Javascript Help
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 3:48pm |
 Coolness: 339795 | sorry but CSS has very little to do with skinning. Yes it makes it EASIER to adjust colors on a given site, but actual REAL skinning cannot be done with CSS since skinning is a complete overhaul of the look and feel.
So no, you cannot skin with CSS. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:03pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | DIV is crap.
no one uses it. go use it if you want, but i will not. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» lakester replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:07pm |
 Coolness: 59810 | Please tell me you didn't type that whole lesson by yourself, Professor Am I Death? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:10pm |
 Coolness: 66645 | you couldn't possibly tell me why DIV is crap neoform.
but be patient, I'm disproving your comment on skinning. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» lakester replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:16pm |
| Coolness: 59810 | i just design my webpages as one big BMP in MS Paint and put it online using the Geocities webpage builder. People pay me $25/hr for that. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:18pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | reasons: slow to load, doesn't work with legacy browsers.
AND has no noticeable advantages over tables. tell me, can you do something (layout wise) with DIV that i can't do with tables? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:32pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | yes
I can [ thev0id.servebeer.com ] Want the CSS? [ thev0id.servebeer.com ] [ thev0id.servebeer.com ] [ thev0id.servebeer.com ] DIVs load faster since there is less to process DIVs degrade a lot more gracefully in legacy browsers except for NS4.0, which is an irrelevent browser anyways since it has no support for anything. In anycase, even though its really simple, its a clear example of a skinnable site. All the content remains the same, but the layout changes completely. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:35pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | oh, and, before you mention that its not crossbrowser compatible, thats just the javascript. I did this quickly. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:45pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | wow/golly
that is simply amazing. you copied and pasted the tutorial on DIV functions. i'm blown away. now then, go make something actually usefull with this THEN come back and tell me about the major advantages. I argue for tables because i have used them for a long time and they work perfectly. i can do ANYTHING i want with them and they're very easy to use, and every browser displays them the same way. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:46pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | HEH
I didn't copy anything. And if you click on Wierdness, you could never do that with tables. You want a really nice example? [ www.jerrett.net ] |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:49pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | that is probably the first site i've ever seen using DIV instead of tables.
congradulations. and after looking at that site i must say i'm still unimpressed, nothing on that page cannot be done easily without CSS or DIV. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 4:57pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | you COULD in theory do it with tables
but it would be so unmanageable, it wouldn't be funny. Want to see other sites? [ www.espn.com ] [ www.csszengarden.com ] [ www.alistapart.com ] [ www.slax0rnet.com ] [ www.jerrett.com ] But anyways, I guess its hopeless with you. Some people just can't grasp the concepts of STRUCTURE and LAYOUT and not everyone has the ability to understand the differences between the two. All I can say is this: less HTML, more content, graceful degradation, easier management, crossbrowser compatability to the max, pseudo-object oriented concepts, better with javascript, more control over the look and feel of your site, smaller file sizes, easier on the browser, easier on portable devices, ect... If you can't understand why all that is good, then you'll never become a good webdesigner, you'll only ever be a graphics designer and nothing more. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 5:17pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | everything you just said is garbage.
I already AM a good webdesigner, i don't need to prove this to you. I am better at design then you are there's no question, you fiddle arround with useless standards that no one will ever end up adopting, great go do that. I'm going to stick with CURRENT standards. All the sites i make are completely corssplatform compatible, really compatible. I checked on my win2k box, winXP box, Redhat 9 box, MacOS 9, and OS X. they all look identical. I can bet you my code is way more portable then yours ever will be (if you ever actually make anything usefull). I managed to reuse ALL the same functions i made for my site over and over. my site consists of 5000 lines of code, wanna see it? go to [ www.openimg.org ] see what an actual website looks like. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 5:26pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | Ok, lets be fair
less HTML, more content, graceful degradation, easier management, crossbrowser compatability to the max, pseudo-object oriented concepts, better with javascript, more control over the look and feel of your site, smaller file sizes, easier on the browser, easier on portable devices, ect... Please PROVE with FACT, not your own stories, but overall proven fact, how ALL of that is "garbage". |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 5:33pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | more content: .. what does coding choice have to do with content?
