From: "Gary Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I agree that
>   we ought to trash frames
>   we ought to use strict xhtml 1.0
>   we ought to rely on CSS for all graphic elements
>   (correlative) we ought to not use *any* shims or non-logical tables
>   the site ought to work completely without JS or Flash
>   the site ought to be usable and legible without any CSS
> I disagree that
>   we ought to use iframes (why lock out NS4 if we don't have to?)
>   we ought to avoid Flash like the plague (see my XML file tree email)
>   this shouldn't be the default skin (it *should*)
> I further feel that
>   it would be very easy to develop a CSS file folder that one could place
> a skin that would deliver different CSS files based on browser-sniffing.
> CSS could be cached by the browser if we always call it from the same

Hmm... If only someone had thought of that, say about a year ago. ( )

My question is this: Everyone is saying "The ZMI is bad, it's confusing,
users don't like it". Could anyone show me evidence of this? Personally I
love the ZMI in the current versions. I have also found there is a
negligable learning curve for users who already know how to use Windows
Explorer and similar products. I just don't see the need to throw out the
ZMI - Are we in a baby/bathwater situation here?

> address.  While CSS support varies widely in all the various browsers, and
> think we should *ship* with a CSS file that requires a standards-compliant
> browser such as those that Toby lists, I see *no reason* why we should
> the html itself so that a NS4 user could not use the default skin simply
> building him or her a new CSS file.  It might not look nearly as slick as
> compliant browsers, but you can still do some reasonable things with NS4
> only...

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to