Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!" (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t651695-not-the-isaerli-government-believes-they-need-a-firefox-version.html)

David Segall 01-07-2009 03:19 PM

NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and
Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
>html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
>seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
>opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
>just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
>experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an excellent
tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine the output or,
more frequently, I can use its code completion and related
documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a better way of
"explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view in Dreamweaver.

Jonathan N. Little 01-07-2009 05:40 PM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
David Segall wrote:
> In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
> off-topic sub-thread and
> Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
>> html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
>> seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
>> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
>> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
>> experience.

> It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
>
> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
> the underlying encoding.


Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Harlan Messinger 01-07-2009 06:55 PM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
David Segall wrote:
> In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
> off-topic sub-thread and
> Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
>> html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
>> seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
>> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
>> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
>> experience.

> It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
>
> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
> the underlying encoding.


Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
Microsoft is at fault.

A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

Helpful person 01-07-2009 07:15 PM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'FirefoxVersion'!"
 
On Jan 7, 1:55*pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Segall wrote:
> > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
> > off-topic sub-thread and
> > Neredbojias <neredboj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
> >> html-kick updating my site. *Not that I'm so good, but what used to
> >> seem impossible now seems trivial. *I do endorse the evidently majority
> >> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
> >> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
> >> experience.

> > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

>
> > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
> > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
> > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
> > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
> > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
> > the underlying encoding.

>
> Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
> Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
> document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
> Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
> Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
> something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
> completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
> internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
> Microsoft is at fault.
>
> A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
> application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
> sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
> there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
> it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
> be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
> about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
> HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
> like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
> produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
> valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


One only has to read a few of the threads in the FrontPage forum to
realize how futile it is to try and create a web site solely with a
third party program. Most of the questions relate to problems using
FrontPage instead of learning to understand HTML and CSS.

dorayme 01-07-2009 09:08 PM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
In article <c421$4964e8f3$40cba7c5$3330@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:

> David Segall wrote:

....
> > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
> > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
> > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
> > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
> > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
> > the underlying encoding.

>
> Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
> built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
> knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
> haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".


There are what are called scope tuners for pianos. That is, people who
tune pianos by means of an electronic instrument. They mostly do not
understand their field like real piano tuners and do not do as good a
job generally. The reasons are not hard to fathom.

--
dorayme

asdf 01-07-2009 09:37 PM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:WMKdnQo3aZBqlvjU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>David Segall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
>>> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
>>> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
>>> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
>>> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
>>> the underlying encoding.

>>
>>Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
>>Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
>>document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
>>Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
>>Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
>>something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
>>completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
>>internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
>>Microsoft is at fault.
>>
>>A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
>>application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
>>sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
>>there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
>>it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
>>be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
>>about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
>>HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
>>like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
>>produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
>>valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

>
> I can create a "Microsoft Word" document in Sun StarOffice and send
> it to someone who reads it using Kingsoft WPS Office. That doesn't
> mean that I need to learn the internals of that format. Likewise, if
> (note the "if") a tool exists that generates valid HTML, I don't need
> to learn the internals of that format either.
>


....but one of the differences between word format and (X)HTML is that the
tools used to view (X)HTML, that is to say web browsers do not display the
same results, or do not display some pages correctly EVEN if the markup is
100% valid. You *still* need to tweak things by hand to accommodate the
gammut of web browser bugs and associated work-arounds.

The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get
into a browser flame war over this either... all the browsers have their
strengths and weaknesses.

Simply using a tool that produces 100% valid markup is still not a solution.

While the web browser manufacturers continue to produce buggy rendering
engines, and while older browsers are still being used, markup by hand is
still the only solution, sadly.


> (I code my HTML by hand using a text editor, but that's just me...)
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>




Jonathan N. Little 01-08-2009 12:48 AM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
asdf wrote:

> The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
> life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
> is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get


Hey just to let you know, it ain't just IE6, 7 has its own set of
peekaboos that were not present in previous versions...When MS is not
busy fixing old bugs then they're busy creating new ones!

Here is one I discovered. If italic text, like EM touches a float--poof!
The rest of the page disappears. IE7 only, works fine in V5-6

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/l2340/ver2.php

My fix was to change the default style of EM to bold...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme 01-08-2009 01:06 AM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
In article <2g06t5.71p.17.1@news.alt.net>, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net>
wrote:

> dorayme wrote:


> > There are what are called scope tuners for pianos. That is, people who
> > tune pianos by means of an electronic instrument. They mostly do not
> > understand their field like real piano tuners and do not do as good a
> > job generally. The reasons are not hard to fathom.
> >

>
> I must disagree vehemently. If you have no knowledge of nor play (and,
> hence, need to tune) a stringed instrument, you have provided no way to
> explain what you mean. I /think/ I know what you mean but, then, I've
> been playing and tuning guitar since 1966.
>
> Once upon a time I had a round chromatic pitch pipe (it's around here
> somewhere). I would blow a concert A. I would tune the guitar's A
> sting to that. Every other string would be tuned relative to that one
> string.
>
> But! Depending upon the guitar, one needed also to then play a chord
> and make minute adjustments.
>


Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
too!) <g>


> Now I have a number of different types of electronic tuners. I can tune
> (very precisely) each string to its base harmonic and ensure that each
> string is precisely what it should be.
>
> And then? I strum a chord (or series of chords) and /listen/. Yeah,
> yeah, my 58 1/2 year old ears may be not as acute as they were but I
> /know/ what an open E, a barred F, an open G etc. should sound like.
>
> So, the electronic tools are great ... if you know how to use them.
>
> Perhaps that is what you were driving at?


Well, you described, after your intention to be *vehement*, a pussycat
opposition! You are like the DW user who *does* know wtf he is really
doing.

--
dorayme

dorayme 01-08-2009 01:11 AM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
In article <doraymeRidThis-88E683.12060208012009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
> tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
> too!) <g>


And, maybe not so btw, the natural piano tuner is almost always faster,
more efficient than a scope tuner who has to fiddle about...

--
dorayme

Blinky the Shark 01-08-2009 04:06 AM

Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"
 
David Segall wrote:

> In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a
> really off-topic sub-thread and
> Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
>>html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used
>>to seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the
>>evidently majority opinion around here that using progs like
>>Dreamweaver and Frontpage just rob one of the valuable and
>>ultimately necessary learning experience.

> It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
>
> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web
> page authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML.
> They are entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the
> way Microsoft Word encodes a document. If there is a program
> that generates error-free web pages there is no reason why they
> should have to learn the underlying encoding.
>
> Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an
> excellent tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine
> the output or, more frequently, I can use its code completion
> and related documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a
> better way of "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view
> in Dreamweaver.


It seems to me like a logical extension of this line of thinking
would be: When someone comes into a/the group with a question,
and he has created his code with...uh...when he has let, let's say
Dreamweaver, create his code, the best way to help him would be to
advise him that he can learn what he needs to know by just working
on his issue more with, in this example, Dreamweaver. Because
that's the "better way" of learning, and he can further avoid
understanding the code that way.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.