Where to draw the line between structure and presentation?
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-25 22:54
Not many people will argue that a table is a structural element of a graphic interface. Tabular data is meant to be presented as such. A desktop web browser, your $700 phone and links will render tables as is. Why is then relative container position not considered structure, but presentation?
You can't make a two column web page without using CSS (unless, of course, you use tables). Wouldn't it be weird if your desktop applications placed the Add button under the text box when you need it to be next to the box? Does it make sense to browse the web on links and having to scroll down at least three pages to get to the content because the super long left sidebar is rendered before the actual content?
Would adding layout elements like as position and size properties to the structure language of a GUI really make things less orthogonal? I'm not saying you should allow style attributes on GTK+, but it makes no sense that web documents use CSS for layout. You can browse the web without colors or special fonts, though usability is affected when you break the layout the original author had in mind. Not sure whether I'm missing an important design detail or the web is being an unorthodox hacked-together piece of shit as usual.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-25 23:40
just use plaintext files
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-25 23:54
Not sure whether I'm missing an important design detail or the web is being an unorthodox hacked-together piece of shit as usual.
Yes.
OK, seriously now: never write CSS and free yourself of all sins. Also, I get along very well with, for example, this document: http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/c89-draft.html (even though the navigation is just multiple pages at the top).
Most people don't give a shit about presentation but pretty much everybody (except for maybe our patron saint Terry) needs some structure.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-26 1:41
>>3 It's impossible not to write CSS when you need a sidebar, even if it's just a plain colorless sidebar. Positioning is structure, not presentation. The web has it wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-26 2:19
>>1 As they say, the internet was created by professionals, but the web was made by amateurs.
"The Internet was done so well that most people think of it as a natural resource like the Pacific Ocean, rather than something that was man-made. When was the last time a technology with a scale like that was so error-free? The Web, in comparison, is a joke. The Web was done by amateurs." -- Alan Kay.
>>4 Position is presentation. HTML isn't about presentation but semantics.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-26 14:30
>>8 If position is presentation, why don't you stop using tables and just list out the rows in plaintext?
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-26 18:19
Check dubs
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-26 23:45
>>9 How a HTML implementation chooses to portray the table isn't my concern as I do not implement the HTML standard. What I do know is that there is more to implementing tables than just horizontal row and vertical columns on a screen.
Name:
delete meta2016-09-27 3:50
7 Is orangey yellow, 8 is red, 9 is greenish and 10 is teal
>>17 They're both equally as expressive, sure, though you must be either the ``XML makes Java the acceptable Lisp'' troll or just never used XML in a big project if you think it's a good markup language to use.
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-27 18:29
>>18 I meant no difference in structure and there is none. XML is just more verbose, that's the only drawback.
never used XML in a big project if you think it's a good markup language to use
The key words here are "big project". In a big project, s-exprs would be only marginally better.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-27 19:10
>>19 Parsing S-exps is not ``marginally better'' than parsing XML.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-27 19:22
>>20 Then why does the world use XML and not s-exp?
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-27 20:06
>>21 Why does the world have niggers and not 100% white people? This isn't a perfect world.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-27 20:31
>>22 Because negroes are well adapted to the conditions of Africa and whites aren't. The real question is why do white people let negroes pollute their gene-pool and outbreed themselves? And the answer is that they're brainwashed with "diversity" and too decadent to have kids anymore. I.e. it's not the world that is imperfect, it's the people who make dumbass choices that corrupt the world. There used to be countries with 100% people, now there aren't anymore. Stop blaming "the world", blame stupid people.
>>8 tell me one thing in real life that behaves like this you fucking mongoloid
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 1:17
>>19 no, in a big project the space savings would be even greater
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 1:33
>>25 Google and Mozilla websites do this. The document is marked up into semantically correct denominations while being aided with presentational <div> tags for presentation you fucking mongoloid.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 3:57
presentational <div> tags
Might as well just generate everything in a single bash script. Separation of concerns my ass.
>>27 so your example of a project that uses HTML for semantics and not for presentation is something that uses HTML for both semantics and presentation? nice logic, fucktard
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 13:25
Web programming wouldn't be as painful if browsers were just Qt rendering engines. They are pretty bloated as they are, this wouldn't change much for the final user.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 13:32
Web programming wouldn't be as painful if browsers were just Unicode rendering engines. They are already pretty bloated, this would make life easier for the final user.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 13:44
Unicode is a bloated mess. We only need European languages which can fit in ASCII.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 14:13
dubs
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 14:24
>>32 Unicode doesn't support the box drawing characters used for drawing tables and so on. Though pure ASCII is far more portable.
The web should be nothing but a VM with a Lisp-like language that allows you to draw to it. Provide a basic HTML replacement that lets you do whatever the hell you want with your text, and if someone doesn't like your (title /prog/) tag, let them redefine them using the VM language.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-28 22:21
>>29 The HTML elements are being used for their proper purpose. These websites are semantically correct nice logic, fucktard
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 18:35
>>32 You probably mean that the incompatibility between UTF-16, UCS-2, wchar_t and char16_t (which are all meant to be 16 bit encodings, though wchar_t isn't required to actually be 16 bits) is a bloated mess. UTF-8 is cool, man.
>>34 ASCII doesn't support box drawing characters. ANSI and Unicode do.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 18:47
>>41 No, the Unicode standard is what's bloated. What the hell do I need a black man kissing white man emoji for?
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 19:22
>>42 Ok, you're right. It all started when they confused 'code point' with 'emoji' (wasn't it called 'emoticon' at some point?). Anyway, emojicons and emotis should be things like :-) and not actual code points. Which they also were at some point. But hey, who says you have to actually support the whole Unicode space? My boxes with digits in them are enough for me. Just boycott faggy fonts and systems that support them.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 19:22
>>41 As mentioned above, I meant "ASCII doesn't support box drawing characters". And is
And "ANSI" isn't a character encoding. ASCII and Windows-1252 are both ANSI standards, but neither supports box drawing characters. Those are only available with the Unicode/UTF encodings.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 20:52
>>44 My default codepage, 850 (Western European, as returned by chcp), supports some box drawing characters and 437 supports even more.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-29 23:21
>>42 Isn't the point of a universal text encoding standard to encompass all of humanity's text data? If this is so, why is it bloated?
What is text data? Letters? Glyphs? Pictograms? Symbolic Pictures? Pictures? As I already said, they confused emoticons and code points. Where to draw the line anyway?
Personally, I think they should only add things that remain in continuous use in real languages for at least a few years. Remember that latin characters have been in use for hundreds of years and will likely continue to do so. But does anyone really think that even a few people will remember that there is a rollercoaster emoji (U+1F3A2) or that there is pictogram showing a clamp denoting 'compression' (U+1F5DC) in Unicode?