General :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
General discussion about K-Meleon
Fixed design
Posted by:
Rowan Lewis
Date: August 30, 2006 05:41AM
Hey, I just spent a little time creating a mockup of the Get Involved page which follows the XHTML standard and uses semantic markup (no tables for layout, no extra markup):
http://pixelcarnage.net/Projects/K-Meleon/001/HTML/
The current page is over 12kb, but my new page is just over 3kb, most of this is because every single list item on that page was in its own UL element, in its own P element:
<p>
<ul type="circle">
<li>...</li>
</ul>
</p>
Thats a scary amount of code... I hope my example can be of use.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Enaitz Jar
Date: August 30, 2006 11:23AM
I've compared yours with the current one and IMO yours looks better, maybe I need new glasses but yours looks some way cleaner, did you use the same fonts?
Why don't we change to yours?
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
kko
Date: August 30, 2006 11:40AM
Thank you very much for this example.
I'd greatly appreciate a design based on semantic tags and CSS with relative font sizes. What I hate most about table-based layouts is there fixed width that never adapts to the width of the window. So consider to specify the width for #main in % instead in em...
Your source code looks good. Just remember to close empty tags in XHTML (meta, link, img, br)!
Changing our layout is not so easy because our pages are server generated (php/wiki). That'd be a bigger effort!
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
guenter
Date: August 30, 2006 12:06PM
Great and Best: Its valid.
console2 does not show any of the errors of the SF pages on this new page:-)
Enaitz Jar we do not change since the pages may have to be recoded.
kko em is relative enough for me, do not remind him of my faults <grinz /><br />
greetings to AU, ES and DE
Nice!
Posted by:
rmn
Date: August 30, 2006 12:11PM
Wow, I have to agree, it's really nice. Your use of stylesheets is outstanding. Let's see what other people think, and I'll try to persuade the developers to use this as template.
By the way, the multiple P/UL elements problem is due to the wiki engine thinking that "{list item} {blank line} {list item}" means "{list item} {new paragraph} {new list}". It's possible to fix this by removing the blank lines between list items in the wiki source, but then the source will become quite unreadable.
...If you can't understand the previous paragraph, just see this wiki text and compare with
the result.
Quote
asdf
*asdf
*asdf
*asdf
asdf
Cheers
Re: Nice!
Posted by:
guenter
Date: August 30, 2006 01:07PM
rmn: Not all in this thread can log in:-)
Little need to persuade anyone (with a lean browser) of the effectiveness of lean code.
If we want and can use this we should mail everling & ask whether he wants it also and can technically implement that for future use.
(we will possibly not have the manpower to redo many/any old pages)
wiki source: maybe remove blank lines by script for used code version.
and keep one soure version backup that is for future editing?
Re: Nice!
Posted by:
rmn
Date: August 30, 2006 02:14PM
guenter wrote:
>
> rmn: Not all in this thread can log in:-)
Oh, sorry, I didn't know we had to login to view an old version of a page. It's probably still in the [wiki]Sandbox[/wiki] page, but in case it's not, here's the simplified result:
Quote
<p>asdf</p>
<p><ul>
<li>asdf</li>
<li>asdf</li>
</ul></p> <!-- the blank line causes this -->
<p><ul>
<li>asdf</li>
</ul></p>
<p>asdf</p>
> Little need to persuade anyone (with a lean browser) of the
> effectiveness of lean code.
> If we want and can use this we should mail everling & ask
> whether he wants it also and can technically implement that
> for future use.
Alright, why not? Can you contact everling?
>
> (we will possibly not have the manpower to redo many/any old
> pages)
If my guess is correct, the number of page that should be changed is exactly one: the template.
>
> wiki source: maybe remove blank lines by script for used code
> version.
> and keep one soure version backup that is for future editing?
My opinion: just remove the blank lines and hope nobody adds them again later.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Dorian
Date: August 30, 2006 03:37PM
I have only one complaint. The menu should be sized in em not in px.
My opinion: just remove the blank lines and hope nobody adds them again later.
I don't think we should reduce readability just because of some extra tags. The readers don't care about them, really.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
rmn
Date: August 30, 2006 04:23PM
Dorian wrote:
>
> I don't think we should reduce readability just because of
> some extra tags. The readers don't care about them, really.
Which "readability" are you talking about? The readability of the page, or the source?
If you're talking about page readability, I agree. However, making the page semantically correct (ul-li-li-/ul instead of ul-li-/ul-ul-li-/ul) does not mean reducing readability, as the stylesheet can be set to add spacing between LI elements, giving the same result.
