Re: New MCF pages

Steve Lhomme wrote:
> En réponse à mf <[email protected]>:
> 
>>What use is there in alt text for a logo ? A logo is something 
>>graphical, and putting an alt text in there is only going to ruin the 
>>layout in lynx. And it's not just tricking the validator, as I 
>>absolutely don't care about being 100% HTML conform. Lynx displays 
>>[image.gif] as alt text if no alt property is specified. Setting alt=""
>>means lynx will not display anything, and make the page look cleaner. 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what I said. It's a trick. Hopefully you're not making reusable
> code in C or C++ here ;) Now I know Mozilla can render pages without loading
> images. I wonder how it would render without them (never tested). Or maybe
> download the website in my Palm to browse the spec whenever I want ;)
>
Err, explain what you mean here ?

> 
>>The only image that makes sense to have an alternate text property has
>>one, and that's the sourceforge logo.
> 
> 
> Yeah, at least this is a consistent rule. Like in the image maps Tronic uses in
> the spec, you can't just get out with a blank alt text.
> 
> 
>>>Also why do you want to keep the space (%20) in the URL instead of
>>
>>using _ or no
>>
>>>space at all ?
>>
>>Cause of the way the PHP script handles the menu.
> 
> 
> I think I'll have to look at the PHP source to correct that. This is really not
> nice/compliant. As I said, testing with Mozilla or MSIE is simply not enough.
> MCF is meant to be usable everywhere (portable), the website should be the same.

Hikke and I are doing fine alone, thank you. I think MCF has some more 
important issues than a PHP glitch.

> 
> BTW, people are pushing XHTML for various reasons, not just to annoy webmasters
> (and force them to write clean pages). One of them is that handled device will
> soon use XHTML-Basic (like cell phones). I think we should follow the standard
> as close as possible, and I don't see any good reason to go into a non standard way.
> 

What's non-standard about HTML 4.0 Transitional ? I've never worked with 
XHTML before, and as far as I know it's just normal HTML but with XML 
tag rules. It's not that special.

> 
>>No, it just includes the page. You have to strip it yourself, but that's
>>not going to be hard, is it ?
> 
> 
> To edit a striped page, it will be. You have to add some the header/footer again
> or remove it everytime you edit the page. At least if you want to do something
> simple to update and you chose PHP, you could save some time/problems for the
> person who is in charge of the content.
> 
> The best (fast) way would be to "pre-strip" the data after every page upload. It
> can be done using a page.html.strip page next to page.html with the same time.
> If the time of page.html has changed, page.html.strip has to be stripped on the fly.

Not everyone uses Frontpage 2000 to design their pages. (If you didn't 
get my hint: a proper editor doesn't need starting and closing tags. 
Besides, can't you write HTML manually?)

>
> 
>>>Also, the title of the page remains the same wether it's on Home,
>>
>>License or
>>
>>>News. That's usually what is used as the link name in Google (or other
>>
>>engines).
>>
>>No problem at all. Hikke could even write (he doesn't know but he could
>>;) ) a script that writes different pages for crawlers (these identify
>>themselves with the userclient property).
> 
> 
> Hum... So why normal people couldn't access these pages for web engines ? Do you
> think it's safe to maintain 2 websites at the same time (even through scripting) ?
> 
> As for page stripping, you can also pre-process the site after every update, to
> create the static pages once for all. That will save SF's CPU and make the same
> site available to all. (only the dynamic parts would need to keep PHP)
> 
> I suspect that's how big news site are doing.
I meant serving a page specially for crawlers, /dynamically/.

> 
> 
>>>Don't get so nervous. I'm just trying to improve things. I've done the
>>
>>same
>>
>>>mistakes I'm pointing in the past, so I want to avoid it and share my
>>
>>knowledge.
>>
>>>Using 1 PHP page for a site is only good for security purposes in some
>>
>>cases,
>>
>>>not for a system that serves static pages (SSI was created long before
>>
>>to do that).
>>Instead of including header and footer in every page, we now include the 
>>page between the header and footer. I think it's easier that way.
> 
> 
> I don't understand the difference.
> 

The difference is that instead of writing [insert header] content 
[insert footer], you do header [insert content] footer. In other words, 
you only have to edit the content.

> cya
> 
> 
Before ending, I'd really like to ask you to stop just going against 
everything I've set up now. PHP is bad, dynamic is bad, including 
content instead of including header/footer is bad, my sourceforge logo 
is bad, using gif is bad.. Why didn't you do it yourself then ?! We're 
all a bunch of incompetent bastards, and next you're going to criticize 
Christians texts too! Where does it end ? Besides, what you call 
constructive criticism is still just enlarging neglectible details to a 
point where you'd call them all-important, in my opinion. Have you ever 
looked at the page with Lynx ? Or Opera, or Konqueror ? You complain 
about compatibility, but I doubt you even ran the URL through the 
validator to check first. I just did, and there aren't any errors that 
will render the page unreadable or not properly readable in any 
browsers. Just some untidy HTML, that 99% of browsers tolerate. So 
puh-leaze. Stop this "is too!" -"is not!" fight.

> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf






-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf