🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:25 -0600, fgdg wrote
(in article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>):

> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> the joke.

There is indeed software, available now for the Macintosh, that allows one to 
construct a website using WYSIWYG methods and with no requirement that the 
user should have any knowledge of such as HTML. That software is Freeway 
Express and Freeway Pro. Freeway works much like InDesign in that the website 
author concentrates on appearance and action and not upon the underlying code 
that makes things happen. As an aside, the resulting HTML of a Freeway 
generated website is quite good, usually passing the strictest of code 
verification.


-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

fgdg wrote:

> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS.

There's a fundamental difference between PS/PDF and HTML+CSS. PS/PDF are
exact (as far as possible) representations of a printed - and thus fixed -
document. In this context WYSIWYG makes sense - pretty much indeed.

But the HTML+CSS combo has to deal with different user-agents,
screen-/fontsizes, user stylesheets and a gazillion of other factors that
influence how a document is seen/heard/felt by a user. And this is an
advancement over printed media.
Applying WYSIWYG to web-documents just creates the *illusion* of simplicity,
moves the focus to presentational details while hiding semantics. This
reduces HTML+CSS to a bad PDF replacement.


-- 
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/

On 15 Feb 2007 08:10:25 -0800, "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:

>Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
>writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
>the web are expected to do. 

That's because the web is not paper.  PDFs are a medium designed to be
printed on paper.  The Web isn't.  There is no useable "wysiwyg" editor
for the web because there is no one "wyg".

>That is how far web design has come.
>Postscript is a page description language like HTML 

HTML is *not* a page description language.  It is a *document*
description language and that's entirely different.  More generalized.

> It's beyond the joke.

The joke is on you because you don't understand the media.  TV is not
Radio and the Web is not paper, and never will be.  You are like a Radio
producer moaning that your TV programs won't work properly when you use
your well understood radio methods.

On 15 Feb, 16:19, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> That software is Freeway Express and Freeway Pro.

Nicely standards-compliant, it has to be said. However "layout" relies
on a massive over-dependence on CSS absolute positioning, and with
pixel units at that. To quote Computer Arts mag, "creating
proportional rather than fixed-width layouts is almost impossible".

Freeway Pro is a competently implemented page-layout tool using valid
HTML and CSS. For fixed-pixel layouts it's great, but as a web design
tool it misses the point entirely and cannot be recommended at all.

There's still a shortage of WYSIWYG web site design tools with any
concept of semantically-based CSS that's an overall site feature, not
just a sequence of one-off page layout tasks.

fgdg wrote:
> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS.

Postscript is a page *format* description language. HTML is a page 
*structure* description language.

> By now we
> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> the joke.
> 

Harlan Messinger wrote:
> fgdg wrote:
>> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
>> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
>> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
>> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS.
> 
> Postscript is a page *format* description language. HTML is a page 
> *structure* description language.
> 
>> By now we
>> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
>> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
>> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
>> the joke.
>>

Also, CSS *can* be applied like PostScript, including a STYLE attribute 
with every tag to define that element's appearance alone, and in that 
case a CSS editor can apply the styles that will make an element look 
exactly has you defined its appearance using WYSIWYG tools. But CSS is 
best used to define entire style sets based on element tags, classes, 
and IDs. It's hard to use CSS in that manner when applying formatting to 
individual page elements one at a time with a WYSIWYG editor.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:54:47 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote
(in article <1171562087.862571.66030@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):

> Freeway Pro is a competently implemented page-layout tool using valid HTML 
> and CSS. For fixed-pixel layouts it's great, but as a web design tool it 
> misses the point entirely and cannot be recommended at all.

