|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/24/08 20:19
In article <fn9p80$9uv$1@aioe.org>,
"mrcakey" <nospam@spamispoo.com> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-AB6AF1.10403124012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Really not the same thing is it?
> >>
> >> Why do people respond to analogies this way?
> >
> > Because they are don't understand them, they don't understand
> > their scope. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)
>
> Again, not true. It was clearly understood, I just don't agree with its
> underlying assumptions.
>
With respect, it does not seem to me you understand the point of
the analogy at all.
Harlan: "... factors that would make the building unusable.
These could include defects like an inability to keep the
building within tolerable temperatures during the height of the
winter or summer months; ceilings too short to allow the taller
employees to stand up straight; ..."
You: "But this is why I think your analogy was irrelevant. You
lead from the assumption that fixed-width layouts are inherently
"broken". They're not - for a start, CSS provides for distinct
stylesheets for different media."
The "assumption" is not some condition you need in order to
understand or agree with the analogy. The analogy was a way of
showing how a fixed width layout has inherent faults. It is not
lurking surreptitiously in the background. It is its point! Which
you are missing. That you don't agree with the point is an
entirely different question.
Your point about the css sheets is scrambling to fix the damage
which in your heart of hearts you know <g> - if you provide
enough stylesheet alternatives somehow, what is left of the fixed
width concept?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|