h a l f b a k e r y
It might be better to just get another gerbil.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
Is it just me, or is html ended up being convoluted again.
I like the concept of presentation+information
Where the '.html' only contains information, and pointers
to presentational data. Which is pretty cool, especially
from an accessibility point of view.
Initial attempt was
CSS. Removing inline styling in html
was solved by keeping the styling in a separate style
This worked pretty well for many site, especially simpler
sites. And made for faster load times as well!
However, complexity is crreeping in again, in the sense
that the layout of the `<div>` in complex css based
websites is soon getting in the way of the information at
the source code. Full of hacks like empty divs, for
content out etc...
Why not notice in some server sided solutions, that they
are separating the layout presentation from the actual
information as "template files".
That sounds like something we can work towards.
As for how it exactly may work, I'm not too sure, but I
would imagine it would be quite similar to html, but
would try to match classnames and ids
etc to corresponding slots in this `.cts` file. And I would
think the template file can point to css etc.
Seems to me that in other CMS, template files are
essentally HTML but with `include functionality`.
Either way, CSS is probably not enough for the 21st to
22nd century web.
This shows usage of divs that doesn't hold content, but rather is for background structure [mofosyne, Nov 23 2014]
||Server Side Includes is baked, but the real problem is
that HTML isn't that great of a markup language,
especially given that the whole "semantic web" thing
didn't pan out.
||It does seem a weakness of HTML that you can mark text up with style and layout directions like "<H1>" and also low-level presentation directions like "<FONT>". Ideally, only the style and layout tags would be allowed, and everything else would be in CSSs.
As an aside, Microsoft Word has the same weakness - text can have fonts, colours, etc. applied to it, but also styles. Combining these gets documents into a ghastly mess and ideally only styles would be allowed.
||something like that i guess? But more friendlier like css?
||XSLT seems like a big wooly ball of coding nope... or maybe
we just need to get used to it... if it's used in a html
||I would like to make "my own damn version of HTML", but I'd
probably just end up with Display PostScript plus hyperlinks.
||<font> is a low-level presentation thing?
||Yes, because it directly affects the look of the document. Font descriptions should be used in CSSs, not in the HTML page itself. This allows control over the document's appearance to be governed by changes you make to the stylesheet or by swapping your CSS file for another one. If you do this, content is properly separated from presentation.
||I like this. I read it as content, structure, presentation. Structure is the template. Right now, HTML mashes structure and content together. Any decent desktop publishing program will separate the three (layout, text/images, styles).
||Well html had to mash all these into a single page, because
remember it was developed
during the Beep Bloop modem days.
||That's like saying Roman Numerals couldn't have a
zero, because it was developed in ancient times. If
someone had thought of it, it could've happened.
||Added link to a pretty cool CSS trick called pure css
||It shows empty divs that has non 'informational/content'
a background layer at different perspectives)