---Roger Hui wrote: > I do not apologize for the text being presentation > oriented. The current presentation looks pretty > close to exactly what I want to achieve, and > that presentation is what (I would guess) the > overwhelming majority of users would see.
I'm sorry, I tried to convey in my original post that I agreed that the current format (i.e. the HTML markup used to produce the visual presentation) of the dictionary was probably the right idea at the time it was created (when browsers didn't support CSS well) in order to provide a consistent presentation to users. So I certainly don't think an apology would be in any way appropriate! I am just suggesting that a different underlying format of the content might be more desirable now. A new format that more clearly described the structure of the content and how different parts of the document relate to each other would enable a separate presentation layer(s) to create visually appropriate results for different media (e.g. web-browser, printing, display on small screens or published book (a'la J For C)), without having to touch the content of the dictionary at all. > If it is impossible to reconstruct the contents > from the current text I would be moved to do > something about it. If it is merely difficult then > working harder and smarter at the reconstruction > would be the answer. Currently the use of tables to create a pleasing visual layout distorts the content structure in the underlying HTML. I don't know, but suspect that it will be very difficult (I won't say "impossible" but perhaps "more effort than reformatting by hand") to automatically translate the document in its current form to another format and retain its integrity. My original post and wiki page ask for advice from others as to their thoughts on how best to approach that problem. However I figure that before we can best answer how to get from the current format to a new format, a decision needs to be made as to what the new format should be. I've tried to suggest a new format by attempting to recreate the current visual layout of the Dictionary, but using structured markup of the content (valid HTML) and a separate presentation layer (CSS). Were you unhappy with how it looked? > I am willing to put in some work to make > the text more standard. Please make specific > and individual proposals. For example: > > Currently in a vocabulary entry (e.g. d011.htm) > it says <font size=+1>Floor</font> . > Instead, do this: ... > And add this ... to the css file I tried to go further than that by creating a CSS file and examples of reformatted pages. I'm not sure that it would be very easy to provide a step by step recipe for conversion, but I am prepared to try if that is what you require. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > [snip] > > > > > In your jwiki page > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/RicSherlock/J_Dictionary/CSS_Format > > > you complained about the exercise numbering, > > > viz. "2.4" is too hard. Are you serious about > > > this complaint? > > > > It was not a complaint, it was sharing difficulty of > > reproducing such numbering with CSS automatically. Yes thanks Oleg, that was what I intended. I agree that the current numbering system of the exercises is ideal, but was unable to easily recreate it using CSS. As Oleg points out, that doesn't mean it isn't possible, merely that my CSS expertise was not sufficient. The point I was trying to make on the wiki page is that if it was not possible then, in my opinion, it would be better on balance to have clean markup than to use any of the cludgy solutions I was able to come up with that semi-recreated the current numbering scheme. While I can have an opinion, the decision on what approach to take quite properly remains with the authors. > > This is addressed in CCS2 as "Nested counters" > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#scope > > > > Nevertheless, it is possible to reconstruct the > > semantic intent of structured text based on layout > > tags, their order is known. A similar problem was > > addressed in the xml/loose addon as seen in test/dic2.ijs. > > But such reconstruction is more difficult than having > > direct indications of content sections. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
