|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/11/07 13:41
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:49:12
GMT Ben C scribed:
>>> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing
>>> a reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are
>>> moving towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same
>>> everywhere. But you are right; the standards themselves are
>>> terrible, badly formed, very hard to understand.
>>
>> Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"?
>
> You have to bear in mind how difficult a job it is, diplomatically as
> well as technically. Then you have to ask how could it have been done
> better, and if you can't come up with too many ideas, conclude that
> they are probably are actually doing a good job.
Well, I don't look at it (nor most things) quite that way. Just because
I may not have plentiful experience within the scope of the subject per
se does not preclude my right or ability to criticize the results. Yes,
I have lots of experience in _using_ the standards but little in
actually formulating them to be viably progressive. My decision
regarding their worth or lack thereof is based upon the ease-of-use with
which they may be instituted and the reliability they demonstrate in
performing. As both of these areas are currently somewhat of a joke
often enough to be notable, I feel quite confident that my opinion is
the correct one.
> How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
> history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you
> design?
I am not nor profess to be an expert in designing box models, but first
and foremost, said model should be logical _and_ easy to use. I'd
approach the problem by "reverting" to a model wherein the "100%"
designation includes borders/margins/padding and see, by empirical
testing, how that might be accommodated. I would re-base top and bottom
percentage designations applied on margins, etc., to height as opposed
to width. I would strive to make the immediate container the default
container, not the ephemeral "body". Assuming I had the time, I would
look at the whole DOM structure because it is quite flawed. An html
document isn't a "tree" at all, it's a hologram, and all the bs
currently being disseminated about "semantic markup" is bupkis. Sure,
semantics _are_ pertinent to markup, but when improperly foundationed,
they mean next-to-nothing.
In short, I would have to re-evaluated the whole trend of html
"progress" made over the last 10 years or so and undoubtedly start fresh
from primitive beginnings. And as I've already intimated, I'm no expert
so why should my results be any "better" than those of "the pros"? The
trouble here is that "the pros" lack inherent sense, political acuity
and guidance in real-world methods. Perhaps they simply need a wise
leader, but it's rather passe now, anyway, since too much damage has
already been done under the cretinous format extant.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|