Brackets and the Invention of CSS

In article <5qre3tF11fjosU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <4d20a$4747a6f9$40cba7b4$15326 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

....
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

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <5qre3tF11fjosU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <4d20a$4747a6f9$40cba7b4$15326 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

...
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!

In article <61477$4748b3b4$40cba7aa$7022 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

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

In article <5qrr6nF11fg4aU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

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

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:11:35 +0100, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <61477$4748b3b4$40cba7aa$7022 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <5qrr6nF11fg4aU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

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!

Harlan Messinger wrote:

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

Surely there's a website somewhere to which you could submit a selection
of your source files and it tells you which country you should emigrate
to in order to end up with a keyboard requiring the minimum number of
shift key presses? :-)

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:22:20 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) 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/200..._wont_help_you

On 2007-11-25, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:22:20 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) 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.