On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Ben Morgan wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > I wasn't suggesting that each user maintain a stylesheet, but if the
> > application lets users supply their own, such a stylesheet could be
> created
> > and distributed (it
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Ben Morgan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I wasn't suggesting that each user maintain a stylesheet, but if the
> application lets users supply their own, such a stylesheet could be created
> and distributed (it could even potentially target individual modules).
So then you wa
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Morgan
> wrote:
> > From an application developer's point of view, I'm not convinced that per
> > module CSS is a good idea. Here are some reasons:
> > 1. I'm not convinced of "well-defined use of HTM
Hi Greg,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>
> User-specified stylesheets would not help me much at all. Since each
> module has its own look and feel that it needs to maintain. Yes,
> there is a certain uniformity to them, since they largely all come
> through the same publis
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Ben Morgan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I agree the mechanism is simple enough; the ramifications are potentially
> not. Personally, I would mostly prefer that modules cannot provide their own
> stylesheets. On the web, every site has its own style; in print, each Bible
> ha
Hi Greg,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>
> I believe the phrase would mean the SWORD library would produce a well
> defined set of HTML elements with classes attached to help preserve
> the semantic meaning. It would then be up to the consumer of that
> HTML - the applicati
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> From an application developer's point of view, I'm not convinced that per
> module CSS is a good idea. Here are some reasons:
> 1. I'm not convinced of "well-defined use of HTML+CSS classes". Some things
> may be well-defined, but I know B
>From an application developer's point of view, I'm not convinced that per
module CSS is a good idea. Here are some reasons:
1. I'm not convinced of "well-defined use of HTML+CSS classes". Some things
may be well-defined, but I know BPBible does a lot of customisation of the
SWORD generated HTML
"Peter von Kaehne" writes:
> I would much rather we produced good modules and filed endless numbers of
> bug reports against any application and the library for non-compliance if
> things which should work do not work, instead of targetting the oddities
> and non-compliant aspects of each applicat
Greg Hellings writes:
> 2) I can provide an external CSS stylesheet along with my module.
> Then I could still use OSIS and, assuming well-defined use of HTML+CSS
> classes being produced from OSIS by the engine, I could style the
> module the way I desired. This would not require terribly much w
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
>> Von: Greg Hellings
>
>> However, a few problems arise. Namely, I have no control over the
>> display of the text in my target applications (Xiphos and Bibletime)
>> when I use OSIS. You, being in the semantics-please camp, might thin
> Von: Greg Hellings
> However, a few problems arise. Namely, I have no control over the
> display of the text in my target applications (Xiphos and Bibletime)
> when I use OSIS. You, being in the semantics-please camp, might think
> that's a good thing. You've stymied my attempt, as a conten
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Trevor Jenkins
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Greg Hellings wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:30 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>> > ROFL is semantic markup. It is a level 1 heading. Given that this
>> > is one of HTML's title markup, one probably can deduce that it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
