DAVOUD TOHIDY wrote: >> I think someone is defining "site stability" on the wrong >> premises.... > > Well if you are refering it to me, I never did define "site > stability".
I was _only_ referring to arguments and wording in the mail I responded to. Erik H. used your response as base for his arguments, and can expand on his understanding of it. > I did define "Layout stability" though. Now let me give you an > example to make it clear what the difference is between those two > phrases. > > A building is built by columns and beams etc. which these columnsand > beams create the structure for that building. <snipped - see the original /> One type of building - mostly rigid ones, yes. > So I believe, we will need to let other people call it "site > stability". No intention to offend anybody though :). Of course not. Names may cause confusion but /should/ otherwise not hurt or offend anyone. <snipped again - see the original /> > Layout stability is not just a simple matter of what its phrase > reffers to.That is why I have called for a case study and research > at: > > http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/stability.html > > Problem arises when we assume that we know everything about it just > bylooking at the definition of the "layout stability" phrase and act > based on our assumptions. > > I believe I have pointed out an extremely important issue in > regardsto make the web content more readable and more usable by > calling for designing for layout stability. The issue is important enough, but to me it looks more like another attempt on limiting the constant flow of changes. I prefer an inherent "layout instability", which doesn't necessarily go against what you're looking for but widens it to cover as many unknowns as possible at any one time. The differences at the moment seems to be one of "presenting a building structure (design) in a set environment" vs. "providing a flexible data-exchange vehicle (design) for whatever environment". As the data-exchange format we know as 'the internet' is still in its infancy, at this moment in time I'm not occupied by the need for stability but rather for flexibility. Too many media are tapping into the data-stream (internet), and I want/need the flexibility to study, supply and make use of them. The mindset behind this isn't new, as they build fighter-jets with inherent instability to make them flexible enough to take advantage of every opening at any time. It seems however to be the opposite of the building structure you use for describing your "layout stability", where you have to know the environment in order to build something that's stable. It seems like you're looking for definitions on how to create stable structures in the environments (media) we know, while I'm looking for openings out of the known environments (media) and into the unknown. It should be obvious from the above that I will only pay limited attention to known environments (media) and whatever definitions, rules and "best practices" anyone can come up with for them. Known environments are limited and limiting, and defining rules for how to approach them is, IMO, another limitation one can do without. I want to know more about available techniques/methods with the potential to work, not rules on how and when to apply them or how they should work. Thus, I prefer to create and work with something that is robust enough _to work_ on/in existing media, but I don't care one bit if it breaks a whole set of rules, definitions and "best practices" in order to be more flexible than required by known media. OTOH: "breaking rules" isn't a point in itself, and not something I do just for the sake of breaking them. The only reason I follow any "rules" - like standards, is that they actually work. - HTML works, and at the moment it seems to be the best "tool" available in its field. So, I use the variant(s) I feel most comfortable with at the moment, while waiting for something better. - CSS works, so I'm applying it as far as I want to and User Agent support can take me at any one time. I certainly won't hold back just because a few User Agents are not up to it. - If I think a weak User Agent should be "supported", then I'll give it something on a level it can handle - without disturbing the better User Agents. That's a natural part of an "inherently unstable" approach anyway, and doesn't yield worse results than any other approach. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
