Brackets and the Invention of CSS

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

dorayme wrote:

In article <4d20a$4747a6f9 $40cba7b4$15326 @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:
>

>dorayme wrote:

>>Is there some particular reason that the inventors of CSS chose
>>to leave us with the legacy of the curly brackets (for which one
>>has to shift press) rather than the square (for which one simply
>>has to press)?
>>>
>>p [margin: 0;]
>>>
>>is two key presses shorter then
>>>
>>p {margin: 0;}
>>>
>>Multiply that by a few billion over the world of css, taking in
>>to account a lot of consequences including the bigger chance of
>>typos and revisions, the greater expenditure of energy on people
>>and processors, more wear and tear on the keyboard.
>>>

>Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often used
>feature because of IE.

>
So... are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that
the square brackets would have been used more often?

Absolutely, many web designers would love to be able to use
attribute-based selectors. Also, the use of square brackets for
attribute-based selectors is consistent with the notation used in XPath.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

Harlan Messinger wrote:

dorayme wrote:

>In article <4d20a$4747a6f9 $40cba7b4$15326 @NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:

>>Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often
>>used feature because of IE.

>>
>So... are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that the
>square brackets would have been used more often?

>
Absolutely, many web designers would love to be able to use
attribute-based selectors. Also, the use of square brackets for
attribute-based selectors is consistent with the notation used in XPath.

If we had use of attribute selectors it could eliminate the need of many
classes peppered throughout the markup. (So as designers let's give
MS the ol' 1-fingered-salute right back!)

--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

On 2007-11-24, dorayme wrote:

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote:

>On 2007-11-24, dorayme wrote:

>
>
Is there some particular reason that the inventors of CSS chose
to leave us with the legacy of the curly brackets (for which one
has to shift press) rather than the square (for which one simply
has to press)?
>
p [margin: 0;]
>
is two key presses shorter then
>
p {margin: 0;}

>>
> It's only one key press shorter for me; when I press { in a .css
> file, the closing brace is automatically inserted.

>
I vaguely recall something like this on this winbox I fire up now
and then (in a pgm called Topstyle). Similar perhaps is BBEdit's
built in control + 1 getting <h1></h1with the cursor seemingly
conveniently in between. All very well in a way. There are
drawbacks of course: you are typing away and you want a level one
heading and quickly realise it is a level 2 you want, oops... you
have to change two numbers. The normal typing way of putting the
opening tag would give you a chance (if you realise just after
typing the first 1) to merely back space on and carry on.

I'd just press Undo and enter the one I wanted.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell. org>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[dorayme]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

In article <user-00430F.17352724 112007@textnews .euro.net>,
Sander Tekelenburg <user@domain.in validwrote:

dorayme wrote:

>

Perhaps on some keyboards
square brackets actually are harder to type.

Well, that is a question, I might be seeing a biassed sample here
in Australia?

>
Perhaps. I don't think I've ever seen a typical australian keybaord,

Likely to be same as in UK and other Commonwealth countries.

p [margin: 0;]

is two key presses shorter then

p {margin: 0;}
>
So is p {margin:0}

How do you figure this? And what is its relevance?

>
You seemed to complain about having to press too many keys, yet were
using a space and a semi-colon where they aren't necessary.

Ah! <g (... but really we are talking cost-benefit here)

Actually, it has given me the thought to look at programming keys
on a board to be used for html/css work that may better suit me.
I often use just one hand for adjustment work. (In case you were
wondering, the other hand is most often engaged in warding off
enemies - think Rugby...)

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

In article <5qre3tF11fjosU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4d20a$4747a6f9 $40cba7b4$15326 @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:

....

Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often used
feature because of IE.

So... are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that
the square brackets would have been used more often?

>
Absolutely, many web designers would love to be able to use
attribute-based selectors.

My very last query was meant to be more specific than perhaps it
sounded. It was not just:

(1) Are you are implying that it was anticipated that the square
brackets would have been used more often than they has turned out
to have been used?

but

(2) Are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that
the square brackets would have been used more often than the
curly ones?

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

dorayme wrote:

[On counting the shift as a keypress: for a start, you absolutely
need a second hand. <g>]
>

Must be a Mac minimalist-thinking thing, like that one-button mouse! ;-)

--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

dorayme wrote:

In article <5qre3tF11fjosU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:
>

>dorayme wrote:

>>In article <4d20a$4747a6f9 $40cba7b4$15326 @NAXS.COM>,
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:
>>>

...

>>>Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often used
>>>feature because of IE.
>>So... are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that
>>the square brackets would have been used more often?

>Absolutely, many web designers would love to be able to use
>attribute-based selectors.

>
My very last query was meant to be more specific than perhaps it
sounded. It was not just:
>
(1) Are you are implying that it was anticipated that the square
brackets would have been used more often than they has turned out
to have been used?
>
but
>
(2) Are you are implying perhaps that it was anticipated that
the square brackets would have been used more often than the
curly ones?

You might well ask whether it was anticipated, but whether or not it
was, it's clear to me that Jonathan's response didn't imply it. All he
did was point out that they were already dedicated to another purpose.
And it isn't apparent to me that minimizing use of the shift key is
typically a consideration in designing *any* notation. After all, HTML
and XML live and die by the shift-loving less-than and greater-than
characters!

