What about safari, oracle, and all those other browsers I have painstakingly made the base css files work for? There are several cases where I could need this feature, but be using some other browser, or not be on my computer, and thusly, the inclusion of this feature is of great benefit. Also, this is pretty easy to use, and obvious to the greater majority (given the majority is still IE despite bitching to the otherwise) and thus provides the feature more reliably. There seems to be little cost in actually including the feature anyway, I am wondering how this issue began. ~Dave On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CSS URL feature is unnecessary. Let me make sure I understand this feature correctly. It allows users to set a custom css file for a wiki, correct? When a url is set in the user prefs it'll embed that url into the page itself so the customizations are automatically made by the browser. I'll base my comments on the assumption that I understand this feature... Yes, this feature is somewhat unnecessary and should be removed. This is a relatively fringe way of implementing this feature. If someone really wants to customize the css of a sycamore wiki (or any website for that matter) they can just do it in Firefox by editing the userChrome.css[1]. This allows even more flexibility than this feature also because you can do it on a per-domain level. "If they're using IE and IE doesn't support that feature they should scrap that hunk and get a real browser", wrote Scott as he hijacked the thread and degraded it into a browser war. > I argue that the CSS itself is unnecessary. This > is because the css doesn't have anything to do with creating, > accessing, or the general usefulness of the information management of > the wiki software, it merely dictates how the information is > displayed. The manner in which the information is displayed is merely > eye candy, it makes it easier to read, but it is hardly necessary. > Further more it adds complication, as one user could have a > preference for a different display, perhaps they are color blind, > perhaps they dislike certain fonts, or maybe they lack them. > Accounting for all these preferences makes the inclusion of CSS too > much a pain and thusly I propose the wiki should be reduced to a > medium purely of information because there could surely be no way to > easily account for everyone's preferences in the way the data is > displayed. I have to call bollocks here. I think CSS is very necessary for the usability and efficiency of web software. How many popular (and notoriously usable) sites out there do not use CSS. How else would you accomplish large text for older people, small text for us internet pros, a stripped down version for text-based clients or screen readers, and at the same time printing the page without graphics or navigation? Of course all of this is possible using CSS and only one hit to the dynamic part of the wiki. CSS is highly efficient and should be used whenever possible. Scott -------- [1] http://blog.persistent.info/2004/10/skinning-gmail-with-custom-stylesheet.html _______________________________________________ Sycamore-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.projectsycamore.org/ https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev
_______________________________________________ Sycamore-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.projectsycamore.org/ https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev
