Website critique

On May 13, 3:56*am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
ed08ed47-5006-49ab-a152-51f134973... (AT) g19g2000vbi (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
*David Mark <dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 8, 6:32*pm, dorayme:
... The website maker might
just put in the margins and paddings that he wants more than zero for
just those elements he employs. It does not follow that there are a
gazillion of these, maybe there are only a few.

Not likely. *CSS "resets" are backwards. *It is no wonder that
designers see them as necessities.

What is not likely? That an author might make a page with very few
elements? *

It is not likely that the hypothetical Web developer put any thought
into anything. They copy and paste.

...sometimes some people find
it easier to get stuck into a job knowing all the margins and paddings
are zeroed and not lurking places to bite them in some complicated or
new layout they are trying out.

Paranoia induced by ignorance.

Do you know this to be the case or are you *guessing* that every time
any author does this, he has a psychological condition and a particular
ignorance not shared by you and Bergamot?

I have iron-clad proof (but it's a secret.)

For my part, I use this only for temporary diagnostic purposes but I can
easily imagine others might find a more permanent use for it in some
limited circumstances. Or in all circumstances I suppose where they have
their own and therefore well known and understood "full" alternative to
the big defaults of the different browsers.

Providing a "full" alternative is counterproductive.

How can it be this? If an author has studied the matter and once made

Therein lies the fallacy.

(by modifying a regular default one) his own, he might use it for the
rest of his life as the starting basis.

That's as maybe.

This latter might even help to maintain a greater level of consistency
across browsers. Who knows what margins and paddings different browsers
set to *all* the elements?

Of course, needlessly stepping on default (or user) styles is a
backwards thing to do.

What does this really mean?

It's the complete 180 degree opposite of correct, advocated in the
timeless standard "How Not to Design a Website."

The goal is not to make everything look
exactly the same in every installed browser. *Never has been.

How can a goal be not something? <g

Same way a dog is not a cat. The statement doesn't tell you what it
*is*, but definitely rules out one possibility.

The author who zeroes margins might also not have this as a goal.

Again, I doubt it.

Perhaps he is happy if his efforts cause the major browsers to be more

Who?

consistent than they would otherwise be. that is not the goal of making
everything "exactly" the same nor is it the only goal an author might
have. He might have the greater goal of marking up as semantically as
possible at the same time. Doing two things at once is possible, old
boy! <g

Marking up semantically? What does that have to do with CSS defaults,
particularly padding and margins? I'm just curious.

And who are you calling old?

In article
<becb2260-ee9a-4d90-a333-164c6a9ccffe (AT) z5g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
David Mark <dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 13, 3:56*am, dorayme:
....
What is not likely? That an author might make a page with very few
elements? *


It is not likely that the hypothetical Web developer put any thought
into anything. They copy and paste.

So what are we doing here, some sort of survey of all the web authors? I

thought we we were talking about whether it could be intelligent to zero
margins and paddings?

Paranoia induced by ignorance.

Do you know this to be the case or are you *guessing* that every time
any author does this, he has a psychological condition and a particular
ignorance not shared by you and Bergamot?

I have iron-clad proof (but it's a secret.)

I guessed the secret part but not the other one.

How can it be this? If an author has studied the matter and once made

Therein lies the fallacy.

That must lie in your secret knowledge eh? <g>

(by modifying a regular default one) his own, he might use it for the
rest of his life as the starting basis.

That's as maybe.

As maybe? You are a disgrace to OT posts in general! <g>

This latter might even help to maintain a greater level of consistency
across browsers. Who knows what margins and paddings different browsers
set to *all* the elements?

Of course, needlessly stepping on default (or user) styles is a
backwards thing to do.

What does this really mean?

It's the complete 180 degree opposite of correct, advocated in the
timeless standard "How Not to Design a Website."

That is your explanation? The details in the secret knowledge?

... more consistent than they would otherwise be. That is not the goal of making
everything "exactly" the same nor is it the only goal an author might
have. He might have the greater goal of marking up as semantically as
possible at the same time. Doing two things at once is possible, old
boy! <g

Marking up semantically? What does that have to do with CSS defaults,
particularly padding and margins? I'm just curious.

