p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

«‹›1784 »

Sagacity: May 2, 2003; Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.

Bert Bos @ W3C posted:

# ? Dec 30, 2015 12:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 21:24

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Soricidus posted:

nice background

for ~~1992~~ me to poop on

Sagacity posted:

i'm glad css hipsters are now using tables again, so the rest of us don't have to feel bad about it

In our software, if you do a bit of archaeolgy you can see the exact time when we started doing web stuff for our client and tried really hard to do "correct" css. It's the two screens that never look the same across versions because they weren't laid out with tables and they're not commonly used enough to be worth redoing until everything else is off of vb6. It's like magic moving from citrix server to citrix server and seeing how the screen looks completely different on each one due to differences in IE patch level and whatever.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:01

Jerry Bindle: May 16, 2003

re: css without tables. did people somehow convince themselves that nested div/span blocks aren't a kind of table, or are they talking about something else

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:04

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Barnyard Protein posted:

re: css without tables. did people somehow convince themselves that nested div/span blocks aren't a kind of table, or are they talking about something else

It's that, I think. For a time, every CSS tutorial and book out there devoted a great deal of time to explaining how table layouts where the old and wrong way to do things and css is the new and dynamic way to do things. They emphasized how using tables was dumb and stupid because you fated your content to only ever be laid out with your one stylesheet.

Turns out it's better to be tied to one layout than to have your content look like different poop from a different butt on each browser.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:08

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

well, except in 2015 it's kind of expected that your poop looks different on a mobile butt and a desktop butt

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:28

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Wheany posted:

well, except in 2015 it's kind of expected that your poop looks different on a mobile butt and a desktop butt

ideally, but lately i've been running into a lot of sites that just poop their mobile feces straight into the desktop browser and go "well, now it's tablet compatible".

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:32

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

well usually that layout based on endless divs works better across all kinds of devices

the font might be too big on the desktop, but at least you can expect the site to be usable.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:40

Jerry Bindle: May 16, 2003

i get the need for the separable model view arch of html+css, but it still doesn't sit well with me. html has a markups for structuring text, but apparently not exhaustive enough to structure text to the extend needed by modern web pages. so its like div/span are a proto-xml used in conjunction with the base html tags. its not a unified "thing", the div/span blocks have no schema. thats why docbook appealed to me so -- much more flexible with structuring content, but ugh, the headaches that come with it.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:50

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

Barnyard Protein posted:

html has a markups for structuring text, but apparently not exhaustive enough to structure text to the extend needed by modern web pages.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:58

Jerry Bindle: May 16, 2003

lol i'm talking so far out my rear end that i don't even understand that dig

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:00

Malcolm XML: Aug 8, 2009; I always knew it would end like ｔｈｉｓ．

gently caress everything to do w/ soap and ws-*

the w3c got so far up its rear end it got stuck and was never the same thank god

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:08

brap: Aug 23, 2004; Grimey Drawer

flexbox is pretty good so just use that for layout and lots of divs and it'll be fine

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:12

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

XForms, just, lol

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:24

uninterrupted: Jun 20, 2011

Malcolm XML posted:

gently caress everything to do w/ soap and ws-*

the w3c got so far up its rear end it got stuck and was never the same thank god

i've done tons of work integrating rest apis for my old job, and now a customer at my new job wants us to hit their soap api endpoint to transfer details on a client list of like 2 million

writing that kind of integration for rest apis would be kind of obnoxious, but straightforward.

is there some hidden gotcha in soap i'm not seeing?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:37

hackbunny: Jul 22, 2007; I haven't been on SA for years but the person who gave me my previous av as a joke felt guilty for doing so and decided to get me a non-shitty av

Wheany posted:

low-res images stretched to full window width on the desktop

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:00

zokie: Feb 13, 2006; Out of many, Sweden

Barnyard Protein posted:

re: css without tables. did people somehow convince themselves that nested div/span blocks aren't a kind of table, or are they talking about something else

I recently saw a span styled and used as a button, made me want to shoot someone

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:52

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

hackbunny posted:

still better than trying to read 2 pixel high text on a phone

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:38

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

Wheany posted:

well usually that layout based on endless divs works better across all kinds of devices

the font might be too big on the desktop, but at least you can expect the site to be usable.

for values of usable that don't take into account how easy it is to actually find any information I guess?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 22:01

ultramiraculous: Nov 12, 2003; "No..."; Grimey Drawer

fleshweasel posted:

flexbox is pretty good so just use that for layout and lots of divs and it'll be fine

flex box is bae

# ? Dec 30, 2015 22:55

Maluco Marinero: Jan 18, 2001; Damn that's a
fine elephant.

