CSS software tools sought

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:

>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote in message
news:hdhlk4-p7k.ln1@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavv y.com...

>On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:

>>>
>>Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.

>>
> That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
> the Web.

>
Standard settings work well for me for most sites. It's only the crappy ones
that I have to change from the standard settings. Most sites seem to work
best with standard browser settings.

I cannot read most of them them with the standard settings.

>>I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
>>with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
>>you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
>>browsers?

>>
> Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
> legible is badly written.

>
I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.

The regular font size requires me to change the settings. A good
page is not adversely affected by it.

body {font-size: small } is smaller than my comfortable size, and
there is no good reason to use it. Just because it looks good to
you on your monitor doesn't mean it will look good on anyone
else's.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell. org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[dorayme]

Re: CSS software tools sought

In article <137g8rl95ndqu0 1@corp.supernew s.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <donotreply@123 donotreply123.c omwrote:

>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote in message
news:hdhlk4-p7k.ln1@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavv y.com...

On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:

>
Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.

That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
the Web.

>
Standard settings work well for me for most sites. It's only the crappy ones
that I have to change from the standard settings. Most sites seem to work
best with standard browser settings.
>

I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
browsers?

Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
legible is badly written.

>
I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.
>

Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.

--
dorayme

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20e22d 24a5e0424098ad9 7@news.individu al.net...

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:08 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply12 3.com>:
>
If I didn't know it before, it's crystal clear now. You haven't a
clue into even basic issues of writing a decent Web page.

I suppose anyone who doesn't write their web pages exactly like you "hasn't
a clue into even basic issues of writing a decent Web page." There's more
than your way to write a decent web page.

>
I'm done with this thread. The entertainment value is gone, and
there's no possibility of educating you.

OK. Glad you enjoyed it. Bye.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20e22c 8760bcee5e98ad9 6@news.individu al.net...

>
I can "find more problems" too, if they don't have to be actual
problems but just things I make up.

Of course you could just make things up... but if you had ever looked at the
link I posted, you'd see that the problems CSE HTML Validator finds are real
issues that the vast majority of web developers would want to fix/address.

You are just bashing the program for no good reason (like JK) because you
don't like the name.

Albert

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20e22c 8760bcee5e98ad9 6@news.individu al.net...

>I can "find more problems" too, if they don't have to be actual
>problems but just things I make up.

>
Of course you could just make things up... but if you had ever looked at the
link I posted, you'd see that the problems CSE HTML Validator finds are real
issues that the vast majority of web developers would want to fix/address.
>
You are just bashing the program for no good reason (like JK) because you
don't like the name.

What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where
it only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be
misleading and wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not
debating its value as a "linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring
tool, but naming it a "CSE HTML Validator" when it clear is not a
validator as my hypothetical example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote in message
news:676f0$4679 2e3d$40cba7bd$1 7864@NAXS.COM.. .

>
What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.

Albert

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:

But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.

Small is Normal
Normal is Big
Ignorance is Strength

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:

What exactly is the problem? You know if you want bigger text you can easily
increase the font size with most browsers?

"Our contract is printed in tiny letters??
But you have a magnifying glass, haven't you?!"

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote in message
news:676f0$4679 2e3d$40cba7bd$1 7864@NAXS.COM.. .

>What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
>matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
>only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
>wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
>"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
>HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
>example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

>
Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.
>

I have, hence why I posted my comment. No matter how you insist on
naming your product, your linter is a linter.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-6E943A.11570020 062007@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

>
Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.

I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read for a
typical user.

However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; }) seems to
be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with "small" text:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

Here is the page without using "small" text:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/indextestnosmall.php

I think you will agree that the text seems too large.

Other site designs may work better without small text.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote in message
news:bf77a$4679 5d70$40cba7b0$2 4443@NAXS.COM.. .

>
I have, hence why I posted my comment. No matter how you insist on naming
your product, your linter is a linter.

But I think you'd agree that the included DTD validator is a validator. So
if someone wanted to see if their HTML was technically "valid" according to
a DTD based validator, then they still could using CSE HTML Validator.