If you're talking about source readability, well, I don't mind working with slightly unreadable page source, but if others don't agree, I concede.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Dorian
Date: August 30, 2006 07:07PM
(ul-li-li-/ul instead of ul-li-/ul-ul-li-/ul) does not mean reducing readability, as the stylesheet can be set to add spacing between LI elements, giving the same result.
This means adding a blank line for all lists, which is not very good either.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Rowan Lewis
Date: August 30, 2006 11:22PM
Dorian, the menu is sized in PX because it has to fit the logo width, there isn't much than can be done about it.
I can see the trouble with the wiki, perhaps there is a way to fix this by filtering the output it generates and remove the wrapping P elements and the extra UL tags that are made?
Of course, I could write such a function myself, but there are a few problems:
1. What PHP version is available on the server.
2. How to integrate it into the wiki.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Dorian
Date: September 02, 2006 09:26PM
Dorian, the menu is sized in PX because it has to fit the logo width, there isn't much than can be done about it.
It's possible to do it so that it has the same behavior than the current design.
I can see the trouble with the wiki, perhaps there is a way to fix this by filtering the output it generates and remove the wrapping P elements and the extra UL tags that are made?
This would be very inefficient and this wiki doesn't even cache results.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Rowan Lewis
Date: September 04, 2006 01:46AM
"It's possible to do it so that it has the same behavior than the current design."
What is the current behaviour?
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
guenter
Date: September 04, 2006 01:08PM
Behaviour of logo and writing in the area near logo:
The about.xhtml of 1.0.2 RC reworked by kko has better behaviour tha forum = I like it better / can we use that?
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
kko
Date: September 04, 2006 06:38PM
What about
this? It's Rowan's draft slightly modified.
Compare both pages when:
- Resizing the browser window
- Zooming in k-meleon
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
ra
Date: September 05, 2006 08:33AM
Maybe without "and PixelCarnage Productions"...
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Andrew
Date: September 08, 2006 09:12PM
If someone is going to take the time to recode the page (which I tried to do a loooong time ago but never got the OK to change over), why not look at the design and see if the page could be better designed. Even a new logo is probably in order. But for using the existing layout, I agree that it looks nice and the old code was horrendous!
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
BenoitRen
Date: September 08, 2006 11:38PM
You shouldn't use XHTML unless you understand what it is and what the benefits are. I doubt you need those benefits. Please read this page to know why you should avoid XHTML unless you know why you should:
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
The logo shouldn't dictate the width of the menu. Put it in a kind of container that stretches with the rest and center the logo. Something like that.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Rowan Lewis
Date: September 17, 2006 01:51AM
kko, thats a nice trick, I'll update my copy to use it, but I'll place the image in the original header.
ra, I took my time to offer some help, is it so wrong to want some credit for that?
BenoitRen, please don't start another XHTML debate, what it comes down to for me is personal choice, and the tools I work with.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
BenoitRen
Date: September 17, 2006 04:27PM
It's not worth it. Your XHTML will be treated as plain HTML because of being sent as text/html. Did you even take the time to read the link I provided?
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
ra
Date: September 17, 2006 08:55PM
If anyone would be listed that did some error corrections here, the list would be endless. The design is still by the artist formerly known as splif, not by "PixelCarnage Productions"! There are other drafts for more standard compliant pages out there as well. Investing five minutes to remove errors that the w3-validator can tell you and getting a link to your company's homepage on *every* *single* *page* here would be a cheap advertisement that's not due in my opinion.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Dorian
Date: September 19, 2006 10:41AM
I don't think this design worth much in term of advertisement anyways.
I wouldn't mind a better redesign if you're up to the task, and maybe a little something for the bug tracker to make it a bit more friendly. I'll make the source available if you want.
Currently I have to say that I'm not a fan of the new used font, and it doesn't look good for the menu.
As for the extra tags and the filter you talked about, ErfurtWiki can handle plugin, and it wouldn't be difficult I think to make one for this task (though an old version of the wiki is used: 1.0b).
XHTML is fine with me.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
Rowan Lewis
Date: September 26, 2006 08:17AM
BenoitRen, I've done much better, I've written similar articles myself. This is not the time nor place for a debate about the virtues of XHTML.
ra, I can respect that, but while its on my server, I'll keep the link. It'd be nice to point out however that I spent a deal more time than 5 minutes on this.
Dorian, I'd love to make a new design, but at the moment I'm tied up with three simultaneous projects. The font I'm not sure about, I've set it to Verdana, or the default sans-serif font on the system.