The reason it's good that we could leave table layouts behind is because it makes the semantic markup possible. but that means the separation between style and content is not where people think it is.

when you look at html it defines both style and content, but the split can be seen clearly provided css is disciplined and only targets classes and pseudo-elements.

code:


<div class="butt">
  <h1 class="butt__header">
     some text
   </h1>
</div>

on a phone otherwise I'd get better examples, but the separation between style and content is always in the markup. divs are semantically meaningless, so the only thing here with semantic meaning is the h1 and the text within, everything else is style. in other words, spans, divs, and classes are for style, everything else in markup is semantic. so it follows that css should set some defaults for semantic elements, h1's, ul's, li's, but otherwise strictly style classes only. by doing so you actually have a separation between the semantics and style. Any other way to approach it is kinda wrong, CSS is always tightly coupled to the document it is styling (don't let anyone tell you different) so the separation is not between HTML & CSS.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 23:05

Carthag Tuek: Oct 15, 2005; Tider skal komme,
tider skal henrulle,
sl�gt skal f�lge sl�gters gang

im super chuffed i havent had to do html/css in years

# ? Dec 30, 2015 23:40

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

ive heard people say a benefit of the html/css separation is if the css doesnt load, the website is still readable. but have you ever tried looking at like, facebook or something without any of its css? it's completely unreadable and unusable

# ? Dec 31, 2015 01:34

Carthag Tuek: Oct 15, 2005; Tider skal komme,
tider skal henrulle,
sl�gt skal f�lge sl�gters gang

fart simpson posted:

ive heard people say a benefit of the html/css separation is if the css doesnt load, the website is still readable. but have you ever tried looking at like, facebook or something without any of its css? it's completely unreadable and unusable

thats because they dont use them correctly
:goonsay:

# ? Dec 31, 2015 03:37

travelling wave: Nov 25, 2013

fart simpson posted:

ive heard people say a benefit of the html/css separation is if the css doesnt load, the website is still readable. but have you ever tried looking at like, facebook or something without any of its css? it's completely unreadable and unusable

the w3c party line was that separating the two was for accessibility reasons. supposedly screen readers and whatnot can do their job easier if they don't have to wade through piles of irrelevant markup. it's a good idea on paper, but browsers are a horror show and w3c have their heads up their own asses so now we're back to tables

# ? Dec 31, 2015 05:17

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

i'm never going back

# ? Dec 31, 2015 05:26

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

travelling wave posted:

so now we're back to tables

are we though?

because table based layout still doesn't adapt to screen size and if you're making a web page in 2000-almost-16 that doesn't adapt to screen size then you dun goofed.

# ? Dec 31, 2015 08:18

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

we are actually, unsurprisingly, off to programmability, with sane abstractions and separation of concerns, where people like most of us will never actually care what works how in the browser because we'll use some standard lib that can do tuff like put things in columns without exploding by, supposedly, magic

so, perhaps that's tables? who cares?

# ? Dec 31, 2015 11:34

DONT THREAD ON ME: Oct 1, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo; Floss Finder

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

we are actually, unsurprisingly, off to programmability, with sane abstractions and separation of concerns, where people like most of us will never actually care what works how in the browser because we'll use some standard lib that can do tuff like put things in columns without exploding by, supposedly, magic

so, perhaps that's tables? who cares?

# ? Dec 31, 2015 11:43

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

so, perhaps that's tables? who cares?

it's not.