Albert

[Ben C]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-20, Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote:

>
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote in message
news:676f0$4679 2e3d$40cba7bd$1 7864@NAXS.COM.. .

>>
>What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
>matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
>only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
>wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
>"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
>HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
>example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

>
Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.

What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will say
anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your approach is
"marketing first, truth second".

Look at Mr Korpela's website, the URL is usually in his signature. It's
full of carefully-written useful information about many things including
advice on how to author www pages which is all properly linked and
referenced, provided free of charge and no doubt collected over many
years of doing whatever it is Mr K does.

Now you also might have accumulated a bit of wisdom about www authoring
based on your own ideas and feedback from your customers. But instead of
sharing that freely you hide it away in a crap program which you
advertise using a lot of exaggeration and distortion. What suffers is
the quality of the information and therefore the value of your product.
You learn less and people learn less from you.

There's nothing wrong at all with charging money but if your product is
to have any value you need to open up and co-operate better with the
rest of the world. I suggest that you have the potential to make more
money not less with this approach. Don't claim your product is "better"
than W3C validators; give it a name that doesn't infuriate people;
invite people to report bugs and then actually fix them instead of
denying their existence; and replace all that tendentious drivel on your
website with useful information and more importantly links to good www
authoring resources. In the meantime expect regular bashings.

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ben C" <spamspam@spam. eggswrote in message
news:slrnf7irbb .h9c.spamspam@b owser.marioworl d...

>sense.

>
What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will say
anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your approach is
"marketing first, truth second".

No, it's not. CSE HTML Validator includes a DTD validator and before it did,
I never claimed it to be one.

Look at Mr Korpela's website, the URL is usually in his signature. It's
full of carefully-written useful information about many things including
advice on how to author www pages which is all properly linked and
referenced, provided free of charge and no doubt collected over many
years of doing whatever it is Mr K does.

Yes, I think I've gotten some information from his site before. I agree
there is some useful information there.

Now you also might have accumulated a bit of wisdom about www authoring
based on your own ideas and feedback from your customers. But instead of
sharing that freely you hide it away in a crap program which you
advertise using a lot of exaggeration and distortion. What suffers is
the quality of the information and therefore the value of your product.
You learn less and people learn less from you.

This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. I don't think a
commercial "crap" program would exist for 10+ years.

Don't claim your product is "better"
than W3C validators; give it a name that doesn't infuriate people;
invite people to report bugs and then actually fix them instead of
denying their existence; and replace all that tendentious drivel on your
website with useful information and more importantly links to good www
authoring resources. In the meantime expect regular bashings.

The name only seems to infuriate about 2 or 3 people in the world. Changing
the name because of 2 or 3 people is foolish.

I am quite happy to fix any reported bugs... feel free to report them if you
find anything. I'm talking real bugs, not fake ones because you don't like
the name.

Also, feel free to tell me exactly what "drivel" on our website you are
referring to. If I deem it to be "drivel" or if it can be improved, then I
will do so.

Albert

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

>>
>Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
>not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
>author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
>problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
>main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
>on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
>be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
>fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
>therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
>doing the adjustments.

>
I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read
for a typical user.

Or for one with vision difficulties.

However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; })
seems to be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with
"small" text:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

>
Here is the page without using "small" text:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/indextestnosmall.php

>
I think you will agree that the text seems too large.

So it seems you use: font-family:verdana,
which is an overly large font. Try your little 'experiment' again after
removing verdana from the font-family settings.

You really don't read these groups except to advertise, then hang around
to attempt to justify your product.

Other site designs may work better without small text.

Those that don't use an overly large font-family, and who either assign
font size as 100% or 1em, work better than yours.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"Ben C" <spamspam@spam. eggswrote:

>What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will
>say anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your
>approach is "marketing first, truth second".

>
No, it's not. CSE HTML Validator includes a DTD validator and before
it did, I never claimed it to be one.

Heh. "My Validator is not a validator."

<snippage>

The name only seems to infuriate about 2 or 3 people in the world. Changing
the name because of 2 or 3 people is foolish.

There are a lot more than "2 or 3" in this thread alone. Wake up.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck