www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - dmd 0.124 web pages

reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
1) The link to
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/std_boxer.html
seems to be broken.

2) It might be advisable either to reintroduce "bgcolor"
in the "BODY" HTML tag or remove the mostly useless
DOCTYPE tag at the beginning of the HTML files.

The reason is a bug in IE: If the system colors are
inverted (e.g. black background to reduce eyestrain),
specifying DOCTYPE causes IE to use the system
background instead of the browser's background
color. Strangely enough this happens only to frames.

In such a case the left frame of digitalmars.com/d
will display properly (because bgolor is specified)
and all right frames will be displayed black font on
black background (except for the links).
May 19 2005
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
doctype tag to use.
May 19 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
It depends on what HTML you use.

For example, I always use XHTML.  In this case, the first CHARACTERS of 
the file MUST be, because of bugs in IE and other browsers:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

Should there be any whitespace before the DOCTYPE, IE will revert to 
quirks mode (which basically means it thinks/knows you are an amateur.) 
  Standards mode will be used if the doctype is there correctly (meaning 
it will follow the HTML specs, etc.... as best it can.)

XHTML makes HTML stricter, but there's plenty of information on the web 
about the differences.

If you want HTML 4, this is what you want:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Again, same as above - quirks or standards mode.  Ommitting the doctype 
means quirks and HTML 4 in most browsers (not just IE.)

Anyway, bgcolor is deprecated in HTML 4 (afaik) and XHTML.  Instead, 
stylesheets should/are generally used:

body
{
	background-color: white;
	font: small sans-serif;
}

Which would probably fix the problem reported in the first post in this 
thread.

But I suppose that's a moot point, because <font> and a few of the other 
elements/attributes you use are also deprecated in favor of the use of CSS.

If you want your HTML valid (which I'm a nut about, but I know many 
don't care), I suggest:

http://validator.w3.org/

Some of the error messages aren't wonderful, though; you'll get a lot of 
these:

document type does not allow element "XYZ" here; missing one of 
"APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag

Because block level elements (hr, table, etc.) are not allowed inside of 
  <font>, which you've wrapped around the whole document (which was very 
logical in HTML 3, and is why CSS is now in more heavy usage.)

-[Unknown]



 Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
 doctype tag to use.
May 19 2005
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <ky220 umail.ucsb.edu> writes:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

 It depends on what HTML you use.
 
 For example, I always use XHTML.  In this case, the first CHARACTERS of 
 the file MUST be, because of bugs in IE and other browsers:
 
 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" 
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
 
 Should there be any whitespace before the DOCTYPE, IE will revert to 
 quirks mode (which basically means it thinks/knows you are an amateur.) 
  Standards mode will be used if the doctype is there correctly (meaning 
 it will follow the HTML specs, etc.... as best it can.)
 
 XHTML makes HTML stricter, but there's plenty of information on the web 
 about the differences.
 
 If you want HTML 4, this is what you want:
 
 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
 
 Again, same as above - quirks or standards mode.  Ommitting the doctype 
 means quirks and HTML 4 in most browsers (not just IE.)
 
 Anyway, bgcolor is deprecated in HTML 4 (afaik) and XHTML.  Instead, 
 stylesheets should/are generally used:
 
 body
 {
     background-color: white;
     font: small sans-serif;
 }
 
 Which would probably fix the problem reported in the first post in this 
 thread.
 
 But I suppose that's a moot point, because <font> and a few of the other 
 elements/attributes you use are also deprecated in favor of the use of CSS.
 
 If you want your HTML valid (which I'm a nut about, but I know many 
 don't care), I suggest:
 
 http://validator.w3.org/
 
 Some of the error messages aren't wonderful, though; you'll get a lot of 
 these:
 
 document type does not allow element "XYZ" here; missing one of 
 "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag
 
 Because block level elements (hr, table, etc.) are not allowed inside of 
  <font>, which you've wrapped around the whole document (which was very 
 logical in HTML 3, and is why CSS is now in more heavy usage.)
 
 -[Unknown]
 
 

 Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
 doctype tag to use.




