Hi,
I just saw this link at webstandards.org:
http://www.meryl.net/css/
All-CSS Site Repository
CSS boring? CSS too restrictive? No way. Look, here's a collection of nearly 800
table-free CSS designs, courtesy of Meryl who is thankfully mirroring the
original archive from webnouveau.net, which
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 08:43 pm, Tony Collen wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
Miles Elam wrote:
But then again, this is all sophostry and rhetoric without something
to look at or back it up with. So, getting to my point, I got bored
today and made a mockup of
Miles Elam wrote:
But then again, this is all sophostry and rhetoric without something to
look at or back it up with. So, getting to my point, I got bored today
and made a mockup of http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/ in XHTML 1.0 Strict.
http://cocoon.iguanacharlie.com/
I hope this illustrates
Steven Noels wrote:
Miles Elam wrote:
But then again, this is all sophostry and rhetoric without something
to look at or back it up with. So, getting to my point, I got bored
today and made a mockup of http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/ in XHTML 1.0
Strict.
http://cocoon.iguanacharlie.com/
I
Tony Collen wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
snip/
We could use some helping hands over at Forrest to finish our skins.
Where do I sign up? :)
http://xml.apache.org/forrest/
and send subscribe email to:
forrest-dev-subscribeatxml.apache.org
--David
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Robert Koberg wrote:
even if it is about .1% of the general Internet users? There might be an
argument if stats could be provided for the user base, but that does
not seem to
be acceptable. What if you have 0 hits with Nav4? Do you still need
to support
it?
Oh, god,
Robert Koberg wrote:
even if it is about .1% of the general Internet users? There might be an
argument if stats could be provided for the user base, but that does not seem to
be acceptable. What if you have 0 hits with Nav4? Do you still need to support
it?
Oh, god, we already had this
Excuse my ignorance here, but isn't xml.apache.org
still being served statically?
Geoff Howard
--- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Koberg wrote:
Oh, god, we already had this conversation on
forrest-dev a while ago and
the figures say that xml.apache.org is hit by 10% of
On Saturday, October 19, 2002, at 09:17 AM, Geoff Howard wrote:
Excuse my ignorance here, but isn't xml.apache.org
still being served statically?
You are correct. For the record, I updated the site earlier today.
Diana
-
Geoff Howard wrote:
Excuse my ignorance here, but isn't xml.apache.org
still being served statically?
Pretty please: don't ask!
There are tons of reasons. The smartest being: to ease mirroring. Even
if nobody is mirroring xml.apache.org (that I know of, at least).
The real reasons are a mix
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
It won't be hard to have different stylesheets depending on the browser
selection. So, let's use the power of cocoon instead of forcing CSS down
everyone's neck.
Ah, ok, now I get it.
Yes: xml.apache.org is static and will remain so for a while.
In my mind I was
But Nicola's point is valid: if browsers are going to CRASH
(even a few
browsers) then that's one BIG reason against it :-(
Robert Koberg:
even if it is about .1% of the general Internet users? There
might be an
argument if stats could be provided for the user base, but
that does not
Conal Tuohy wrote:
I think we all hate table-based layouts and would prefer to use CSS. It
would be much easier to design and specify the look and feel using CSS. It's
more concise ... there are a thousand reasons.
But Nicola's point is valid: if browsers are going to CRASH (even a few
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Tony Collen wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Koen Pellegrims wrote:
YES! Please!
The current layout is not flexible at all and I for one
would welcome a
simple, CSS-based design.
I would
I suggest we would need:
1) a CSSGenerator to convert the CSS to XML as SAX (a wrapper around the
batik SAC parser).
2) a CSSCascadeTransformer to cascade the styles and apply them to the
document being styled. This would copy the appropriate style attributes to
each element of the
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Conal Tuohy [mailto:conalt;paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
I think we all hate table-based layouts and would prefer to use CSS. It
would be much
Crashers are always bad. Yes, it's Netscape 4's fault, but the page
author can still take some responsibility. On the bright side, there
are ways of hiding CSS declarations from Netscape 4 and its ilk.
If you specifiy a main stylesheet with a minimum set (if any) of CSS
declarations and also
Tony Collen wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Koen Pellegrims wrote:
YES! Please!
The current layout is not flexible at all and I for one would welcome a
simple, CSS-based design.
I would do it myself if it wasn't for the time, or the lack thereof... ;-)
Soon we'll
Title: RE: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
YES! Please!
The current layout is not flexible at all and I for one would welcome a simple, CSS-based design.
I would do it myself if it wasn't for the time, or the lack thereof... ;-)
Koen
-Original Message-
From: Tony
Koen Pellegrims wrote:
YES! Please!
The current layout is not flexible at all and I for one would welcome a
simple, CSS-based design.
I would do it myself if it wasn't for the time, or the lack thereof... ;-)
Soon we'll use http://xml.apache.org/forrest/
It's not only CSS because some
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Koen Pellegrims wrote:
YES! Please!
The current layout is not flexible at all and I for one would welcome a
simple, CSS-based design.
I would do it myself if it wasn't for the time, or the lack thereof... ;-)
Soon we'll use
*Huge* RT:
Has anyone thought of getting rid of the table-based layout in favor of
something that uses all CSS and super basic XHTML? Would this be welcome
at all? I'd hate to see the nice panel navbar go away, but it's
possible to do that with CSS, too. Maybe get rid of all the offending
Tony Collen wrote:
*Huge* RT:
Has anyone thought of getting rid of the table-based layout in favor of
something that uses all CSS and super basic XHTML? Would this be welcome
at all? I'd hate to see the nice panel navbar go away, but it's
possible to do that with CSS, too. Maybe get
23 matches
Mail list logo