graceful degradation: Buzz word. easier management: html is extremely managable, simpletons can use it, if you can't manage it, that's your problem. crossbrowser compatability to the max: CSS is NOT compatible with all browsers, HTML table/font tags are. pseudo-object oriented concepts: Buzz word. better with javascript: javascript was designed for html, other then that i have no idea what your talking about. more control over the look and feel of your site: I can do ANYTHING i want with my sites, which is what i do. smaller file sizes: yup, and requires more CPU speed, this is a programmers choice, slimmer file sizes, more cpu required, bigger file sizes less cpu. easier on the browser: what does this mean? easier on portable devices: why would i care about users viewing my website on their cell phone or pda? we aren't living 10 years in the future. i have no idea where your coming from with any of these arguments, you don't back ANY of them up with facts, yet you tell me i need to. Every fucking site on the web is proof. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 6:34pm |
| Coolness: 66645 | graceful degradation: Buzz word. easier management: html is extremely managable, simpletons can use it, if you can't manage it, that's your problem. crossbrowser compatability to the max: CSS is NOT compatible with all browsers, HTML table/font tags are. pseudo-object oriented concepts: Buzz word. better with javascript: javascript was designed for html, other then that i have no idea what your talking about. more control over the look and feel of your site: I can do ANYTHING i want with my sites, which is what i do. smaller file sizes: yup, and requires more CPU speed, this is a programmers choice, slimmer file sizes, more cpu required, bigger file sizes less cpu. easier on the browser: what does this mean? easier on portable devices: why would i care about users viewing my website on their cell phone or pda? we aren't living 10 years in the future. Graceful degradation means that the content of the site will not get distorted as you go back in history. Its not just a buzzword, its a description of the effects. Easier Management OOP is easier to manage then procedural programming. DIVs are the equivalent. Each div is a block of content that gets defined, styled, positioned, ect ect ect by CSS. Without css, all it is, is a BLOCK of content. Nothing more, nothing less. Crossbrowser Compatibility: CSS is not compatible with NS 4.0, or at least, it has very poor support. Code wisely, and everything from IE4 to Opera to Gecko browsers will work. OOP Concepts: Not a buzz word, the standard. What do you think PHP5 is all about? JAVA? C#? ASP? JS? OOP is the most efficient way of coding. So why not bring that concept into HTML? Well, it has with BLOCK and INLINE elements. Those are really the only two type of tags that exist in HTML. It makes life so much easier when you have a BLOCK of INLINE content. Tables are not like that. Tables defeat that whole purpose. When tables were concieved, their intent was never to do layouts, they were to show tabular data, such as the contents of a database table. The reason they are not good layout is because rows and cells are neither INLINE or BLOCK elements, the fundamental elements of layout whether its a website or a building. Better With Javascript: DHTML, go look it up. More Control: Thats dependant on what you yourself want, but its not certainly not the case for everyone. [ contest.pud.ca ] That navbar, code it your way and make it look identical, using NO CSS whatsoever. DHTML, you can not do DHTML without CSS. Smaller File Sizes: The HTML files are smaller, takes smaller time to download, and as for CPU usuage, intelligently coded pages take LESS cpu power than table-based layouts. Easier on the Browser: the less HTML to render, the better Easier on Portable Devices: No one is talking about your personal websites, I'm talking business, I'm talking enterprise level solutions for websites. And no, we aren't living 10 years in the future, but its better to be prepared for the future with scalable solutions. If you want proof: [ www.csszengarden.com ] [ www.alistapart.com ] [ www.w3c.org ] [ msdn.microsoft.com ] [ www.mozilla.org ] [ www.google.com ] enjoy |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Sep 26, 2003 @ 11:16pm |
| Coolness: 339795 | "What do you think PHP5 is all about?"
this is exactly what i'm talking about. PHP5 is not the standard yet. it's a FUTURE standard. i'm using 4.2.3 for a reason, cause it is the current standard. "Easier on Portable Devices: No one is talking about your personal websites, I'm talking business, I'm talking enterprise level solutions for websites. And no, we aren't living 10 years in the future, but its better to be prepared for the future with scalable solutions." go build yourself a bomb shelter, planning ahead is a good thing you know.. you can go plan ahead, i'll keep using what everyone else is using. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Sat Sep 27, 2003 @ 3:44am |
| Coolness: 66645 | "What do you think PHP5 is all about?" this is exactly what i'm talking about. PHP5 is not the standard yet. it's a FUTURE standard. i'm using 4.2.3 for a reason, cause it is the current standard. "Easier on Portable Devices: No one is talking about your personal websites, I'm talking business, I'm talking enterprise level solutions for websites. And no, we aren't living 10 years in the future, but its better to be prepared for the future with scalable solutions." go build yourself a bomb shelter, planning ahead is a good thing you know.. you can go plan ahead, i'll keep using what everyone else is using. PHP5 is CATCHING UP to the standards that JAVA, ASP, [ .NET ] C#, JS, VBS, ect that has all been using. And if you think that no one is using CSS, then again, you shouldn't really be in the technology field at all. People like you disgust me. You ruin the ENTIRE technology industry be it web design or electronic manufacturing. Its people like you that make worms spread like wild fire. Lazy, uncaring, pay me $10/hr and I'll give you miracles people. The best thing about it is that technology is evolving to stop people like you from doing anymore damage to the industry. Oh, and as proof of your failure to keep uptodate, PHP 4.2.3 is outdated. Current stable PHP is 4.3.3. Lots of changes happened. And soon, you're going to have to stop coding PHP since objected oriented programming is obviously a fleeting concept with you, and you're under the impression that its "not a standard". oh well, sucks to be you :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Sat Sep 27, 2003 @ 3:59am |
 Coolness: 201355 | People like you disgust me. You ruin the ENTIRE technology industry be it web design or electronic manufacturing. Its people like you that make worms spread like wild fire.
Oh because he doesn't agree with you? Lets look at it this way... ian's sites actually stay up longer than a month and get updated, I care more for that than whether someone uses css or not... He must be doin something right that you aren't doing... I find css is handy to use, but if it wasn't I wouldn't use it... Not because someone tells me I am stupid for not doing exactly as they do. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Sat Sep 27, 2003 @ 4:04am |
| Coolness: 66645 | he doesn't agree with me because he's lazy. The technology industry is in a process of reform, creating extremely strict standards for things that will weed out people like Ian.
As for sites that stay up longer than a month: you couldn't really say since you base it on only TWO things in my portfolio :) |
Javascript Help
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