Thanks for getting on this... I was gonna write all those things too! 
Standards are important people!
May 19 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Thanks!
May 20 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Sorry, I should have also mentioned - for the frameset, you'll want to 
use a different doctype:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">

Or:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

Which, clearly, indicate the document is a frameset.  Transitional and 
Strict are also available, but if you want to support most browsers 
(other than Netscape 4.x and below which is nearly impossible to support 
properly) you'll want Transitional.  Strict is a little to strict for now.

For more information, I suggest:

http://www.w3schools.com/

Not for the tutorials (which are okay), but for the reference.

-[Unknown]
May 20 2005
parent reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d6k76l$h34$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Sorry, I should have also mentioned - for the frameset, you'll want to use 
 a different doctype:

 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" 
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">

 Or:

 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" 
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

 Which, clearly, indicate the document is a frameset.  Transitional and 
 Strict are also available, but if you want to support most browsers (other 
 than Netscape 4.x and below which is nearly impossible to support 
 properly) you'll want Transitional.  Strict is a little to strict for now.

 For more information, I suggest:

 http://www.w3schools.com/

 Not for the tutorials (which are okay), but for the reference.

 -[Unknown]



C'mon! The truth is - none is really needed.

We are talking about D reference documentation here.
Not too long ago this would have been plain text, but
HTML helps to improve readability. Whatever features
beyond Netscape 4.x you use here is completely
unnecessary luxury.

Walter has done a great job in designing D and he has
done an equally great job so far in rejecting Javascript
and other advanced features for the D docs (his Google
ads and email obfuscation being an exception).
Therefore Walter's web pages look good, offer excellent
readability, and, most importantly, are loading fast.

I can imagine that lots of people are thinking that
they could do a superior web design job. But I am afraid
that this would be the day when pages are packed with
features, load slowly and are optimized for 1024x768
or less because they are too complicated to allow
the browser to fit them properly on various screen
resolutions.

Therefore I am pretty comfortable with the current
situation: sophisticated D language and simple doc
format.
May 20 2005
next sibling parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
HTML/CSS/etc., yes?

In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the 
Test Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people 
filled in wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - 
because the school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if 
they made a mistake in taking it.

Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but 
it's also correct, plain and simple.

I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
things I do is look at their website's HTML.  Good HTML shows me that 
they either know what they're doing, or have put in the effort to hire 
someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know what they're doing, 
or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.

When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits 
it had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was 
enough to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.

Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having 
invalid HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to 
programmers like me, who are often a little too concerned about people 
following the letter of the standards.

Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.  Even if the 
site looks the same, the HTML will show that it is not from the 1990's.

Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that mean of 
the language?  And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly 
up-and-coming language from the 1990's?

-[Unknown]
May 20 2005
next sibling parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Let me clarify this, though; I mean nothing against Walter.

There are plenty of people who have low-level programming down, or can 
understand things in science no one else can who don't know the 
standards.  There's nothing wrong with this and it means nothing less of 
the person.

But that doesn't mean, at least in my opinion, that the HTML should be 
invalid; it just means that making it valid should be someone else's 
responsibility.  Someone who knows *that* better than quantum physics or 
compiler optimization.

-[Unknown]



 So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
 HTML/CSS/etc., yes?
 
 In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
 bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the 
 Test Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people 
 filled in wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - 
 because the school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if 
 they made a mistake in taking it.
 
 Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
 standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
 markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
 text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but 
 it's also correct, plain and simple.
 
 I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
 about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
 things I do is look at their website's HTML.  Good HTML shows me that 
 they either know what they're doing, or have put in the effort to hire 
 someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know what they're doing, 
 or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.
 
 When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
 impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
 go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits 
 it had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was 
 enough to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.
 
 Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
 office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having 
 invalid HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to 
 programmers like me, who are often a little too concerned about people 
 following the letter of the standards.
 
 Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.  Even if the 
 site looks the same, the HTML will show that it is not from the 1990's.
 
 Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that mean of 
 the language?  And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly 
 up-and-coming language from the 1990's?
 
 -[Unknown]
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message
news:d6lq40$1qij$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Let me clarify this, though; I mean nothing against Walter.

 There are plenty of people who have low-level programming down, or can
 understand things in science no one else can who don't know the
 standards.  There's nothing wrong with this and it means nothing less of
 the person.