If its possible to filter all the output by writing a plugin, that'd be useful. But again, it comes down to time (mine, or anyone elses).
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
BenoitRen
Date: September 26, 2006 10:08AM
There is no fucking debate. XHTML is harmful to the web when sent as text/html. The web standards back this.
There is no reason to use XHTML if you don't need to use namespaces like MathML and SVG along with HTML in your document. End of the line.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
kko
Date: September 26, 2006 12:33PM
There is no fucking debate. XHTML is harmful to the web when sent as text/html.
No debate?
Your guru is telling all facts, BenoitRen. But his conclusions are debatable, since they only reflect his personal opinion.
Harmful to the web? Quotes:
- These are not likely to be problems for authors who regularly validate their pages...
- If you are one of the few authors who understands how to avoid the issues raised in this document and does validate all their markup, then this document probably does not apply to you...
That's why I don't really get your point.
XHTML 1.0 is seven (!) years old. Professional web designers should have learned to handle it in the mean time - and the related problems. Modern browsers all support XHTML (IE6 is five years old and thus cannot be called modern). XHTML is getting more and more important, especially due to mobile devices.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
rmn
Date: September 26, 2006 01:02PM
Cool, I haven't seen a flamewar in this forum for a long time; this might just be the chance to see another one. (I hope not, though.)
BenoitRen wrote:
>
> There is no fucking debate. XHTML is harmful to the web when
> sent as text/html. The web standards back this.
So, is it not possible to send application/xhtml+xml instead?
I'm also curious, does the XHTML standard really say that sending XHTML as text/html is bad for the WWW?
Anyway, I can't say I care either way. Done properly (including the correct MIME type and whatnot), HTML or XHTML is alright; they're both Web standards and they both have a place in the future (i.e. XHTML 2.0 and HTML5). In addition, for most Web sites, a switch between the two can be done in a short time, and I don't see the point of arguing between them at this stage—the switch can always be done later when/if K-Meleon decides to use this or another design.
Cheers
rmn
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
ra
Date: September 26, 2006 06:49PM
Rowan,
ra, I can respect that, but while its on my server, I'll keep the link. It'd be nice to point out however that I spent a deal more time than 5 minutes on this.
Sure, I'd like to see a credit page in the Wiki (if there isn't one already?), listing the people that do and did s. th. here. And it should then include your work, once it is done, as well of course.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
kko
Date: September 26, 2006 07:07PM
No flamewar, please! Just a polite exchange of different points of view
So, is it not possible to send application/xhtml+xml instead?
Practically it is not since legacy browsers (such as IE6) do not know this MIME type and will offer such pages for download instead of displaying them.
I'm also curious, does the XHTML standard really say that sending XHTML as text/html is bad for the WWW?
No, that's nonsense. See
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#texthtml and following.
...they're both Web standards and they both have a place in the future (i.e. XHTML 2.0 and HTML5).
Not quite. AFAIK HTML is discontinued. See
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/#bugs and following.
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
kko
Date: September 26, 2006 07:14PM
Sure, I'd like to see a credit page in the Wiki (if there isn't one already?), listing the people that do and did s. th. here. And it should then include your work, once it is done, as well of course.
Very salomonic, ra! Agreed. I guess, there are really a lot of people who have spent even more time than Rowan maintaining this website. AFAIK they aren't listed anywhere...
Re: Fixed design
Posted by:
BenoitRen
Date: September 26, 2006 08:18PM
> "Modern browsers all support XHTML (IE6 is five years old and thus cannot be called modern)."
While I agree with that assessment, the fact remains that IE6 is still the most widely used browser on the web, so we're forced to support it.
> "XHTML is getting more and more important, especially due to mobile devices."
Personal Opinion: "Mobile phones should stay off the web and stay what they were designed as: PHONES."
That being said, unless WAP is a mark-up/style sheet language, I doubt XHTML is needed.
> "So, is it not possible to send application/xhtml+xml instead?"
Not when you have to support IE6.
> "I'm also curious, does the XHTML standard really say that sending XHTML as text/html is bad for the WWW?"
There used to be an appendix C on the XHTML Recommendation, which proposed guidelines for sending XHTML as text/html for backwards-compatibility. Clearly it was seen as a mistake, as it's been removed.
> "a switch between the two can be done in a short time, and I don't see the point of arguing between them at this stage—the switch can always be done later when/if K-Meleon decides to use this or another design"
In theory, yes. But in practice, once a site has been switched to XHTML, it stays that way because XHTML is the newest hot web thing and the designer doesn't want to change to something 'old'.