If Freeway Express or Freeway Pro are capable of the WYSIWYG production of 
webpages to the complete satisfaction of the author then how is it that "it 
misses the poiint entirely?" There are undoubtedly nuances in website 
creation that are not addressed by Freeway, but unless these nuances are 
needed/wanted by the website author than there absence is  irrelevant. It is 
almost like saying that a piano is a musical instrument that can't be 
recommended at all because it can't produce a continuous slide through the 
scale as can a violin.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:54:47 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote
> (in article <1171562087.862571.66030@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):
> 
>> Freeway Pro is a competently implemented page-layout tool using valid HTML 
>> and CSS. For fixed-pixel layouts it's great, but as a web design tool it 
>> misses the point entirely and cannot be recommended at all.
> 
> If Freeway Express or Freeway Pro are capable of the WYSIWYG production of 
> webpages to the complete satisfaction of the author then how is it that "it 
> misses the poiint entirely?" There are undoubtedly nuances in website 
> creation that are not addressed by Freeway, but unless these nuances are 
> needed/wanted by the website author than there absence is  irrelevant. It is 
> almost like saying that a piano is a musical instrument that can't be 
> recommended at all because it can't produce a continuous slide through the 
> scale as can a violin.
> 
Give them credit that unlike MS they actually use their software to 
built their site! That said, neither impressed with the output of their 
site nor their gallery of sites. Agree with Andy here....

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> the joke.
>

which reminds me of the story of the americans who spent millions of dollars
making a pen that worked in zero gravity, the russians just used a pencil.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:22:38 -0600, Jonathan N. Little wrote
(in article <16e7a$45d4dd14$40cba7b7$14504@NAXS.COM>):

[commenting on the Freeway website]

> Give them credit that unlike MS they actually use their software to built 
> their site! That said, neither impressed with the output of their site nor 
> their gallery of sites. Agree with Andy here....

I find it interesting, er, uh, amusing, that Adobe, the marketers of not one, 
but two high priced website development tools, GoLive and Dreamweaver, 
apparently don't use either to develop their own website. So, what is it 
about the Adobe website that would set it apart from the Freeway (Softpress) 
website?

Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the 
Freeway site but 19 with the Adobe site. Oops, I forgot, validation is 
apparently useless. But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring 
about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

"the red dot" <red@dot.spot> writes:

> "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> > writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> > the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> > Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
> > should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> > morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> > the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> > the joke.
> >
> 
> which reminds me of the story of the americans who spent millions of dollars
> making a pen that worked in zero gravity, the russians just used a pencil.

My understanding is that story is apocryphal.  The space pen, which
both use, was developed by a private company.

And I use a space pen, together with a waterproof pad, for taking
notes while working in the woods.   It costs somewhat more, but its
well worth it.


-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284

In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
 "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:

> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML

HTML is *not* a page description language.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:54 -0600, Steve Hix wrote
(in article <sehix-E08511.19195415022007@news.speakeasy.net>):

> In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>  "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:
> 
>> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
>> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
>> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
>> Postscript is a page description language like HTML
> 
> HTML is *not* a page description language.

Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....

HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language 
for the creation of web pages.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

In article <0001HW.C1FA848300010DEBB022094F@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:54 -0600, Steve Hix wrote
> (in article <sehix-E08511.19195415022007@news.speakeasy.net>):
> 
> > In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> >> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> >> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> >> Postscript is a page description language like HTML
> > 
> > HTML is *not* a page description language.
> 
> Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....
> 
> HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language 
> for the creation of web pages.

Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

-- 
You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:05:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote
(in article <150220072305233044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>):

[responding to quoting from Wikipedia]

> Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

Could you perhaps give a short definition of each. 

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

In article <0001HW.C1FA99C600060991B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:05:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote
> (in article <150220072305233044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>):
> 
> [responding to quoting from Wikipedia]
> 
> > Markup language != page description language by a long shot.
> 
> Could you perhaps give a short definition of each.

HTML as a markup language describes parameters for a multitude of
possible interpreters rendering a page, based on what can be fairly
vague instructions, so that an instruction like 'font size="-2"' will
display different absolute results depending on the client doing the
interpretation (IE/Safari/Firefox/Omniweb/etc).

Postscript, OTOH, is a specific description language based on a known
and consistent interpreter, where an instruction such as '90 rotate 0
-612 translate' will do *exactly* the same thing no matter where it is
interpreted (HP/Agfa/Harlequin/etc), and display *exactly* the same
result.

