot of Mac's around that are running 10.2 believe it or > > not, and those came with MS IE for the Mac which -really- munges > > some pages. And Safari for Windows - which is a bit different than > > Safari on the Mac. > > > > And then there are all the Unix browsers. > > > > There are some test programs that can help. But the validators > > can tell you your code is right and it still will display differently > > in some of the browsers. The only way to do it is to do what > > the pros do - which is have all the different systems available > > and load their pages in those browsers. > > I test my pages with IE7, Safari on XP and Firefox on FreeBSD. Fixing > problems with IE6 or anything else is too much to expect from amateur > pages (which mine are). > IE6 is the last MS browser available for W2K and even though W2K was out for only a short time, (compared to XP) unlike Win98, it is a real 32 bit version of Windows, and there's still a lot of it out there. Although, after the US economic stimulus checks are received by the general populace, I'm sure that will change somewhat. (I was very tempted when I opened the Fry's Electronics advert today and saw the Toshiba laptop, dual-core CPU, 1GB ram, 160GB disk with a DVD burner, going for $449.99) > > > > Telling people "my site is fine your browser is fucked, get a > > better one" is the mark of an amateur who is also being extremely > > presumptive. It's the old "do it my way or fuck off" > > You forget that Gary is an amateur. Hence, any complaints can be dealt > with "they validate, F off and get a better browser". (When he gets > round to making them validate :) > :-) He is an amateur - but his content isn't the sort of content that is a "must have" to where people will actually go to the trouble of loading a different browser to view it. (Hint: this is why virtually all church services are free to attend) > > > > This is what Microsoft tells people - and most FreeBSDers and > > Linux people claim they are on the moral high ground because they > > aren't forcing their stuff down people's throats - that is, > > until they create a webpage and then they have no problem forcing > > software down people's throats to see it, I guess > > I can't see anything wrong with telling people to use better software, > you're doing them a favour! It's obviously different if you're writing > pages for a commercial site. I'm not sure I follow that... > You should still write pages that > validate and there are various hacks you can use with CSS, the DOM and > Javscript to make your pages appear OK in older broken browsers...and > newer ones with bugs. > But why do you need to do those if your telling people to get a better browser... ;-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:19 +0530, N. Raghavendra wrote: > At 2008-05-30T21:28:58-07:00, Gary Kline wrote: > > > Any guesses why things like this blowup:: > > > > > > The quoted string above is the so-called Formal Public Identifier > (FPI) of the DTD, i.e., the "standard", that your HTML page claims to > conform to. However, the format of the FPI in your page is wrong. > For instance, "dtd" should be the upper case "DTD", and the ISO 639 > language code "en" should be the upper case "EN". In addition, the > entire FPI is case-sensitive, so "Transitional" is different from > "transitional". The recommended FPI for W3C HTML 4.0 Transitional is > "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN". So, the above line should > read > > > > Better still, follow the normal practice of writing "doctype" and > "public" in upper case, and eliminating unnecessary whitespace, and > make it > > > > At 2008-05-29T19:39:02-07:00, Gary Kline wrote: > > > I still have unread messages down-queue, but may as well ask if > > there are any HTML/XML checkers in ports that would help validate my > > mark. > > See my message earlier in this thread, where I mentioned > textproc/opensp, and how to use it. In fact, the W3C validator is > based on OpenSP, see http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#how > Thanks much. This morning (or afternoon!) I'm replying using Evolution that makes clicking on links easier. There are a bunch of URL's I have to study. About the *only* place I use all caps is in my markup. I didn't know until now that the doctype//DOCTYPE tag **had** to be in caps. I don't see any rational for this exception, but am v glad to learn it!! I have your earlier mail and will re-read as well as check out textproc/opensp. gary PS:: to the list: Late last night I used tidy and tidy -h, so now have yet another tool in my bag:-) ...If there atr any books or websites on how to create a nice SIMPLE page, URL's please. (i Don't think "design" can be taught; that's like trying to teach "art", isn't it?) --g > Raghavendra. > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
At 2008-05-30T21:28:58-07:00, Gary Kline wrote: > Any guesses why things like this blowup:: > > The quoted string above is the so-called Formal Public Identifier (FPI) of the DTD, i.e., the "standard", that your HTML page claims to conform to. However, the format of the FPI in your page is wrong. For instance, "dtd" should be the upper case "DTD", and the ISO 639 language code "en" should be the upper case "EN". In addition, the entire FPI is case-sensitive, so "Transitional" is different from "transitional". The recommended FPI for W3C HTML 4.0 Transitional is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN". So, the above line should read Better still, follow the normal practice of writing "doctype" and "public" in upper case, and eliminating unnecessary whitespace, and make it At 2008-05-29T19:39:02-07:00, Gary Kline wrote: > I still have unread messages down-queue, but may as well ask if > there are any HTML/XML checkers in ports that would help validate my > mark. See my message earlier in this thread, where I mentioned textproc/opensp, and how to use it. In fact, the W3C validator is based on OpenSP, see http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#how Raghavendra. -- N. Raghavendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.retrotexts.net/ Harish-Chandra Research Institute | http://www.mri.ernet.in/ See message headers for contact and OpenPGP information. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:39:02PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > Questions on validation > > > > > 4. > > > > > > Steal a simple page that validates: > > > > > > http://www.shute.org.uk/miscellany.html > > > > > > and use it as a template to hack on. Steal the style sheet too. > > > > > > Validate your webpage as you go along with the w3c validator. > > When I typed in www.thought.org/x.html AFTER having fixed the , there were still 30 faults. The one that really got me was because that one looked 100$ correct. I deleted the META tags; no difference. (( x.html == index.php )). I left the "doctype" on auto and the validator.w3.org couldn't parse my "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" markup. The err: "the Document Type (-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en) is not in the validator's catalog" The index.php and index.html are identical except for the php entry. Any guesses why things like this blowup:: Thought Unlimited: www.thought.org > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > > A few tips: > > > > > > Use 's for layout, not tables. > > > > > > i cannot // hhaven't made sense of since I first saw it. > > *This* may be where I've confused IE and Konq and it might be the > > easiest way to create the layout that firefox gives me. > > essentially gives you a box which after setting properties like > font size, background color, margins, position etc. with your > stylesheet you can place on your page and then fill with graphics, > text etc. > And using the CSS, am I right?? I began using the style sheets 10, 10+ years ago. Given that familiarity, it wouldn't be that much of a jump to go back to that mode. ( Besides, TABLE's can be a serious PITA:) I used the website's tidy tool so I saw what I had to do in order to transition. I'll need to study the stuff. The important thing is that late this afternoon I learned that this stuff is rendered even under IE ... > Have a look at the source and style sheet of my contact page (at the > bottom of this mail) to see how you can use them quite simply. > [[ ... ]] > > > > I didn't understand you could hardwire a textsize; maybe I've > > done it inadvertently ... > > Yeah, you can: > > font-size: 16px > > Use something like (in your style sheet): > > font: italic 120% sans-serif; > > where the 120% sets the size of the font relative to the browsers > setting. > > Say me default font is set to 20px in my browser, then in the former > case the font will render at 16px and in the latter case at 22px. > > I don't know if it's something you did with your pages but it's > something you should be aware of. > Wel, I set and elsewhere Probably the same, come to think of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keep an eye out for pages that look nice and validate. View source & > > > then steal chunks of xhtml and css. > > > > me thinks it's going to be a busy 2, 3 weeks, :) gary > -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kent wrote: > On Friday 30 May 2008 12:04:16 pm Gary Kline wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:31:01AM -0400, DAve wrote: > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >>-Original Message- > > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > > > > > > I nearly spit coffee on my keyboard! I agree with you 100%. When we all > > > did HTML with BBedit and Textpad, people like Black, Tog, and Nielsen > > > kept everyone designing websites to best serve the content. Now it is > > > all about the sizzle, but there is rarely a steak. > > > > > > DAve > > > > You got it, man. At least 80% of the site I happen on--at least > > that are selling something--have so much kerrapp going on I'd go > > blind if I stayed there for very long. (I so *enjoy* being able > > to block ads or stop-movie (gnash), and then find the router or > > DVD or whatever. And get out!) > > I hate the over use of flash and etc. I sometimes think that is similar to > putting a pdf file on a website instead of using txt. It bypasses some of the > quirks and you see what they want you to see. > > > > > This is not the kind of page i'M aiming for. --But then, I > > really don't know what/how I want to revise my www homepage. > > I use Adobe's GoLive but they killed it for Dreamweaver. If it had been a > modest upgrade price, I would have upgraded but I didn't. > > > > > The reason for the strange display was a bad comment. So at > > least I've learned something! Now www looks fine from ffox, > > opera, and Konq. I've forbidden my tweenager from using IE so > > have to wait for wife. Or see if friends reply who use IE. > > > > I have IE 7, Firefox, Seamonkey, and Safari on my main XP machine. I can't > see > any obvious difference. I also can't see any obvious difference between > Firefox and Konqueror on FreeBSD and the XP browsers. > > FWIW, IE seems to complain on many of the sites I visit. It has a little > comment on the status bar to the effect of completed but with errors. I > didn't see it on your site. Thw "bad comment" I was referring to was a markup comment: My blunder was
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:07:56PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Gary Kline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:14 PM > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Cc: Kevin Downey; FreeBSD Mailing List > > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > > > > > > Chill down a bit, okay? first, (as the OP), i did not know > > thaat there was *this** great a disparity in thee rendering > > between classes of browsers. i used to stick pretty close > > to the w3.org (or whatever it was). i didn't think the > > difference extended to how the stuff was parsed. > > > > Gary, the problem is that the majority of people out there use > IE, most IE7, but still a lot of IE6, and a few deihards IE5. > > Then there are the older versions of Safari on the Mac - there's > still a lot of Mac's around that are running 10.2 believe it or > not, and those came with MS IE for the Mac which -really- munges > some pages. And Safari for Windows - which is a bit different than > Safari on the Mac. > > And then there are all the Unix browsers. > > There are some test programs that can help. But the validators > can tell you your code is right and it still will display differently > in some of the browsers. The only way to do it is to do what > the pros do - which is have all the different systems available > and load their pages in those browsers. I test my pages with IE7, Safari on XP and Firefox on FreeBSD. Fixing problems with IE6 or anything else is too much to expect from amateur pages (which mine are). > > Telling people "my site is fine your browser is fucked, get a > better one" is the mark of an amateur who is also being extremely > presumptive. It's the old "do it my way or fuck off" You forget that Gary is an amateur. Hence, any complaints can be dealt with "they validate, F off and get a better browser". (When he gets round to making them validate :) > > This is what Microsoft tells people - and most FreeBSDers and > Linux people claim they are on the moral high ground because they > aren't forcing their stuff down people's throats - that is, > until they create a webpage and then they have no problem forcing > software down people's throats to see it, I guess I can't see anything wrong with telling people to use better software, you're doing them a favour! It's obviously different if you're writing pages for a commercial site. You should still write pages that validate and there are various hacks you can use with CSS, the DOM and Javscript to make your pages appear OK in older broken browsers...and newer ones with bugs. > > Ted Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:39:02PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:05:36PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > > > > [[ ... ]] > > > > > > /* * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its > > > replies and threads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI > > > when there is a URL embedded, but * it must be down-queue. > > > */ > > > > Use textproc/urlview with mutt & Firefox. > > > Frank, can you do me a favor and mail your ~/.urlview, please? > I installed this program a few years ago, but it only worked > with lynx. I just found the url_handler.sh script so now have a > clue but if your ~/.urlview points to firefox you'll save me > some typing. --Also [going further OT], I like Konsole even > better than xterm.-- I'll post it here for the benefit of others: $ cat ~/.urlview COMMAND /usr/local/bin/firefox %s I've also got: macro index \cb |urlview\n # simulate the old browse-url function in my muttrc, so ctl-b gives me the list of the urls in the email. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, > > > readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I > > > use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. > > > > > > > > > Since you're "a do it by hand" person, I'll give you the benefit of my > > experiences doing my pages that way. > > > > My site is on a similar scale to yours and I've just kept it simple > > except where I've used server-side (PHP/Perl) and Javascript. > > > Sounds like what I've done, more/less. My index file in > www/data is PHP. php keeps getting closer to C, &c; I've > written a few things in php. > > > > > > 1. > > > > Use Firefox to develop with and install the webdeveloper plug-in: > > > > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60 > > > > Use vim not vi, since you get syntax highlighting with vim/gvim. > > > Mm, I'm familiar with vim; like it all right, but lost my > ~/.vimrc file (and my backup). NP in this case. vim does > a solid job of highlighting. I'll mail you mine. > > > > > Add x11/rgb to your system and: > > > > $ showrgb | less > > > > will show you the websafe colours. Plug in the numbers to your > > stylesheet to get your preferred colours. You can view the colours > > with e.g: > > > > $ xterm -bg steelblue > > > > Or: > > > > http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_colornames.asp > > > Have the rgb app; when I began building my jottings pages I knew > the colors would set the philosophic/meditative mood, so in early > '02 I ripped off the light blue from the philosophy pages at > Lampeter. Then used various color wheels to choose the other > colors. This is about the outer limits of my "design > capabilities", :-) > > > > > > I use Gimp for any graphics. > > > Impressive. Anything at the level of The GIMP is beyond me. Hey, my knowledge of Gimp is strictly limited but they've got some tutorials on the Gimp homesite. > > > > > 2. > > > > Choose a standard that you are going to code to and validate against. > > I use XHTML1.0 Transitional and CSS. Things are going more XML than > > HTML and transitional is less restrictive than strict. > > > > Here is where it may be best to take this offlist. I'm guessing > that XHTML is "extended-HTML." Yes/no? >= 10 years ago I > created some short stories andor essays using the Sytle Sheets. > But as you point out, XML is prob'ly the future of markup and I > know next to nothing about it. > > For example, given John, *where/what* > defines the tag? Since the WWW bunch has given XML the nod, it > is both the present and future of a lot of the web. ---So, > are there any books for Beginners you recommend? You or anyone > else onlist who has waded thru this plea! No books, I learnt all mine online. > > > > 3. > > > > Have a look at w3c schools site to learn your chosen language: > > > > http://www.w3schools.com/ > > > > There are various tutorials and references there. Best site on the > > 'net! > > > > hMMM:-) Maybe I should've read ahead . > > > > 4. > > > > Steal a simple page that validates: > > > > http://www.shute.org.uk/miscellany.html > > > > and use it as a template to hack on. Steal the style sheet too. > > > > Validate your webpage as you go along with the w3c validator. > > Should I just google for the validator? At any rate, thanks much > for the two URL's above. The more I can learn on my own > (without bothering anyone else), the better. I think there's a link to it on the w3c schools site I gave you. If not, it's in the source of the page above. If you click on the "valid XHTML" in that page, it will validate that page. > > > > > > 5. >
