|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/15/06 12:03
To further the education of mankind, "Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
vouchsafed:
>>>>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
>>>>> has to look the same with & without.
>>>>
>>>> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is
>>>> really dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet
>>>> or even replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of
>>>> validity.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
>>> presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
>>> is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).
>>
>> You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that
>> javascript _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as
>> can css or any other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting
>> functionality' has nothing to do with it except to denigrate the
>> language.
>>
>>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of
>>> most of the time, with IMO good reason.
>>
>> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
>> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
>> javascript any less viable a styling method.
>
> But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
> turned of.
By all reasonable accounts, that's around 10%. People are stupid. Even
Bush got a majority...
I do expect the percentage to go up in time, however, but also expect
j/s to be "tempered" by the browsers a bit more which will counteract
that trend. In any event, I think j/s is here to stay.
>>> That doesn't mean I don't want to
>>> see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
>>> likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.
>>
>> Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does,
>> indeed, matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?
>
> I refer you to my earlier comment :-)
>
> "3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
> 6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point
> 3 offcourse)."
Did you hear about the new xhtml3, referring to the "progressive"
heading thing? Oh, it's wonderful (according to some people.)
Yeah, right. Semantic markup is pretty much a myth. The only
"semantics" that count for anything are how one piece of information is
separated from another and what emphasis is placed on each. Everything
else is tripe including almost all of the relational aspects so dearly
beloved of the pseudo-grammaticists.
--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|