I've coded both. Coding PS, I can be pretty damned confident that
whoever executes the code I write will see exactly what I see.

Coding HTML, I do not have that luxury.

-- 
You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane

TaliesinSoft wrote:

> Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the 
> Freeway site but 19 with the Adobe site. Oops, I forgot, validation is 
> apparently useless. But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring 
> about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?
> 

It may validation does not necessarily mean *good* design.

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <150220072338430009%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C1FA99C600060991B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:05:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote
> > (in article <150220072305233044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>):
> > 
> > [responding to quoting from Wikipedia]
> > 
> > > Markup language != page description language by a long shot.
> > 
> > Could you perhaps give a short definition of each.
> 
> HTML as a markup language describes parameters for a multitude of
> possible interpreters rendering a page, based on what can be fairly
> vague instructions, so that an instruction like 'font size="-2"' will
> display different absolute results depending on the client doing the
> interpretation (IE/Safari/Firefox/Omniweb/etc).
> 
> Postscript, OTOH, is a specific description language based on a known
> and consistent interpreter, where an instruction such as '90 rotate 0
> -612 translate' will do *exactly* the same thing no matter where it is
> interpreted (HP/Agfa/Harlequin/etc), and display *exactly* the same
> result.
> 
> I've coded both. Coding PS, I can be pretty damned confident that
> whoever executes the code I write will see exactly what I see.
> 
> Coding HTML, I do not have that luxury.

That's not quite 100% true ... only about 99.9%.   :o)

HTML code is often "broken" by incompatibilities in (usually) Internet
Explorer. 

Postscript code is often "broken" by incompatibilities in non-Adobe
versions of Postscript - the so-called "postscript compatible" found in
some printers for example. For example, some printers thrown tantrums
about printing a shaped with a fill colour of "white". Thankfully you
don't often hit these problems.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

In article <0001HW.C1FA848300010DEBB022094F@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:54 -0600, Steve Hix wrote
> (in article <sehix-E08511.19195415022007@news.speakeasy.net>):
> 
> > In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> >> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> >> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> >> Postscript is a page description language like HTML
> > 
> > HTML is *not* a page description language.
> 
> Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....
> 
> HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language 
> for the creation of web pages.

"markup language" is not the same as "page description language".

HTML markup doesn't specify *how* information is to be displayed, but 
the relationships between information components.

In article <sehix-6AE1F8.22344015022007@news.speakeasy.net>, Steve Hix
<sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C1FA848300010DEBB022094F@news.supernews.com>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:54 -0600, Steve Hix wrote
> > (in article <sehix-E08511.19195415022007@news.speakeasy.net>):
> > 
> > > In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> > >> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> > >> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> > >> Postscript is a page description language like HTML
> > > 
> > > HTML is *not* a page description language.
> > 
> > Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....
> > 
> > HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup
> > language 
> > for the creation of web pages.
> 
> "markup language" is not the same as "page description language".
> 
> HTML markup doesn't specify *how* information is to be displayed, but 
> the relationships between information components.

Since when is [strong] a "relationship between information
components"?!?!? It's telling the browser that the following text
shoulld be rendered in bold until it finds a corresponding [/strong]
tag.

HTML code simply tells a browser how to render a page on-screen.
Postscript tells a printer (usually) how to render a page to print to
paper.


Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> 
writing in news:1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:

> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> the joke.
> 

There is a significant point to be made here - a browser is not a piece 
of paper.  Authors know for the most part, what sizes paper comes in, 
and they know that paper cannot be resized.  A browser is an entirely 
different creature - the user has control, can resize the browser, 
disable graphics, disable client side scripting, change the size of the 
font, even use his or her own styles.

The problem is that an author looking at his screen, is never going to 
know what his audience is going to see (or hear for that matter).  Yes, 
he can make an educated guess, but unlike paper, it's a real crap shoot.

-- 
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

On 15 Feb, 22:00, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> If Freeway Express or Freeway Pro are capable of the WYSIWYG production of
> webpages to the complete satisfaction of the author then how is it that "it
> misses the poiint entirely?"