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Friday 30 May 2008 12:04:16 pm Gary Kline wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:31:01AM -0400, DAve wrote: > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >>-Original Message- > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > > > > I nearly spit coffee on my keyboard! I agree with you 100%. When we all > > did HTML with BBedit and Textpad, people like Black, Tog, and Nielsen > > kept everyone designing websites to best serve the content. Now it is > > all about the sizzle, but there is rarely a steak. > > > > DAve > > You got it, man. At least 80% of the site I happen on--at least > that are selling something--have so much kerrapp going on I'd go > blind if I stayed there for very long. (I so *enjoy* being able > to block ads or stop-movie (gnash), and then find the router or > DVD or whatever. And get out!) I hate the over use of flash and etc. I sometimes think that is similar to putting a pdf file on a website instead of using txt. It bypasses some of the quirks and you see what they want you to see. > > This is not the kind of page i'M aiming for. --But then, I > really don't know what/how I want to revise my www homepage. I use Adobe's GoLive but they killed it for Dreamweaver. If it had been a modest upgrade price, I would have upgraded but I didn't. > > The reason for the strange display was a bad comment. So at > least I've learned something! Now www looks fine from ffox, > opera, and Konq. I've forbidden my tweenager from using IE so > have to wait for wife. Or see if friends reply who use IE. > I have IE 7, Firefox, Seamonkey, and Safari on my main XP machine. I can't see any obvious difference. I also can't see any obvious difference between Firefox and Konqueror on FreeBSD and the XP browsers. FWIW, IE seems to complain on many of the sites I visit. It has a little comment on the status bar to the effect of completed but with errors. I didn't see it on your site. Kent ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:31:01AM -0400, DAve wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > >>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:51 PM > >>To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >>Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List > >>Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > >> > >> > >>you probably didn't start with the earlier markup. back then, > >>'93-4, there was ,, , and . i wrote a 2.2K-line > >>program to handle "hi" -> ``hi'' and a couple other things. > >>the code has evolved, of course, but still works. > >> > > > >Not the case. I use vi myself and I eschew background gifs and > >such. Web pages that I create are black text on a white back > >ground interspersed with images when needed. Period. No CSS no frames, no > >nothing. If the content I put up isn't worth reading > >then no amount of formatting, font specification, animated > >images, and so forth is going to get people to look at it, > >is my feeling. > > I nearly spit coffee on my keyboard! I agree with you 100%. When we all > did HTML with BBedit and Textpad, people like Black, Tog, and Nielsen > kept everyone designing websites to best serve the content. Now it is > all about the sizzle, but there is rarely a steak. > > DAve You got it, man. At least 80% of the site I happen on--at least that are selling something--have so much kerrapp going on I'd go blind if I stayed there for very long. (I so *enjoy* being able to block ads or stop-movie (gnash), and then find the router or DVD or whatever. And get out!) This is not the kind of page i'M aiming for. --But then, I really don't know what/how I want to revise my www homepage. The reason for the strange display was a bad comment. So at least I've learned something! Now www looks fine from ffox, opera, and Konq. I've forbidden my tweenager from using IE so have to wait for wife. Or see if friends reply who use IE. gary > > -- > In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years > of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with > rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel > that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:52:31AM -0400, Bob Johnson wrote: > > I suspect that using an editor that _correctly_ highlights HTML code > would solve most of your problems. Yes, that is why I suggested tidy in addition to the other online validators. If one's editor tool doesn't help, tidy is close at hand. Can standardize the coding format. Can help fix errors. Can point out errors. > To me, a content management system only makes sense for a site that is > either large, or has multiple authors. If you update your site > frequently, a WYSIWYG HTML editor would be helpful and should have a > very small learning curve. I think others have already suggested a > few. I really don't like the output of the WYSIWYG HTML editors I've seen. A real text editor with HTML syntax parser for assistance is probably best for anyone willing to read HTML. I think CVS or Subversion /usr/ports/devel/subversion is among the best "content management systems" available. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On 5/29/08, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 06:14:26PM -0400, Bob Johnson wrote: >> On 5/29/08, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page >> >was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black >> [...] >> >I'd be much obliged for any help here. >> > >> > >> >> Konqueror says that the comment that reads >> >>
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DAve > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:31 PM > To: FreeBSD Mailing List > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:51 PM > >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > >> > >> > >>you probably didn't start with the earlier markup. back then, > >>'93-4, there was ,, , and . i wrote a 2.2K-line > >>program to handle "hi" -> ``hi'' and a couple other things. > >>the code has evolved, of course, but still works. > >> > > > > Not the case. I use vi myself and I eschew background gifs and > > such. Web pages that I create are black text on a white back > > ground interspersed with images when needed. Period. No CSS > no frames, no > > nothing. If the content I put up isn't worth reading > > then no amount of formatting, font specification, animated > > images, and so forth is going to get people to look at it, > > is my feeling. > > I nearly spit coffee on my keyboard! I agree with you 100%. When we all > did HTML with BBedit and Textpad, people like Black, Tog, and Nielsen > kept everyone designing websites to best serve the content. Now it is > all about the sizzle, but there is rarely a steak. > Think about the generation we went to High School with. This is the generation that's signature movies were Risky Business, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, etc. Listening to Prince and Michael Jackson. Who's signature book was Madonna's SEX. These are the people who a decade later were buying SUV's and drinking coffee out of a Folgers can, who voted in George Bush, and who today are upside down on their ARM-financed homes. These are the consumers of the websites on the Internet today. No wonder most of the sites suck. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:51 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. you probably didn't start with the earlier markup. back then, '93-4, there was ,, , and . i wrote a 2.2K-line program to handle "hi" -> ``hi'' and a couple other things. the code has evolved, of course, but still works. Not the case. I use vi myself and I eschew background gifs and such. Web pages that I create are black text on a white back ground interspersed with images when needed. Period. No CSS no frames, no nothing. If the content I put up isn't worth reading then no amount of formatting, font specification, animated images, and so forth is going to get people to look at it, is my feeling. I nearly spit coffee on my keyboard! I agree with you 100%. When we all did HTML with BBedit and Textpad, people like Black, Tog, and Nielsen kept everyone designing websites to best serve the content. Now it is all about the sizzle, but there is rarely a steak. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> -Original Message- > From: Gary Kline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:14 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Kevin Downey; FreeBSD Mailing List > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > > Chill down a bit, okay? first, (as the OP), i did not know > thaat there was *this** great a disparity in thee rendering > between classes of browsers. i used to stick pretty close > to the w3.org (or whatever it was). i didn't think the > difference extended to how the stuff was parsed. > Gary, the problem is that the majority of people out there use IE, most IE7, but still a lot of IE6, and a few deihards IE5. Then there are the older versions of Safari on the Mac - there's still a lot of Mac's around that are running 10.2 believe it or not, and those came with MS IE for the Mac which -really- munges some pages. And Safari for Windows - which is a bit different than Safari on the Mac. And then there are all the Unix browsers. There are some test programs that can help. But the validators can tell you your code is right and it still will display differently in some of the browsers. The only way to do it is to do what the pros do - which is have all the different systems available and load their pages in those browsers. Telling people "my site is fine your browser is fucked, get a better one" is the mark of an amateur who is also being extremely presumptive. It's the old "do it my way or fuck off" This is what Microsoft tells people - and most FreeBSDers and Linux people claim they are on the moral high ground because they aren't forcing their stuff down people's throats - that is, until they create a webpage and then they have no problem forcing software down people's throats to see it, I guess Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:51 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List > Subject: Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > you probably didn't start with the earlier markup. back then, > '93-4, there was ,, , and . i wrote a 2.2K-line > program to handle "hi" -> ``hi'' and a couple other things. > the code has evolved, of course, but still works. > Not the case. I use vi myself and I eschew background gifs and such. Web pages that I create are black text on a white back ground interspersed with images when needed. Period. No CSS no frames, no nothing. If the content I put up isn't worth reading then no amount of formatting, font specification, animated images, and so forth is going to get people to look at it, is my feeling. Looking at your site, it's clear your not a true minimalist. Thus, my recommendation to not even try. Web page design has got so complex that you basically have to do it full time to made a page that looks professional. If your going to create pages, then a true minimalist page is just as functional and just as good as an amateur attempt. Meaning, both it and the amateur page will look like crap, but people aren't there for the looks they are there for the information, and they won't care. Naturally, I am perfectly aware too many people assume that if the page is unformatted that the content must be crap. So, for commercial sites that I am involved in that a lot of eyeballs look at, I don't code those. I have my wife code them - who IS an HTML designer. Watching her work I can see how much work is involved in making a page look professional. (she uses homesite, which is a commercial html editor, it is not a wysiwyg like dreamweaver) I know that if I just do the usual job that an amateur does, it's like a little kid riding a plastic horse at the grocery store and pretending he's a cowboy. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 06:14:26PM -0400, Bob Johnson wrote: > On 5/29/08, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > > was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > [...] > > I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > > > > > Konqueror says that the comment that reads > >
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:05:36PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > [[ ... ]] > > > /* > > * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and > > threads is > > * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but > > * it must be down-queue. > > */ > > Use textproc/urlview with mutt & Firefox. Frank, can you do me a favor and mail your ~/.urlview, please? I installed this program a few years ago, but it only worked with lynx. I just found the url_handler.sh script so now have a clue but if your ~/.urlview points to firefox you'll save me some typing. --Also [going further OT], I like Konsole even better than xterm.-- > > > > > > > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, > > readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I > > use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. > > > > > Since you're "a do it by hand" person, I'll give you the benefit of my > experiences doing my pages that way. > > My site is on a similar scale to yours and I've just kept it simple > except where I've used server-side (PHP/Perl) and Javascript. Sounds like what I've done, more/less. My index file in www/data is PHP. php keeps getting closer to C, &c; I've written a few things in php. > > 1. > > Use Firefox to develop with and install the webdeveloper plug-in: > > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60 > > Use vim not vi, since you get syntax highlighting with vim/gvim. Mm, I'm familiar with vim; like it all right, but lost my ~/.vimrc file (and my backup). NP in this case. vim does a solid job of highlighting. > > Add x11/rgb to your system and: > > $ showrgb | less > > will show you the websafe colours. Plug in the numbers to your > stylesheet to get your preferred colours. You can view the colours > with e.g: > > $ xterm -bg steelblue > > Or: > > http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_colornames.asp Have the rgb app; when I began building my jottings pages I knew the colors would set the philosophic/meditative mood, so in early '02 I ripped off the light blue from the philosophy pages at Lampeter. Then used various color wheels to choose the other colors. This is about the outer limits of my "design capabilities", :-) > > I use Gimp for any graphics. Impressive. Anything at the level of The GIMP is beyond me. > > 2. > > Choose a standard that you are going to code to and validate against. > I use XHTML1.0 Transitional and CSS. Things are going more XML than > HTML and transitional is less restrictive than strict. > Here is where it may be best to take this offlist. I'm guessing that XHTML is "extended-HTML." Yes/no? >= 10 years ago I created some short stories andor essays using the Sytle Sheets. But as you point out, XML is prob'ly the future of markup and I know next to nothing about it. For example, given John, *where/what* defines the tag? Since the WWW bunch has given XML the nod, it is both the present and future of a lot of the web. ---So, are there any books for Beginners you recommend? You or anyone else onlist who has waded thru this plea! > 3. > > Have a look at w3c schools site to learn your chosen language: > > http://www.w3schools.com/ > > There are various tutorials and references there. Best site on the > 'net! > hMMM:-) Maybe I should've read ahead . > 4. > > Steal a simple page that validates: > > http://www.shute.org.uk/miscellany.html > > and use it as a template to hack on. Steal the style sheet too. > > Validate your webpage as you go along with the w3c validator. Should I just google for the validator? At any rate, thanks much for the two URL's above. The more I can learn on my own (without bothering anyone else), the better. > > 5. > > A few tips: > > Use 's for layout, not tables. i cannot // hhaven't made sense of since I first saw it. *This* may be where I've confused IE and Konq and it might be the easiest way to create the layout that firefox gives me. As I see it, ttables let you put rectangles anywhere; then you can putt other things inside; how to do this with is one more black hole. > > Don't use fixed text heights, use relative so it respects the users > preferences for text size. I didn't understand you could hardwire a textsize; maybe I've done it inadvertently ... > > Keep an eye out for pages that look nice and validate. View source & > then steal chunks of xhtml and css. > I still have unread messages down-queue, but may as well ask if there are any HTML/XML checker
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:50:53 -0700 Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The world is moving towards CMS systems for hosting websites. > > do we have such a mngnmt system tool in ports?? How about Plone or other Zope-based apps? Plone is in ports: /usr/ports/www/plone3 as is Silva: /usr/ports/www/zope-silva But be forewarned: both are resource hogs and need a reasonable fast server to run smoothly if you've got a lot of traffic; and finding a good Zope-provider may prove a little more difficult than the usual LAMP-based el-cheapo web hosting accounts... -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On 5/29/08, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black [...] > I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > Konqueror says that the comment that reads
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:00:57AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kevin Downey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Let be the first of many to say, please do not top post. > > Let me be the first to say please don't quote the entire posting > and the entire response. > > > In a recent interview it was revealed that the New York Times does a > > lot of by hand html writing because it just gets you better html. > > Of course it does. And I would expect a really professional > site to do so. But, your not paying attention to what he is > saying: > > "... trying to determine exactly what causes firefox and konq to diverge..." > > An html author who writes by hand MUST know about ALL browser > idiosyncracies. The OP does not want to know this or he would > have TESTED with all browsers years ago. And the context indicates > he really doesen't want to know. Chill down a bit, okay? first, (as the OP), i did not know thaat there was *this** great a disparity in thee rendering between classes of browsers. i used to stick pretty close to the w3.org (or whatever it was). i didn't think the difference extended to how the stuff was parsed. BZZZT. letsee, that 25 trillion for Life, 3 for gary. . > --the OP -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > > >was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > > >on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > > >firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > > >'94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > > >mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > > > > > >About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost > > >flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event > > >feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () > > >on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things > > >were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > > > > > >Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, > > >it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; > > >it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position > > >things on a .php or .html page. > > > > > >Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > > >what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > > >other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > > >learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for > > >my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > > >editors in ports? > > > > > >I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > > > > > > > > > I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd > > do. Instead of finding a HTML Editor just find a simple text > > editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner. > > > > I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I > > know use simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS and > > JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and > > Notepad2 on Windows. > > > /* > * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and theads > is > * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but > * it must be down-queue. > */ Use textproc/urlview with mutt & Firefox. > > > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, > readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I > use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. > > I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it > was! And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre > are my initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google > around to find out what CMS is... Since you're "a do it by hand" person, I'll give you the benefit of my experiences doing my pages that way. My site is on a similar scale to yours and I've just kept it simple except where I've used server-side (PHP/Perl) and Javascript. 1. Use Firefox to develop with and install the webdeveloper plug-in: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60 Use vim not vi, since you get syntax highlighting with vim/gvim. Add x11/rgb to your system and: $ showrgb | less will show you the websafe colours. Plug in the numbers to your stylesheet to get your preferred colours. You can view the colours with e.g: $ xterm -bg steelblue Or: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_colornames.asp I use Gimp for any graphics. 2. Choose a standard that you are going to code to and validate against. I use XHTML1.0 Transitional and CSS. Things are going more XML than HTML and transitional is less restrictive than strict. 3. Have a look at w3c schools site to learn your chosen language: http://www.w3schools.com/ There are various tutorials and references there. Best site on the 'net! 4. Steal a simple page that validates: http://www.shute.org.uk/miscellany.html and use it as a template to hack on. Steal the style sheet too. Validate your webpage as you go along with the w3c validator. 5. A few tips: Use 's for layout, not tables. Don't use fixed text heights, use relative so it respects the users preferences for text size. Keep an eye out for pages that look nice and validate. View source & then steal chunks of xhtml and css. 6. Happy hacking! You'll find that your validated pages will show fine in most modern browsers although some have more quirks than others. But when you get somebody say "Your webpage doesn't look right in Internet Exploder 5" you can say to them "Get a proper browser that respects web standards! Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, sen
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:38:05AM -0700, Kevin Downey wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [[ ... ]] > Konq uses more or less the same rendering engine as Safari. interesting. where is this browser in ports. locate doesnt find it. tx for the datapoint. > > http://iamvoodoochile.redgrapellc.com/uploaded_images/1985-741912.jpg > -- break down of modern webdesign > > -- > The Mafia way is that we pursue larger goals under the guise of > personal relationships. > Fisheye -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
FWIW, I'Ve switch back to mutt. i can't live without vi On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:30:05AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Don't bother, Gary. > > The world is moving towards CMS systems for hosting websites. do we have such a mngnmt system tool in ports?? > > The ultra-cheapo people use godaddy's site builder and > put crap on a crappy-looking interface. HMmmm. it's ben my experience that if you keep a page *simple*, that serves best. now i'm not talking about "Sam's New and Used Dildos and Computers" that's got animations screaming at you. With 50 text and graphic ads/page plus flashing text. i'm talking about something more together. low-impact AND inventive. i've learned that if the content sux, all the bells and whistles won't help. > > The better hosting companies each have their own site builders > and look better, and are populated by acres of garden-variety corporate > and the occassional personal sites. > > Very, very few people custom-write sites in HTML anymore. > Most people use sitebuilding software (frontpage was the original, > it's deprecated now in favor of other newer tools) either running > on their PC or on the server. > > black text on blue is terribly hard to read for most people, > read up on how the human eye works to understand why. the why is simple, reduced contrast; that's why i have black text on a white bg. Or so i thought until i saw how konquorer (and opera) were munging my homepage. firefox displays a graphic [link] with a stylized "J"; it is not displayed by the other 2. that might be where to start looking. > > Put your time into loading a CMS system on your server then > create your site in it. Yes the learning curve is steep in > the beginning but it's not rote memorization of HTML tags. It > is understanding how all the things work together. you probably didn't start with the earlier markup. back then, '93-4, there was ,, , and . i wrote a 2.2K-line program to handle "hi" -> ``hi'' and a couple other