 But that doesn't mean, at least in my opinion, that the HTML should be
 invalid; it just means that making it valid should be someone else's
 responsibility.  Someone who knows *that* better than quantum physics or
 compiler optimization.


Would you care to download one of the fairly representative pages, and
reformat it into valid HTML, so I could use it as a template?
May 20 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip

As an example.  It should look roughly the same, but it uses less 
presentational elements and valid HTML.

If you view the source, you'll see it still looks roughly the same.  If 
anything, it should be a bit simpler (for example, the code section... 
just a pre is needed.)  Again, like I said - I'm not trying to insult 
you, you just didn't know it wasn't valid.

Anyway, the only main differences between XHTML and HTML you need to 
know are as follows:

Always close <li> elements.  Bad:

<ul>
    <li>blah blah
    <li>blah blah
</ul>

Good:

<ul>
    <li>blah blah</li>
    <li>blah blah</li>
</ul>

Always close img tags, and always provide an alt (you were):

<img src="...." alt="if the image was 404 show this instead" />

Enclose paragraphs in <p>:

<p>...</p>

Don't use <p> for a break, use <br />:

Some text (not a paragraph)...<br />
Next line

And lastly (I don't know that you did this either) don't cross-nest:

<b><i>Bold and italic</b></i>

Does this look reasonable, just for XHTML compatibility?  I know I 
mentioned in another topic I wanted to post an example of possibly 
making things look different, but like you said in another branch of 
this topic, one thing at a time...

-[Unknown]



 Would you care to download one of the fairly representative pages, and
 reformat it into valid HTML, so I could use it as a template?
May 21 2005
next sibling parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Yes, I think it's reasonable. Thanks!
May 22 2005
prev sibling parent reply Nod <Nod_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6o75f$jm3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...

http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip


Nice! But maybe a touch too baby blue for me.

If you don't mind, Unknown, I might take a stab at this. I started some work on
the webpage a while back, but didn't get very far. Your work has given me new
inspiration, and I think I see a few areas which could be improved.

(And I could probably use a break from the whole value-based overloading thing
:)

-Nod-
May 22 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Actually, I didn't change anything layout-wise.  There's another thread 
about my comments there, although some of them seem to have fueled some 
of the changes in the website.

I'm just very happy it's valid XHTML now :D.

PS: Baby blue?  Where?  Have I gone color blind?

-[Unknown]



 In article <d6o75f$jm3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...
 

http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip


 
 
 Nice! But maybe a touch too baby blue for me.
 
 If you don't mind, Unknown, I might take a stab at this. I started some work on
 the webpage a while back, but didn't get very far. Your work has given me new
 inspiration, and I think I see a few areas which could be improved.
 
 (And I could probably use a break from the whole value-based overloading thing
 :)
 
 -Nod-
May 23 2005
parent Nod <Nod_member pathlink.com> writes:
Actually, I didn't change anything layout-wise.  There's another thread 
about my comments there, although some of them seem to have fueled some 
of the changes in the website.

I'm just very happy it's valid XHTML now :D.

PS: Baby blue?  Where?  Have I gone color blind?

-[Unknown]


 <snip>





monitor... I gotta get this thing color calibrated.

-Nod-
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d6lpmm$1qa0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
 HTML/CSS/etc., yes?


Wrong. It my opinion it should be valid HTML, but my
blood pressure will remain stable even if it isn't,
provided contents are displayed correctly.

Using deprecated tags like <center> is not what
I'd use in my own HTML files. But if someone does
I wouldn't care much because browsers won't stop
rendering them correctly in the years to come.
If they did, they'd face obsoletion.




 In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
 bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the Test 
 Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people filled in 
 wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - because the 
 school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if they made a 
 mistake in taking it.

 Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
 standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
 markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
 text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but it's 
 also correct, plain and simple.


I am not suggesting invalid HTML, I am suggesting
to keep documentation as simple as possible.
Under normal circumstances readability can be
kept at a high level and browsing web pages will
usually benefit by using 'ancient' HTML design
methods. I would never suggest to go back to
the 90's if other features (corporate identity, etc.)
are the primary goal.




 I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
 about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
 things I do is look at their website's HTML.


