Re: New MCF pages

Steve Lhomme wrote:
>  >>> 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 ?
> 
> Using tricks when coding (PHP and HTML are coding languages) is NEVER a
> good option in the long term. Following standards is usually a much
> better option. Especially when it doesn't add much complexity.

Repeat: it's not a trick.
Repeat: it's not a trick.

> 
>  >> 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.
> 
> Yeah. On MCF we already had Ingo and Tronic nearly leaving so I assume
> you and Hikke might do so someday (I hope I'm not the cause of all these
> "problems"). So please keep in mind your work has to be usable by
> someone else, in order to avoid restarting from scratch.

It is. That person just has to be a bit tolerant to things that he 
doesn't like.

> 
> Also I like XHTML and PHP coding, and if I can make the site XHTML 1.0
> Transitional compliant, I will.
No, you won't. Do I need to pull this thing out of the air and claim 
copyrights to my design ?

> (and needing PHP on my machine to test before publishing is not going to help)
>  > 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.
> 
> OK, let's do it then :D
Extra effort cause you like it ?

> 
>  >> 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?)
> 
> Yes, I ALWAYS write HTML and PHP manually. But I'm sure Christian or
> other people won't do that (and they shouldn't HAVE to).
I hope you can trust me on that I will be able to instruct Christian 
into properly updating the webpage as it is. Thanks in advance.

> 
>  >> 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/.
> 
> If you can explain why it is necessary, it's OK.
You started about that pages need to be indexed by crawlers, I didn't.

> 
>  >> 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.
> 
> Well, with my proposition you just edit a web page, upload it, click on
> a button and you're done. Don't you think it's better ? The HTML/PHP
> coders can do complex things, that's not the content creator that should
> do that.
Well, with how it is now you can just login to sourceforge and edit the 
page on the fly. Do I need to repeat that Christian (and anyone else) is 
perfectly capable of doing that ? Coding a webinterface is just extra 
effort. Just like that XHTML crap. Cause you like it.

> 
>  > 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
> 
> I never said that. I said for dynamic content we need PHP. But on the
> other side for static content there is no good reason to use it. Let's
> not make something complicated when it's not needed. This is exactly
> what we're trying to do with MCF too.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? As it is now you CAN use dynamic content for 
ALL pages, but it's not necessary. This is perfect! Leave it alone!

> 
>  > 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
> 
> Why ? Because I don't have the time.
You seem to be the only one behind it, so I assume if you want something 
changed you have to do it yourself. And since I don't want you changing 
stuff I made you'll have to do it from scratch.

> 
>  > 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.
> 
> I gave you some advice from what I SAW, without checking the code. That
> was a few quick advices.
Well, thanks for your advice then, but I think I made it pretty clear 
I'm not interested in it.
 > Then you don't agree on everything I say. So I
> say it again with more background and still don't agree on anything.
DUH, maybe because I didn't agree from the start ? Explaining your 
arguments doesn't always lead into acceptation.
> You
> have your point of view, I have mine. Aren't we here to discuss and
> progress ? That's what we always do on MCF.
I have my point of view, and I was the one who made the page, you have 
your point of view and you didn't. I made it clear I don't like the 
changes you proposed. Don't force your opinion on me. You can make 
another page, and set up a poll to ask people what they like more. I 
don't want my page changed like that. And I think that then, it's just 
up to the rest of the team (taking poll results into consideration), 
which is the one to be official. Do I need to be more clear ? If you 
want to see what you proposed, put it in your own page. Don't ruin mine 
with it. Clear ?

> 
> BTW, I never felt the need to change anything at Tronic's page, except
> for checking XHTML validity. Changing to something I consider worse for
> no apparent reason (easier to put content (how do you add a new main
> section ?), harder to maintain, longer to "serve") probably need some
> discussions first.

I had to rewrite the table in Tronic's streamspec page cause it was so 
messy Dreamweaver couldn't even display it.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: DEDICATED SERVERS only $89!
> Linux or FreeBSD, FREE setup, FAST network. Get your own server today at 
> http://www.ServePath.com/indexfm.htm






-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: DEDICATED SERVERS only $89!
Linux or FreeBSD, FREE setup, FAST network. Get your own server 
today at http://www.ServePath.com/indexfm.htm