things. the code has evolved, of course, but still works. looks like what i need NOW is a debugger, :-) i have virtually zero design skills except "keep it simple" gary > > Ted > [[ save the electrons ]] > > -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:52:22PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > On Thu May 29 2008 13:26:43 DAve wrote: > ... > > memory to load all the required libs in displaying "Hello World". Some > > of the CMS tools are very very heavy. Straight static HTML can be > > blisteringly fast in comparison unless you have low traffic or a fairly > > hefty server. Static HTML also doesn't show up in my CERT emails every > > month with security issues. > > > > My 2 cents worth... > > well, for years my favored method is "kiss" == "keep it simple, sir." Oh, you are polite. I am used to other interpretations for that second 's' ... > i'm still chiuckling over that tool that requires a GIG to load. > > gary > > ps: thanks to Google: CMS == "content mgnt system" > Yup.That is one of the more common. jerry > > > > > > DAve > > -- > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix > http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu May 29 2008 13:26:43 DAve wrote: > Gary Kline wrote: > > On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote: > >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > >>>was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > >>>on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > >>>firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > >>>'94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > >>>mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > >>> > >>>About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost > >>>flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event > >>>feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () > >>>on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things > >>>were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > >>> > >>>Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, > >>>it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; > >>>it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position > >>>things on a .php or .html page. > >>> > >>>Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > >>>what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > >>>other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > >>>learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design > >>> for my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > >>> editors in ports? > >>> > >>>I'd be much obliged for any help here. > >> > >> I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do. > >> Instead of finding a HTML Editor > >> just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean > >> manner. > >> > >> I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know > >> use simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS > >> and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 > >> on Windows. > > > > /* > > * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and > > theads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL > > embedded, but * it must be down-queue. > > */ > > > > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, > > readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the > > strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. > > > > I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was! > > And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my > > initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find > > out what CMS is... > > I still prefer html by hand. I use VIM though all our designers and > developers use Dreamweaver, funny few if any can fix the HTML if the > tool munges it. Many have no idea how HTML works. > > As far as CMS tools go some create nice pages but at a cost. We have > several clients who insist on CMS tools. The joke around our Office is > [Joomla|Rails|other] is the only tool known to man to require 1GB server > memory to load all the required libs in displaying "Hello World". Some > of the CMS tools are very very heavy. Straight static HTML can be > blisteringly fast in comparison unless you have low traffic or a fairly > hefty server. Static HTML also doesn't show up in my CERT emails every > month with security issues. > > My 2 cents worth... well, for years my favored method is "kiss" == "keep it simple, sir." i'm still chiuckling over that tool that requires a GIG to load. gary ps: thanks to Google: CMS == "content mgnt system" > > DAve -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu May 29 2008 08:46:29 David Kelly wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:57:35PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > > was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > > on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > > firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > > '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > > mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > > Others have suggested online validators. /usr/ports/www/tidy is another > that can check your code, even attempt repairs. Can also be used to > standardize the coding format much like GNU indent for C code. Comes > built-in to BBEdit on Mac where I do most of my HTML authoring. > > Eyeballing your code the first thing that stood out was: > > BACKGROUND="/usr/local/www/data/Graphics/paper0.jpg" > > Don't think that will work for anyone other than yourself, and only when > you are on the server itself. Unless one has a file with that exact same > name and path. Good one, thankee. Using the bg graphic works on my jottings pages because I gave a relative "./Graphics/foo.jpg" pointer. Just checking now with Opera, I still see the "www" page askew. Blue-bar with most strings embedded within it. firefox [ and mozilla ] get it the way I want, opera and konq, nope. tidy? Sorry, must snce i've been wworking on other things, i've lost touch. -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
Gary Kline wrote: On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- mozilla, firefox, a couple others. About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position things on a .php or .html page. Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML editors in ports? I'd be much obliged for any help here. I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do. Instead of finding a HTML Editor just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner. I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know use simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 on Windows. /* * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and theads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but * it must be down-queue. */ I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was! And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find out what CMS is... I still prefer html by hand. I use VIM though all our designers and developers use Dreamweaver, funny few if any can fix the HTML if the tool munges it. Many have no idea how HTML works. As far as CMS tools go some create nice pages but at a cost. We have several clients who insist on CMS tools. The joke around our Office is [Joomla|Rails|other] is the only tool known to man to require 1GB server memory to load all the required libs in displaying "Hello World". Some of the CMS tools are very very heavy. Straight static HTML can be blisteringly fast in comparison unless you have low traffic or a fairly hefty server. Static HTML also doesn't show up in my CERT emails every month with security issues. My 2 cents worth... DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > > >was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > > >on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > > >firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > > >'94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > > >mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > > > > > >About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost > > >flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event > > >feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () > > >on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things > > >were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > > > > > >Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, > > >it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; > > >it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position > > >things on a .php or .html page. > > > > > >Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > > >what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > > >other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > > >learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for > > >my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > > >editors in ports? > > > > > >I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > > > > >gary > > > > > > -- > > > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix > > >http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > > > > > > ___ > > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do. > > Instead of finding a HTML Editor > > just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner. > > > > I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know use > > simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS > > and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 on > > Windows. > > > /* > * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and theads > is > * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but > * it must be down-queue. > */ > > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, > readable, > uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the strength of > HTML, php, blah ** 3. > > I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was! And > if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my > initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find out > what CMS is... We are initial buried. CMS can mean many things, but in this case it probably mean either Content Management System or possibly Change Management System. Both are common uses. If you are happy editing your HTML files and doing your own CSS, then you don't need it at all. That web verification site might be an interesting thing to try now and then, though. jerry > > > Christian Zachariasen > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > -- > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix > http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > >was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > >on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > >firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > >'94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > >mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > > > >About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost > >flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event > >feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () > >on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things > >were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > > > >Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, > >it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; > >it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position > >things on a .php or .html page. > > > >Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > >what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > >other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > >learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for > >my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > >editors in ports? > > > >I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > > > > >gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix > >http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > > > > > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do. > Instead of finding a HTML Editor > just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner. > > I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know use > simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS > and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 on > Windows. > /* * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and theads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but * it must be down-queue. */ I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was! And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find out what CMS is... > Christian Zachariasen > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:57:35PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > mozilla, firefox, a couple others. Others have suggested online validators. /usr/ports/www/tidy is another that can check your code, even attempt repairs. Can also be used to standardize the coding format much like GNU indent for C code. Comes built-in to BBEdit on Mac where I do most of my HTML authoring. Eyeballing your code the first thing that stood out was: BACKGROUND="/usr/local/www/data/Graphics/paper0.jpg" Don't think that will work for anyone other than yourself, and only when you are on the server itself. Unless one has a file with that exact same name and path. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
> -Original Message- > From: Kevin Downey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Let be the first of many to say, please do not top post. Let me be the first to say please don't quote the entire posting and the entire response. > In a recent interview it was revealed that the New York Times does a > lot of by hand html writing because it just gets you better html. Of course it does. And I would expect a really professional site to do so. But, your not paying attention to what he is saying: "... trying to determine exactly what causes firefox and konq to diverge..." An html author who writes by hand MUST know about ALL browser idiosyncracies. The OP does not want to know this or he would have TESTED with all browsers years ago. And the context indicates he really doesen't want to know. "...I've never learned an HTML editors because of the learning curve..." Have you visited this guy's website and actually READ it? This isn't a stupid person here. Anyone who gets an engineering degree is perfectly capabably of surmounting the learning curve. He DOESEN'T WANT TO DO IT. His website IS NOT the usual "techie" website full of instructions on how to write better html, use this, that and so on. He's simply not interested in that - at least, not enough to actually want to spend any time learning an HTML editor. He doesen't WANT to surmount the learning curve, it is NOT that he CAN'T DO IT. What he wants is a shortcut, a means to QUICKLY get what he has to say online, with minimal work, that will look OK in all browsers. He doesen't want the world's greatest website. He just wants it good enough so that people will read his philosophy, which is what he is really interested in. Not all this html stuff. This comprises the VAST MAJORITY of all people posting stuff to the web. Of course, most of them are using template sites, or myspace, or facebook, or whatever. You might think a facebook user isn't a web designer, but she thinks she is. She is doing the same thing a web designer does - put her information onto the web so other people can read it. And she is using a CMS that takes care of all the icky details of making her stuff look the same across all browsers. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
At 2008-05-28T23:57:35-07:00, Gary Kline wrote: > Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly what > causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any other > ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the learning > curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for my home > page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML editors in > ports? My suggestion would be to just write HTML which conforms to a standard. For instance, the main page at your Web site `www.thought.org' declares its DOCTYPE as W3C HTML 4.01 Transitional, but validating it at http://validator.w3.org/ against that standard produces several errors. If all those errors are fixed, your pages will be rendered properly by all browsers that support these standards, see, e.g., http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abdesign3.html http://browsehappy.com/browsers/ As for editors, I suggest Emacs with PSGML mode (editors/psgml). Rather than depending on the validator at W3C, you can install textproc/opensp, and use onsgmls(1) to validate your HTML documents without traversing the Internet, with something like onsgmls -c ~/catalog -egsu foo.html HTH, Raghavendra. -- N. Raghavendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.retrotexts.net/ Harish-Chandra Research Institute | http://www.mri.ernet.in/ See message headers for contact and OpenPGP information. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Gary Kline wrote: > Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for > my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > editors in ports? It's bit OT really. But wotthehell, wotthehell. I've found the best approach is to make liberal use of http://validator.w3.org/ -- if your HTML validates correctly according to which ever standard you apply, and similarly if your CSS validates correctly as CSS 2.0 then you should get a pretty similar result in virtually all browsers. Use HTML Tidy (ports: www/tidy-devel) to clean up your HTML automatically, and strongly prefer CSS over in-line formatting as tidy steers you towards. One thing to watch out for though is an important difference between the XHTML 1.0 standard and the HTML 4.01 standard (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/) XHTML 1.0 is an XML language and should be served using the 'application/xml+xhtml' MIME type, unlike HTML 4.01 which should be served as 'text/html' (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/) I've found that this can make quite a difference to the way a page is rendered in FireFox. The HTML 4.01 standard is probably your best bet for maximum interoperability with all sorts of different desktop browsers, whereas XHTML is better if you need access by stuff like Mobile Phones or text-to-speech systems for the blind. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW, UK -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREDAAYFAkg+XgQACgkQ3jDkPpsZ+VanhwCfYBTlfL0r6Jz1iwaq7RYgfKde sYsAoKO8lsylmdCPMMcF4JRk93fJ675h =khay -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page >was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black >on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with >firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since >'94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- >mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > >About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost >flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event >feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () >on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things >were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > >Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, >it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; >it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position >things on a .php or .html page. > >Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly >what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any >other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the >learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for >my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML >editors in ports? > >I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > >gary > > > > > > > -- > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix >http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do. Instead of finding a HTML Editor just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner. I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know use simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 on Windows. Christian Zachariasen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't bother, Gary. > > The world is moving towards CMS systems for hosting websites. > > The ultra-cheapo people use godaddy's site builder and > put crap on a crappy-looking interface. > > The better hosting companies each have their own site builders > and look better, and are populated by acres of garden-variety corporate > and the occassional personal sites. > > Very, very few people custom-write sites in HTML anymore. > Most people use sitebuilding software (frontpage was the original, > it's deprecated now in favor of other newer tools) either running > on their PC or on the server. > > black text on blue is terribly hard to read for most people, > read up on how the human eye works to understand why. > > Put your time into loading a CMS system on your server then > create your site in it. Yes the learning curve is steep in > the beginning but it's not rote memorization of HTML tags. It > is understanding how all the things work together. > > Ted > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline >> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:58 PM >> To: FreeBSD Mailing List >> Subject: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. >> >> >> Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page >> was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black >> on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with >> firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since >> '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- >> mozilla, firefox, a couple others. >> >> About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost >> flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event >> feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () >> on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things >> were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. >> >> Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, >> it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; >> it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position >> things on a .php or .html page. >> >> Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly >> what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any >> other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the >> learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for >> my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML >> editors in ports? >> >> I'd be much obliged for any help here. >> >> >> gary >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix >> http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org >> >> Let be the first of many to say, please do not top post. In a recent interview it was revealed that the New York Times does a lot of by hand html writing because it just gets you better html. Konq uses more or less the same rendering engine as Safari. http://iamvoodoochile.redgrapellc.com/uploaded_images/1985-741912.jpg -- break down of modern webdesign -- The Mafia way is that we pursue larger goals under the guise of personal relationships. Fisheye ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
Don't bother, Gary. The world is moving towards CMS systems for hosting websites. The ultra-cheapo people use godaddy's site builder and put crap on a crappy-looking interface. The better hosting companies each have their own site builders and look better, and are populated by acres of garden-variety corporate and the occassional personal sites. Very, very few people custom-write sites in HTML anymore. Most people use sitebuilding software (frontpage was the original, it's deprecated now in favor of other newer tools) either running on their PC or on the server. black text on blue is terribly hard to read for most people, read up on how the human eye works to understand why. Put your time into loading a CMS system on your server then create your site in it. Yes the learning curve is steep in the beginning but it's not rote memorization of HTML tags. It is understanding how all the things work together. Ted > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Kline > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:58 PM > To: FreeBSD Mailing List > Subject: Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT. > > > Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page > was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black > on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with > firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since > '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- > mozilla, firefox, a couple others. > > About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost > flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event > feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () > on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things > were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. > > Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, > it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; > it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position > things on a .php or .html page. > > Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly > what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any > other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the > learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for > my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML > editors in ports? > > I'd be much obliged for any help here. > > > gary > > > > > > > -- > Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix > http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree-- mozilla, firefox, a couple others. About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar () on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle. Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research, it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE; it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position things on a .php or .html page. Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design for my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML editors in ports? I'd be much obliged for any help here. gary -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