[dorayme]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

In article <61477$4748b3b4 $40cba7aa$7022@ NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:
>

[On counting the shift as a keypress: for a start, you absolutely
need a second hand. <g>]

>
Must be a Mac minimalist-thinking thing, like that one-button mouse! ;-)

Actually, I was wrong, not "absolutely at all". Sorry. There are
two shift keys and one *can* use the right one and bracket key
with one hand. But! There is an energy cost and it involves the
movement of the thumb in an unnatural manner (as if to fold it
onto the palm of the hand) so that it engages that shift while
the fore or middle finger does the bracket key. This is RSI
territory.

I have to say, Jonathan that I find it very awkward to alt C (and
V) on your keyboard, Command and C (or V) on a Mac are closer
together.

As for this million button mouse business, never felt the need
for more than one button - except if you count the scroll wheel.
Now a scroll wheel is something I have missed on my Mac just
after I have used my winbox and the MS Intellimouse.

(Apple have one out with a minimalistic nipple for a wheel, I am
not that keen on it now that I tried it recently. A wheel is a
wheel! Actually Jonathan, I am just right now about to develop a
pedal mouse that can take over scrolling. If you would like to
invest in the development, please send at least $10. Could become
really big. A wireless pedal mouse from downunder. Don't rush in,
think about it a while.)

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

In article <5qrr6nF11fg4aU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:

After all, HTML
and XML live and die by the shift-loving less-than and greater-than
characters!

You are not wrong about this! I will now settle back into simple
acceptance of the situation. <g>

--
dorayme

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@veri zon.invalidwrit es:

dorayme wrote:

>Is there some particular reason that the inventors of CSS chose to
>leave us with the legacy of the curly brackets (for which one has to
>shift press) rather than the square (for which one simply has to
>press)?

<snip>

Anyways, this dates back to a long history of programming languages,
starting with BCPL,

Small detail: BCPL (at least the BCPL compilers I've seen) used $( and $).

upon which it migrated to B,

Yes, by B it had become { and }

C,

and then C allowed ??< and ??and, later, <% and %>!

--
Ben.

[Rik Wasmus]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:11:35 +0100, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

In article <61477$4748b3b4 $40cba7aa$7022@ NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote:
>

>dorayme wrote:
>>

[On counting the shift as a keypress: for a start, you absolutely
need a second hand. <g>]
>

>>
>Must be a Mac minimalist-thinking thing, like that one-button mouse! ;-)

>
Actually, I was wrong, not "absolutely at all". Sorry. There are
two shift keys and one *can* use the right one and bracket key
with one hand. But! There is an energy cost and it involves the
movement of the thumb in an unnatural manner (as if to fold it
onto the palm of the hand) so that it engages that shift while
the fore or middle finger does the bracket key. This is RSI
territory.

That seems quite personal. Years and years ago, in a land far, far away, I
learned I had 10 finger and should use all 10 when typing. This means the
finger located nearest to a button are used. A square bracket for me is
either left-pinky/right pinky or right pinky/ right ringfinger, whichever
is more handy considering the characters typed before and afters. (Ha, it
seems we dutch gave you the word 'pinky'/'pinkie'. Isn't it weird that as
the mmost little one, it's the only non-opposable finger which has it's
own name, instead of 'that kind of' - finger. I'd think the more widely
and intensivly used index finger is far more deserving of a name of its
own....) I don't think I've ever used any finger other than the little
finger to press shift the last years, except for the times I needed a CTRL
key (in which case the ringfinger takes over the shift key).

Hell, I don't think enter has been touched by any other finger then my
right little finger in years, as tab is solely moved by the left pinky...

I have to say, Jonathan that I find it very awkward to alt C (and
V) on your keyboard, Command and C (or V) on a Mac are closer
together.

Hmm, closer together for me usually means more trouble, not less.
--
Rik Wasmus

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

dorayme wrote:

In article <5qrr6nF11fg4aU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:
>

>After all, HTML
>and XML live and die by the shift-loving less-than and greater-than
>characters!

>
You are not wrong about this! I will now settle back into simple
acceptance of the situation. <g>

Yes, resistance is futile!

[Gregor Kofler]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

dorayme meinte:

p [margin: 0;]
>
is two key presses shorter then
>
p {margin: 0;}

Not on my keyboard...

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvor träge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[Stan Brown]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:22:20 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lws4art@centra lva.net>:

dorayme wrote:

Is there some particular reason that the inventors of CSS chose
to leave us with the legacy of the curly brackets (for which one
has to shift press) rather than the square (for which one simply
has to press)?

>
Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often used
feature because of IE.

But it could just as easily have been the other way. Good design
would say to use the shorter keystrokes for the more-commonly-
occurring use.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[Ben C]

Re: Brackets and the Invention of CSS

On 2007-11-25, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te:

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:22:20 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
><lws4art@centr alva.net>:

>dorayme wrote:

Is there some particular reason that the inventors of CSS chose
to leave us with the legacy of the curly brackets (for which one
has to shift press) rather than the square (for which one simply
has to press)?

>>
>Square brackets are for attribute selectors. A useful but not often used
>feature because of IE.

>
But it could just as easily have been the other way. Good design
would say to use the shorter keystrokes for the more-commonly-
occurring use.

That's good keyboard design, not good syntax design. Syntax should be
designed for clarity and readability, not to be easy to type. If you
don't like typing something then just set up some macros in your editor.