Because of clueless or clue-deprived authors. As a clueful author will
likely be working directly on HTML through a text editor, then the
beginner market is important for a WYSIWYG tool.

Most web authors do _not_ understand the web and that's why it's
incumbent upon a "good" authoring tool to assist them in getting
things right despite this ignorance. A tool that easily and quickly
builds web sites that still break some fundamental principles of good
web authoring is not a tool to recommend.

Freeway does page layout in absolute pixels, not document-centric
authoring. That's what's wrong with it.

On 16 Feb, 00:42, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> I find it interesting, er, uh, amusing, that Adobe, the marketers of not one,
> but two high priced website development tools, GoLive and Dreamweaver,
> apparently don't use either to develop their own website.

I find it irrelevant.

Whether Dreamweevil is good or bad has _no_ influence on whether
Freeway is good or bad.
Nor does whether Adobe have a good or a bad site.


> Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the
> Freeway site

Like I said, it's competent at doing the wrong thing. It makes valid
HTML, but its use of CSS is still inflexible and page-layout style,
not good web practice.


> Oops, I forgot, validation is apparently useless.

That's a straw man argument that you've created yourself. No-one else
claims this, or claims that Freeway's validity isn't a positive
feature.


> But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring
> about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

It's useful, but still far from a sufficient condition for this!

Secondly, why _should_ websites look the same amongst all browsers? If
you don't understand that yet, you have a vast amount of web design
fundamentals to learn about.

With Freeway I can design a trivial site with "a short word in a small
coloured box."  On my desktop this sits as a tiny box up near the top
of the page, just as I intended. On my phone (200px screen) it fills
the whole display and is far bigger than the contained word. This is
_not_ what I intended to happen. Freeway takes this bogus concept of
"pixel identical rendering in all contexts" and forces it across the
web, even to devices where it's inappropriate to do so (the font size
in pixels varies widely between my desktop and my phone).  Just try re-
sizing the font or changing browser window size in a Freeway-designed
site!

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:48:28 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote (in article 
<1171622908.894975.314100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>): 

> On 16 Feb, 00:42, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote: 
> 
>> I find it interesting, er, uh, amusing, that Adobe, the marketers of not 
>> one, but two high priced website development tools, GoLive and 
>> Dreamweaver, apparently don't use either to develop their own website. 
> 
> I find it irrelevant. 
> 
> Whether Dreamweevil is good or bad has _no_ influence on whether Freeway 
> is good or bad. Nor does whether Adobe have a good or a bad site. 

But I made no comparison of "good / bad" between Freeway and Dreamweaver. But 
I do find it interesting that Adobe opted to not use their own product to 
develop their own website while Softpress did. As far as the two websites go, 
nothing has stood out to me that makes one inherently superior to the other. 
As to why Adobe chose to not use Dreamweaver, that would be interesting to 
know.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:48:28 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote
(in article <1171622908.894975.314100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> With Freeway I can design a trivial site with "a short word in a small
> coloured box."  On my desktop this sits as a tiny box up near the top
> of the page, just as I intended. On my phone (200px screen) it fills
> the whole display and is far bigger than the contained word. This is
> _not_ what I intended to happen. Freeway takes this bogus concept of
> "pixel identical rendering in all contexts" and forces it across the
> web, even to devices where it's inappropriate to do so (the font size
> in pixels varies widely between my desktop and my phone).  Just try re-
> sizing the font or changing browser window size in a Freeway-designed
> site!

Actually, I think the long term answer lies in the presentation device, 
computer, cellphone, television, etc., having the capability of arbitrarily 
magnifying, reducing, and navigating the image. This has already happened 
somewhat with Mac OS X (at least as it currently runs on my MacBook Pro) in 
that I can arbitrarily magnify an image and yet navigate to those parts of 
the image that might, as a result of the magnification, be off screen. My 
expectation is that this separation of display from hardware specifics will 
be better in Leopard. We'll see.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:43 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote (in article 
<150220072338430009%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>): 

[responding to my request for definitions for "markup" and "page description" 
languages] 

> HTML as a markup language describes parameters for a multitude of possible 
> interpreters rendering a page, based on what can be fairly vague 
> instructions, so that an instruction like 'font size="-2"' will display 
> different absolute results depending on the client doing the 
> interpretation (IE/Safari/Firefox/Omniweb/etc). 
> 
> Postscript, OTOH, is a specific description language based on a known and 
> consistent interpreter, where an instruction such as '90 rotate 0 -612 
> translate' will do *exactly* the same thing no matter where it is 
> interpreted (HP/Agfa/Harlequin/etc), and display *exactly* the same result. 

Thanks! Maybe you ought to start writing for Wikipedia!   :-)

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

On 16 Feb, 15:56, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> Actually, I think the long term answer lies in the presentation device,
> computer, cellphone, television, etc., having the capability of arbitrarily
> magnifying, reducing, and navigating the image.

Not at all. For one thing, a simple form of this is just scrolling,
moving an small viewport around a larger virtual canvas.  This needs
manual intervention and it's annoying.

My trivial web design problem is "Show an icon of a coloured rectangle
slightly bigger than a word of text". By sizing the rectangle in ems I
can do this. Even better I might not size the rectangle at all, simply
set some internal padding on it (in ems). This works on my destop and
my phone and it looks proportionately similar on both.

My phone differs from my desktop in having characters with fewer
pixels to them. This goes with the territory and isn't changing any
time soon. By using a relative size unit, I easily produce a page that
looks proportionately similar on both devices.

By pixel-sizing and absolutely controlling the box, the wrong-headed
attempt to control _everything_ to the last pixel has produced a
visual result that's grossly different and inappropriate.

On 16 Feb, 15:51, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> But I made no comparison of "good / bad" between Freeway and Dreamweaver.

Of course you did, as a straw man and a diversion.

Freeway has valid HTML but poor use of CSS positioning. Rather than
discussing the pixel-based absolute positioning of Freeway, you then
diverted into Adobe's non-valid products.  No-one else mentioned
Adobe.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:46:48 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote (in article 
<1171644407.746852.322600@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>): 

> On 16 Feb, 15:51, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote: 
> 
>> But I made no comparison of "good / bad" between Freeway and Dreamweaver. 
> 
> Of course you did, as a straw man and a diversion. 
> 
> Freeway has valid HTML but poor use of CSS positioning. Rather than 
> discussing the pixel-based absolute positioning of Freeway, you then 
> diverted into Adobe's non-valid products.  No-one else mentioned Adobe. 

Earlier in this thread Jonathan A. Little stated in regards to Freeway....

Give them credit that unlike MS they actually use their software to built 
their site! 

That piqued my curiosity enough for me to see what Adobe did with their site. 
There was no attempt at diversion.

As for Freeway using a pixel-based scheme for positioning, the intent, a good 
one in my opinion, is to provide some assurance as to how the resulting site 
will appear. I'm afraid I'm not much of a fan of so-called "liquid" layouts. 
All one has to do is to go to such as the Softpress (the implementors of 
Freeway) or Adobe sites and start enlarging the text and soon the layout 
degenerates into a hodgepodge of misplaced parts. To me, and apparently there 
is much disagreement here, the better solution is uniform magnification 
and/or reduction of the entire page.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> 
> To me, and apparently there 
> is much disagreement here, the better solution is uniform magnification 
> and/or reduction of the entire page.

Spoken like a true dee-ziner. ;)

Real people don't need or care about page zoom, text zoom is plenty
sufficient. If your layout falls apart as a result, then it's a flawed
design.

-- 
Berg

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 15:56, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Actually, I think the long term answer lies in the presentation device,
>> computer, cellphone, television, etc., having the capability of arbitrarily
>> magnifying, reducing, and navigating the image.
> 
> Not at all. For one thing, a simple form of this is just scrolling,
> moving an small viewport around a larger virtual canvas.  This needs
> manual intervention and it's annoying.