# ? Dec 31, 2015 11:48

Max Facetime: Apr 18, 2009

qntm posted:

"Professional web designers are an outlier and their needs are not significant. We, the W3C itself, have more significant use cases"

ooh you left out the best part

quote:

�largest hand-written style sheet: 1462 lines (bought from a Web design company)
�average non-empty style sheet: 54 lines

The distribution is as you might expect, lots of very small files, very few large files:
�Half the files is less then 7 lines.
�90% is less than 163 lines.
�Only 0.6% is longer than 500 lines.

well, the w3c dude also wrote this essay about webapps in 2003 and that one looks pretty decent even, as it uses more than 1000 lines of CSS...

if you look at the stylesheets he is now using... it's not done in the standard and familiar CSS formatting style but the dude's own weird style. after pretty-printing all the CSS from the HTML file and the 2007.css, handheld.css files, the reality is this:

CSS code:

/*
 * This style sheet uses some properties (border-radius, box-shadow)
 * that are proposed in W3C�Working Drafts but are not standard and
 * that therefore don't actually do anything at this time (i.e., in
 * 2007). It also uses some browser-specific properties (those
 * starting with a dash "-") that represent the experimental
 * implementations of those proposed properties.
 *
 * Using those properties (draft properties and browser-specific ones)
 * is risky. They may never become a standard at all, or they may get
 * a different meaning than in the current proposals. I'm taking that
 * risk because I�think I will be able to update the style sheet
 * whenever the meaning changes...
 *
 * So, if you want to use this style sheet, please link to it rather
 * than copy it, so that you always have the latest version. Or, if
 * you copy it, remove the 'border-radius' and 'box-shadow'
 * properties.
 *
 * PS. The rgba() colors *are* standard, but few browsers support them
 * yet. That's why there are seemingly redundant 'url(white-25.png)'
 * and 'url(black-25.png)' values as well.
 *
 * Bert Bos, 20 Aug 2007
 * Copyright 2007 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), 
 * See: [url]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software[/url]
 */

html  {
    padding: 0;
    font-family: Optima, Futura, sans-serif;
    font-size: larger;
    line-height: 1.6;
    margin: 4em 6em;
    text-align: justify
}

body  {
    background: url(red-clouds.jpg) #713;
    color: white;
    max-width: 35em;
    margin: 0 auto;
    overflow-x: hidden
}

h1, h2  {
    margin: 2em 0 2em -43em;
    font-size: 2em;
    padding: 1em 1em 1em 43.5em;
    box-shadow: black 0 0.15em 0.25em;
    background: url(white-25.png);
    background: rgba(255,255,255,0.25);
    color: black;
    text-align: left
}

p  {
    margin: 0
}

ul, ol  {
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0
}

li  {
    margin: 0 0 0 2em;
    padding: 0
}

body > p, body > ul, body > div.figure  {
    margin: 0 -86em 0 0;
    background: url(black-25.png);
    background: rgba(0,0,0,0.25);
    padding: 0.5em 88em 0 1em
}

p + p  {
    padding-top: 0
}

p + p:before  {
    content: "\B6\A0";
    color: #E90
}

:link, :visited  {
    font-size: 1.3em;
    line-height: 1.231;
    text-decoration: none;
    color: #CCC
}

:visited:after  {
    content: "\2714";
    color: #E90
}

a:hover  {
    background: #CF6;
    background: #E90;
    color: white
}

a:hover:after  {
    color: inherit
}

ul.menu  {
    position: fixed;
    top: 50%;
    right: 0;
    width: 18em;
    height: 10em;
    margin: -5em -19.5em 0 0;
    padding: 1em 1.5em;
    overflow: hidden;
    border-radius: 0.9em;
    border: thin solid black;
    background: url(red-clouds.jpg) #803;
    box-shadow: black 0.0em 0.3em 0.5em
}

ul.menu:before  {
    content: "\25C4";
    content: "\AB";
    margin-left: -1em
}

ul.menu:hover  {
    height: 23em;
    margin: -11.5em 0 0 0;
    overflow: auto
}

ul.menu:hover:before  {
    content: "";
    content: none
}

ul.menu li  {
    margin-right: 1.5em;
    padding: 0;
    text-align: right;
    list-style: none
}

a img  {
    border: none
}

del  {
    text-decoration: line-through
}

.yves  {
    color: #de0
}

.coralie  {
    color: #ed0
}

div.figure  {
    text-align: center;
    font-style: italic;
    margin-left: 1em;
    margin-right: 1em
}

div.thumb  {
    display: inline-block;
    font-size: 0.6em;
    width: 10em;
    text-align: center
}

div.thumb img  {
    max-width: 100%
}

applet[align=left], img.illustration  {
    float: left;
    margin: 0 1em 0.5em 0
}

