[thesite] comments on test.evolt.org

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 26 13:06:06 CDT 2001


> From: ".jeff" <jeff at members.evolt.org>
> :
> : i don't think it's worth creating a new
> : class for the +/-...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> noted, but those elements are going to have to be styled in some
> fashion. what would you suggest using instead?

well, i haven't seen it unstyled... what is it you're trying to achieve?  
make it look like a link?  make it stand out a bit?  how about using 
a good ol' fashioned <a>?  that will change its color... perhaps a 
strong, too... but since that implies structure that isn't there, you'd 
be better off inserting the style for bold in the <a>...

then we can discuss if we want to make a new class for that... that 
class could then be applied to the author link as well...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : i think you should use &#151; instead of
> : a hyphen in the +/-...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> i'm fine with that.
> 
> support on other platforms is not necessary because this bit of code
> only gets sent out if the user is running win/ie5+.

dig...

> just implemented and tested and i don't like it.  it's quite a bit
> longer than the + is wide causing the content to shift.  at least the
> way it is now it just swaps the indicator and the title doesn't move. 
> i'm leaving it as two hyphens until someone comes up with a better
> solution.

ok, go with an en-dash, &#150; ... it's probably more what you're 
looking for...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : style="cursor: hand" requires a closing
> : semicolon...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> scathing technicality

heh... best kind...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : this was also supposed to be span-free, using
> : tags only for structure, and imparting style
> : through those... there are three <span>s in
> : there i don't think we need...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> have you taken a look at how it works?  what do you suppose i use
> instead of a <span> to get the same effect?  if you'll notice they
> don't impart any style to the document whatsoever (the fact that they
> have classes attached to them is moot as those could be applied to
> other tags around the elements).  they're simply used as containers
> for the elements that are having their display property toggled.

if that's the only way to do it, so be it... but i had to register my 
opposition to <span>s whenever i'm not 100% sure they are 
justified... it would be nice if you could apply the display property to 
the parent container (the <td>) but i suspect that's nigh 
impossible...

> removed the spans for author and timestamp.

rock...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : class the anchor for the +/- (especially since
> : the whole bar as an expando-thingie is too much
> : since you can't highlight text and the hit area
> : for the name is now too small compared to the
> : rest)... IOW, remove the JS event from the <td>
> : and insert it into an <a>, class that...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> done.  couldn't get it to not be underlined without adding a style to
> the <a> tag setting it's text-decoration there.  dunno what that's all
> about.

global <a> style calls for underlining i believe... you can only 
override that inline...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : does the author need a style?  if you really think
> : it does, put it in the <a>... i think it should go...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> there was a complaint that it was too bold compared to the title of
> the comment.

the author was?  hmmm... ok.... i don't remember what the style 
was in there and i don't have the URL here at work... do what you 
can...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : i don't think the time needs one at all, the span
> : and class should go...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> done.

cool...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : overall, every time we modify the page, nobody runs
> : it through a validator,
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> so shoot me, i forgot a semi-colon on a style attribute value.  i
> don't think that it's technically required, but anyway.  the rest that
> i added is valid code.

that's not aimed at just you, or i would shoot you... the semi-colon 
isn't even what prompted that comment... i'm just trying to remind 
everyone that every time we touch the code, we run the risk of 
breaking it in some new way... the validator is part of checking it, 
and i'm sure it will throw bunches of warnings...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : and on top of that, we keep adding more and more code,
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> kinda necessary for more features doncha think?

yep...

you'll note that features generally don't impress me... don't get me 
wrong, this is a great feature, but i'll never use it... and i'm not sure 
how it immediately benefits users... but there's also nothing wrong 
with experimenting and gauging response from users... it's 
probably the best way to test things...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : and everyon's got a different style...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> regrettably.

just wait until CodeLobe 1.0 is done... once i can implant some 
HTML-specific stem cells in all yer heads, you're gonna wish you'd 
never heard of the W3C...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : these pages take forever to  render on my home machine...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> nothing i can do for a tired, 3 year old machine on 33.6.  sorry.

hey!  it's 4.75 years old, and it is *not* tired, it's resting its eyes...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : we don't need all this code we keep adding, but we
> : keep going to town on it...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> that's a matter of perspective.

well, if we could kill those spans without adverse affect, then that 
prespective has a point...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : and the page is now peppered with <span> tags...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> when used for structural purposes (ie, as a container for an element
> so it can have it's display toggled) what's the problem with a <span>
> tag here or there?

nothing... see note above... and above that... and another one 
somewhere else...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : we also need to not add classes to the CSS... every
> : time we do that, we're going to have to revisit the
> : style changer and modify all the styles that go along
> : with it... we have enough styles in there that we
> : should be pretty good to go for a long time...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> with some minor exceptions whenever we visit a new feature.  we should
> always be careful though, i agree.

cool, that's all i ask... consideration is 9/10 of the battle...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : doncha wish you hadn't asked?
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> nope.  grain of salt, buddy, grain of salt.  *grin*

why, yes, i'll have two...

> j/k

who is this j/k guy?

> it's all very valuable, but nonetheless debatable.

bring it.





More information about the thesite mailing list