You do,
I do rarely,
99.?% will never bother to look at the website's HTML.




 Good HTML shows me that they either know what they're doing, or have put 
 in the effort to hire someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know 
 what they're doing, or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.


Bad HTML is prevalent, but that will usually not suffice
to give you a clue about company policies.




 When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
 impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
 go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits it 
 had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was enough 
 to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.


What a difference! I was just looking at the D language specs
and was immediately impressed.




 Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
 office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having invalid 
 HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to programmers like 
 me, who are often a little too concerned about people following the letter 
 of the standards.


As mentioned before I do not advocate invalid HTML....




 Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.


Assuming valid HTML 4.01 - specifying the doctype would not
benefit me at all, because browsers are required to treat
documents as HTML 4.01 transitional if doctype is not specified.
Using CSS could be beneficial in some cases, but if CSS features
are not required, I would not attempt to convince anyone to use it.




 Even if the  site looks the same, the HTML will show that it
 is not from the 1990's.


No, it won't. If the site looks the same the vast majority
of visitors will not care about its HTML. I personally do not
care about HTML style as long as the D documentation remains
useful.




 Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that
 mean of the language?


It means that the language was conceived in the 90's.
( Ref.: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/intro.html )




 And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly up-and-coming 
 language from the 1990's?


I guess I do.
May 20 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Don't be concerned about my blood pressure.  It's a fairly good level, 
and you'll be happy to know I have nice, healthy, strong blood (as 
compared to most people.)  And, I am not as worked up as you'd like me 
to be.

Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special 
subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does 
not include <center>.

Anyway, is this so scary as you imply?

http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/

You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the 
text flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use 
Dauphin as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.

As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation 
that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks 
like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to 
clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it 
AFTER the 1990's.

-[Unknown]



 Wrong. It my opinion it should be valid HTML, but my
 blood pressure will remain stable even if it isn't,
 provided contents are displayed correctly.
 
 Using deprecated tags like <center> is not what
 I'd use in my own HTML files. But if someone does
 I wouldn't care much because browsers won't stop
 rendering them correctly in the years to come.
 If they did, they'd face obsoletion.
 
 
 You do,
 I do rarely,
 99.?% will never bother to look at the website's HTML.
 



And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly up-and-coming 
language from the 1990's?


 
 
 I guess I do.
May 21 2005
parent reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d6o7ir$k3h$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Don't be concerned about my blood pressure.  It's a fairly good level, and 
 you'll be happy to know I have nice, healthy, strong blood (as compared to 
 most people.)


Good to know, congrat's.




 Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special 
 subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does 
 not include <center>.


Funny thought - reading D specs on a PDA.
Don't tell me that you'd seriously take care about
these tiny monsters while polishing the D docs.




 Anyway, is this so scary as you imply?

 http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/


Nope, looks safe to me!





 You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the text 
 flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use Dauphin 
 as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.


You cannot blame me being paranoic about that, it is just
too much junk out there. But since you appear not being
one of 'them', I'd feel safer now (if I was Walter).





 As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation 
 that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks 
 like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to 
 clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it 
 AFTER the 1990's.


Fair enough.
May 21 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.no.sp.am> writes:
Bob W wrote:

 "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
 news:d6o7ir$k3h$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special 
subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does 
not include <center>.


 
 
 Funny thought - reading D specs on a PDA.
 Don't tell me that you'd seriously take care about
 these tiny monsters while polishing the D docs.


I read all my language docs using elinks text browser as often as
possible. Standards compliance makes a big deal when using alternative
browsers.


http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/




Excellent work. Although I use "xhtml strict" on my pages as it gives
less freedom to use non-standard tags.


You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the text 
flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use Dauphin 
as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.


 
 
 You cannot blame me being paranoic about that, it is just
 too much junk out there. But since you appear not being
 one of 'them', I'd feel safer now (if I was Walter).


There's also another point in using css-files. Using them saves server
bandwidth as the style info needs to be downloaded only once per user
when multiple pages are viewed. And if one doesn't like the look'n'feel
of the page, a local/remote alternative stylesheet can be used.


As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation 
that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks 
like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to 
clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it 
AFTER the 1990's.




I remember the first time I opened the D index page. All the frames and
font-tags made me really feel uncomfortable. Luckily the language is one
of the best, otherwise I'd be posting to Java forums today.


Jari-Matti
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply Nod <Nod_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6llmt$1nho$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Bob W says...

 <snip>



C'mon! The truth is - none is really needed.

We are talking about D reference documentation here.
Not too long ago this would have been plain text, but
HTML helps to improve readability. Whatever features
beyond Netscape 4.x you use here is completely
unnecessary luxury.

Walter has done a great job in designing D and he has
done an equally great job so far in rejecting Javascript
and other advanced features for the D docs (his Google
ads and email obfuscation being an exception).
Therefore Walter's web pages look good, offer excellent
readability, and, most importantly, are loading fast.


I agree up to this point.


I can imagine that lots of people are thinking that
they could do a superior web design job. But I am afraid
that this would be the day when pages are packed with
features, load slowly and are optimized for 1024x768
or less because they are too complicated to allow
the browser to fit them properly on various screen
resolutions.

Therefore I am pretty comfortable with the current
situation: sophisticated D language and simple doc
format.


Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and whatnot.
Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, professional
looking web page, you design it that way.

-Nod-
May 20 2005
parent reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
 Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and 
 whatnot.
 Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, 
 professional
 looking web page, you design it that way.



That is what I'd like to think too. But reality shows pretty
often that the more professionalism (i.e. money) is behind
a web design the less sleek and the less simple the result
will be regardless if complexity is needed or not.

Furthermore lots of 'professional' designs seem to be
unable to fill more than 30% of screen real estate
on high resolution displays.

Otherwise I tend to agree to what you have mentioned.
May 20 2005
parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Bob W wrote:

Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and 
whatnot.
Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, 
professional
looking web page, you design it that way.


 
 
 
 That is what I'd like to think too. But reality shows pretty
 often that the more professionalism (i.e. money) is behind
 a web design the less sleek and the less simple the result
 will be regardless if complexity is needed or not.
 
 Furthermore lots of 'professional' designs seem to be
 unable to fill more than 30% of screen real estate
 on high resolution displays.
 
 Otherwise I tend to agree to what you have mentioned.
 
 


Indeed, many websites for large corporate companies suck!
they suck because you can't access the information you need quickly and 
effectively. Ironically, this applies more to some "news" websites :/
May 20 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Not exactly a D-website bug, but I got there while reading about D :-)

There's a dead link on http://www.digitalmars.com/features.html  :
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/designbycontract.html

L.
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Thanks, it's fixed now.
May 20 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 Thanks, it's fixed now.
 
 


the design by contract link is still dead for me.
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6kvu0$15ub$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 Thanks, it's fixed now.


 the design by contract link is still dead for me.


I just tried it again. It works. I don't know what's happening for you.
May 20 2005
parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:d6kvu0$15ub$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Walter wrote:


Thanks, it's fixed now.


the design by contract link is still dead for me.


 
 
 I just tried it again. It works. I don't know what's happening for you.
 
 



Ah, I wasn't looking right!

Thing is, http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/designbycontract.html is still 
dead, but I realize now he didn't mean this specific link, but the link 
inside the page.
May 20 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Bob W wrote:

 1) The link to
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/std_boxer.html
 seems to be broken.
 
 2) It might be advisable either to reintroduce "bgcolor"
 in the "BODY" HTML tag or remove the mostly useless
 DOCTYPE tag at the beginning of the HTML files.
 
 The reason is a bug in IE: If the system colors are
 inverted (e.g. black background to reduce eyestrain),
 specifying DOCTYPE causes IE to use the system
 background instead of the browser's background
 color. Strangely enough this happens only to frames.


In which version of IE is this?  And if the browser has used the system 
background colour instead of the browser background colour, is there any 
reason the user should prefer white to the former?

OAMSN the tag as it stands

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

is broken - if user prefs specify a text colour of white, the whole 
content will come out white on white.  If you're going to specify the 
background colour, always specify the text colour as well.  And the link 
colours.

3. <font face="Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif">

Welcome to HTML.  The font tag is valid only within a paragraph or 
similar element.  By wrapping the whole content in one font element you 
are writing invalid HTML.  The way to set the font of the whole page is

<basefont face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">

and remove the closing </font> tag from the end.

It often helps to try validating your pages.

http://validator.w3.org

4. The boxes around code samples ought to be done CSS rather than HTML 
table markup.  Indeed, the site as a whole overuses HTML presentational 
markup.  The whole reformatting operation would have been tidier, more 
consistent and easier if only CSS had been used.

Indeed, the appearance of the code samples looks different in each of my 
browsers, and not as nice as it could be in any of them.

IE 5.2: small box margins, but extra space above each sample, unknown 
font name "mono" substituted with serif proportional font, top-level 
indent of one space (and a right mess where anything's indented two 
levels down)

Safari 1.3: box margins look too big, unknown font name "mono" 
substituted with sans-serif proportional font, top-level indent of eight 
spaces

Mozilla build 2005022809: box margins look too big, unknown font name 
"mono" substituted with fixed font, top-level indent of one tab.

(All on Mac OS X)

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 20 2005
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
5. There are conflicting signs over whether this reformatting was done 
by hand or by an automated script.  On one hand some of the pages have 
either not been reformatted or only partly been reformatted.  On the 
other, it's found its way into the array operations section that you've 
admitted is too ill-defined to implement.

6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look 
through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues 
raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through 
Phobos and make sure everything's documented.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6kp85$vtc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 5. There are conflicting signs over whether this reformatting was done
 by hand or by an automated script.  On one hand some of the pages have
 either not been reformatted or only partly been reformatted.  On the
 other, it's found its way into the array operations section that you've
 admitted is too ill-defined to implement.


I switched to using a simple macro text preprocessor to generate the pages,
it makes consistent editting a lot easier.


 6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look
 through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues
 raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through
 Phobos and make sure everything's documented.


Yes, it would be. But one thing at a time.
May 20 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:


 6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look
 through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues
 raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through
 Phobos and make sure everything's documented.


 
 Yes, it would be. But one thing at a time.


Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
editorial/review work for yourself.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 3:56:56 AM
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
 some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
 some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
 editorial/review work for yourself.


Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of documentation
<g>.
May 20 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
 some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
 some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
 editorial/review work for yourself.


 
 Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of documentation
 <g>.


I am a Nobody then.

Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
(again) ambiguous.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 5:07:03 AM
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:7uexcpoyya2y.1k7t264uje4f6.dlg 40tude.net...

 On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to






accept

 some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
 some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
 editorial/review work for yourself.


 Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of




documentation

 <g>.


 I am a Nobody then.

 Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
 (again) ambiguous.


If you're willing to help, then I accept!
May 20 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:18:02 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:7uexcpoyya2y.1k7t264uje4f6.dlg 40tude.net...

 On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to






 accept

 some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
 some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
 editorial/review work for yourself.


 Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of




 documentation

 <g>.


 I am a Nobody then.

 Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
 (again) ambiguous.


 
 If you're willing to help, then I accept!


Ok boss, what you want me to do?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 10:23:06 AM
May 20 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Ok boss, what you want me to do?


Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
with making it look better / be more html compatible.
May 20 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:37:09 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Ok boss, what you want me to do?


 
 Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
 with making it look better / be more html compatible.


Ok, I can do that, but I was more concerned about content rather than form.
I'll have a go at both, plus usability as well.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 10:13:05 PM
May 21 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:76b5w9dryppg.wrnexaox9l2k.dlg 40tude.net...

 On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:37:09 -0700, Walter wrote:


 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1i9kln2m5khtx.14rnkho6cjuk4.dlg 40tude.net...

 Ok boss, what you want me to do?


 Same thing I asked of Unknown: take one of the web pages, and experiment
 with making it look better / be more html compatible.


 Ok, I can do that, but I was more concerned about content rather than


form.

 I'll have a go at both, plus usability as well.


I'd rather do one issue at a time, it makes it a lot easier to focus. For
example, let's just do the form for the moment. If we do both form and
content at the same time, it's distracting.

I learned a long time ago that when I'm doing a code translation,
conversion, whatever, that it works best if I concentrate on the conversion
and resist the (often overpowering!) temptation to redesign/optimize/tweak
the algorithm at the same time. I do that after the conversion is complete.
May 21 2005