@media all and (max-width: 45em) {
html  {
    margin: 2em 1em
}

h1  {
    margin-top: 1em;
    margin-bottom: 1em
}

}

@media print {
html  {
    margin: 0;
    font-size: medium
}

body, h1, body > p, body > ul, body > div.figure  {
    background: none
}

body  {
    color: black
}

:link, :visited  {
    color: #666
}

h1, h2  {
    border: thin solid black;
    margin: 2em 0;
    padding: 1em;
    background: #CCC
}

body > p, body > ul, body > div.figure  {
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0.5em 1em 0 1em
}

ul.menu  {
    display: none
}

applet  {
    font-size: smaller;
    line-height: normal
}

}

/* 'hover' is only a proposed media feature as of 2015 */
@media all and not (hover)  {
ul.menu {
    display: none
}

}

.sidebar   {
    border: dotted thin;
    padding: 0.5em;
    margin: 0.2em 0 0.2em 1em;
    width: 50%;
    float: right;
    clear: right;
    font-size: smaller
}

html  {
    margin: 0.3em;
    padding: 0;
    font-family: Times New Roman, serif
}

h1, h2, h3  {
    font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
    font-weight: bold
}

body  {
    background: white;
    color: black;
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0
}

a:link  {
    color: blue
}

a:visited  {
    color: #906
}

p  {
    margin: 0
}

p + p  {
    text-indent: 1em
}

img  {
    max-width: 100%
}

ul, ol  {
    margin-left: 0;
    padding-left: 0
}

li, dd  {
    margin-left: 0.6em
}

h1  {
    background: url(highlighter2.png) 0% 50% repeat-x;
    color: #900;
    font-size: larger;
    line-height: 1
}

h2  {
    background: url(highlighter.png) 100% 50% repeat-x;
    font-size: larger
}

ul.menu  {
    text-align: center;
    background: url(triangle.png) top left no-repeat
}

ul.menu li  {
    display: inline;
    margin: 0.2em
}

img.logo  {
    background: #CCC
}

.sidebar  {
    border: dotted thin;
    padding: 0.5em;
    margin: 0.2em 0 0.2em 1em;
    width: 50%;
    float: right;
    clear: right;
    font-size: smaller
}

by my calculations that there's 330 lines of CSS that nobody else will ever reuse _{_{_{_{oh dear lord pleeeease if you have any decency in you at all}}}}

# ? Jan 1, 2016 04:44

crazysim: May 23, 2004; I AM SOOOOO GAY

Link to stylesheet in the original format: http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/2007.css

crazysim fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 1, 2016

# ? Jan 1, 2016 04:51

bomb: Nov 3, 2005

fleshweasel posted:

flexbox is pretty good so just use that for layout and lots of divs and it'll be fine

flexbox makes css usable

# ? Jan 1, 2016 07:45

Carthag Tuek: Oct 15, 2005; Tider skal komme,
tider skal henrulle,
sl�gt skal f�lge sl�gters gang

lmao gtfo with that css trash

# ? Jan 1, 2016 08:10

bomb: Nov 3, 2005

Snapchat A Titty posted:

lmao gtfo with that css trash

its trash but its the only thing weve got

# ? Jan 1, 2016 08:11

Carthag Tuek: Oct 15, 2005; Tider skal komme,
tider skal henrulle,
sl�gt skal f�lge sl�gters gang

bomb posted:

its trash but its the only thing weve got

piss on u

# ? Jan 1, 2016 08:35

Asshole Masonanie: Oct 27, 2009; by vyelkin

css is just fine for describing what it does and im not just saying that for being paid lots of money to deal with it

# ? Jan 1, 2016 09:04

fritz: Jul 26, 2003

Gazpacho posted:

who remembers the arena browser, w3c's reference implementation of HTML3 where they put a synaesthete in charge of the project and he made the default stylesheet all weird because he thought it tasted good or something

I used that for a while in like 94-96 ish it had some neat stuff and looked different

# ? Jan 1, 2016 21:01

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

why is aws always so loving broken all the time. turns out their own python sdk just flat out loving stomps all over my region.

https://github.com/boto/boto3/issues/429

# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:26

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!

don't use python. also us-east is the correct region.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 21:24

Bloody: Mar 3, 2013

dont use aws

# ? Jan 7, 2016 03:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

«‹›1784 »