Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

[Dave Pawson <daveP at dpawson dot freeserve dot co dot uk>]

At 12:09 16/08/2002, ed nixon wrote:
>Thanks, Dave. Such a diplomat you are!

lol. No I'm not Ed. Should see my comments on the SVG list :-)
I'm a Yorkshireman.
However, the group on this list are so polite/helpful etc,
that its rarely necessary to 'get up steam'.
Usually if there's a strong statement its for a good, technical
reason, hence I'm interested in hearing it!


>My only concern has been that we not break anything in terms of the existing CSS usage, i.e. class="docbookElementName".
>
>On the other hand, anything that allows more flexibility for CSS styling on the HTML (or for that matter XML) output side is, by definition, a good thing. Go for it.

Quite agree, as I said early on. When John suggested we could have our cake
and eat it though, I'm all for it, if its fairly broadly supported.
(Also answering Norm's later comment)
  If CSS can resolve the blue/red priority (Am I looking at John again :-)
then I'm for it.


>Please excuse me if I sound shrill. I have been following discussions on the CSS list that Eric Meyer runs. The sum total of what I've learned seems to be that there are as many spoofs and work arounds to get reasonable cross-browser CSS formatting (not even considering Version 4 level browsers) as there were spoofs and work arounds to get plain ol' HTML to work consistently back in the bad old days. And the new spoofs are even more obscure, e.g. strategically placed, partial comment strings and mis-placed slashes -- back and forward.

Agreed. Since all we are asking the stylesheets to do is put forward
the opportunity to use the 'spoofs' (or ignore them) then I've no problem.
My CSS stylesheets are usually about 5 liners.
My only 'real' use of it would be to id the 'answers' in the faq
with some marking or other.




>I'm to the point with my own web work of simply writing to the latest Mozilla or IE 6 running in "standards mode" (have you heard about that yet?) and placing polite, hidden (by CSS) text that suggests to the version 4 viewer that they upgrade (or work with fully functional but 1993 views of the content.)

I'm with you, but then I don't write websites that try to please
99% of all known browsers and still use 88% javascript to produce the HTML:-)

KISS works nicely with HTML. It may be boring, but people can get
the information they want, which is always my intention.

No offence taken btw, I would have to look hard around here to see
the script kiddies with *&% html :-)

regards DaveP