This is pretty much how Flash zoom works (when it works at all), and
it's one of the most user-unfriendly things I've ever had to suffer.

-- 
Berg

TaliesinSoft wrote:

> As to why Adobe chose to not use Dreamweaver, that would be interesting to 
> know.

Probably because their website has been around for a lot longer than 
they've owned Macromedia, and there wouldn't be much point in changing 
over just for the hell of it.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:13:02 -0600, Calum wrote (in article 
<er538b$m6v$2@reader01.news.esat.net>): 

> TaliesinSoft wrote: 
> 
>> As to why Adobe chose to not use Dreamweaver, that would be interesting 
>> to know. 
> 
> Probably because their website has been around for a lot longer than 
> they've owned Macromedia, and there wouldn't be much point in changing 
> over just for the hell of it. 

So then, why didn't Adobe use their own GoLive which has been part of the 
Adobe arsenal for quite a few years now, Adobe purchasing it in 1999.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:13:02 -0600, Calum wrote (in article 
> <er538b$m6v$2@reader01.news.esat.net>): 
> 
>> TaliesinSoft wrote: 
>>
>>> As to why Adobe chose to not use Dreamweaver, that would be interesting 
>>> to know. 
>> Probably because their website has been around for a lot longer than 
>> they've owned Macromedia, and there wouldn't be much point in changing 
>> over just for the hell of it. 
> 
> So then, why didn't Adobe use their own GoLive which has been part of the 
> Adobe arsenal for quite a few years now, Adobe purchasing it in 1999.

Same reason, probably.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> 
writing in news:1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:

> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
> should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
> morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
> the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
> the joke.

You do realise that software like DreamWeaver, GoLive, Freeway *IS*
"Quark Xpress or InDesign for the web"?!?!?

People used to create websites solely by typing HTML into a text editor
(and many still do).

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:13:02 -0600, Calum wrote (in article 
> <er538b$m6v$2@reader01.news.esat.net>): 
> 
>> TaliesinSoft wrote: 
>>
>>> As to why Adobe chose to not use Dreamweaver, that would be interesting 
>>> to know. 
>> Probably because their website has been around for a lot longer than 
>> they've owned Macromedia, and there wouldn't be much point in changing 
>> over just for the hell of it. 
> 
> So then, why didn't Adobe use their own GoLive which has been part of the 
> Adobe arsenal for quite a few years now, Adobe purchasing it in 1999.
> 

I don't know but I can guess:  They outsourced the dev of their web 
site, specifying only functional specs, not tools used to accomplish the 
feat.  What a company builds and sells isn't intrinsic in every facet of 
the company's operations.  Nor should it be.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue ...

In article <160220071959359480%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <sehix-6AE1F8.22344015022007@news.speakeasy.net>, Steve Hix
> <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C1FA848300010DEBB022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> >  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:54 -0600, Steve Hix wrote
> > > (in article <sehix-E08511.19195415022007@news.speakeasy.net>):
> > > 
> > > > In article <1171555825.536750.285310@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >  "fgdg" <ilovesanta@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
> > > >> writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
> > > >> the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
> > > >> Postscript is a page description language like HTML
> > > > 
> > > > HTML is *not* a page description language.
> > > 
> > > Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we 
> > > find.....
> > > 
> > > HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup
> > > language 
> > > for the creation of web pages.
> > 
> > "markup language" is not the same as "page description language".
> > 
> > HTML markup doesn't specify *how* information is to be displayed, but 
> > the relationships between information components.
> 
> Since when is [strong] a "relationship between information
> components"?!?!? It's telling the browser that the following text
> shoulld be rendered in bold until it finds a corresponding [/strong]
> tag.

No, it's telling it to display as strong; strong may be displayed in 
ways other than just bolding it.
 
> HTML code simply tells a browser how to render a page on-screen.
> Postscript tells a printer (usually) how to render a page to print to
> paper.

Well, html gives strong hints, maybe. But anyone's reader may be set up 
to do just about anything imaginable, making the writer's intent non 
much more than a mild suggestion. Unlike PS or PDF.