Well, now, it has everything to do with the matter but it is a long

story. But not a secret one! Read all my posts on the subject for the
last two years. Without style, there is no semantics worth speaking
about.

And who are you calling old?

Calling someone an 'old boy' or similar is not calling him old like
calling someone dogged is not calling him a dog. <g>

--
dorayme

On May 14, 12:26*am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

[snip]

It's the complete 180 degree opposite of correct, advocated in the
timeless standard "How Not to Design a Website."

That is your explanation? The details in the secret knowledge?

User agents have default styles for a reason. Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

... more consistent than they would otherwise be. That is not the goal of making
everything "exactly" the same nor is it the only goal an author might
have. He might have the greater goal of marking up as semantically as
possible at the same time. Doing two things at once is possible, old
boy! <g

Marking up semantically? *What does that have to do with CSS defaults,
particularly padding and margins? *I'm just curious.

Well, now, it has everything to do with the matter but it is a long
story. But not a secret one! Read all my posts on the subject for the
last two years.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

Without style, there is no semantics worth speaking
about.

See above.

And who are you calling old? *

Calling someone an 'old boy' or similar is not calling him old like
calling someone dogged is not calling him a dog. <g

Sir would be preferable.

In article
<2ac87892-f84b-438a-98ea-01aaa956d577 (AT) q2g2000vbr (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
David Mark <dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Dear Sir,

On May 14, 12:26*am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

[snip]


It's the complete 180 degree opposite of correct, advocated in the
timeless standard "How Not to Design a Website."

That is your explanation? The details in the secret knowledge?

User agents have default styles for a reason. Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

I cannot see how "overriding all of them assumes the Web developer knows
more about a given agent than its author(s)." Perhaps the reasons are in
your secret knowledge file? <g>

....

And who are you calling old? *

Calling someone an 'old boy' or similar is not calling him old like
calling someone dogged is not calling him a dog. <g

Sir would be preferable.

Yours sincerely,

--
dorayme

On May 14, 5:57*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
2ac87892-f84b-438a-98ea-01aaa956d... (AT) q2g2000vbr (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
*David Mark <dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Dear Sir,

On May 14, 12:26*am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

[snip]

It's the complete 180 degree opposite of correct, advocated in the
timeless standard "How Not to Design a Website."

That is your explanation? The details in the secret knowledge?

User agents have default styles for a reason. *Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). *It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

I cannot see how "overriding all of them assumes the Web developer knows
more about a given agent than its author(s)."

Your problem.

Perhaps the reasons are in
your secret knowledge file? <g

If you'd stop taking potshots and think...

[snip[

In article
<c345fe33-4b0f-4023-a0e8-5728c25c24dc (AT) v4g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
David Mark <dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 14, 5:57*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

User agents have default styles for a reason. *Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). *It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

I cannot see how "overriding all of them assumes the Web developer knows
more about a given agent than its author(s)."

Your problem.


If you'd stop taking potshots and think...

That's funny. That is exactly what I think of you. Instead of explaining
a single thing, you just jump to unwarranted conclusions. You are making
the big claims, not me! So it should be you that justifies them.

If someone substitutes their own modified stylesheet, taking their cue
no doubt from the main ones used by all browsers, just changing a few
things to suit themselves, this does *not* constitute the Web developer
thinking he knows more about a given agent than its author. It does not
follow. And if you think it does, then it is you who should be
explaining this, not me thinking harder why such an illogical sounding
and highly unlikely proposition should be true.

--
dorayme

On May 14, 7:08*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
c345fe33-4b0f-4023-a0e8-5728c25c2... (AT) v4g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
*David Mark <dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 14, 5:57*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
User agents have default styles for a reason. *Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). *It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

I cannot see how "overriding all of them assumes the Web developer knows
more about a given agent than its author(s)."

Your problem.

If you'd stop taking potshots and think...

That's funny. That is exactly what I think of you. Instead of explaining
a single thing, you just jump to unwarranted conclusions. You are making
the big claims, not me! So it should be you that justifies them.

Isn't this a tired old discussion (at least here?) I certainly
thought it was. Forgot I had wandered into the alt branch.

If someone substitutes their own modified stylesheet, taking their cue
no doubt from the main ones used by all browsers, just changing a few

Aha, "all browsers." Now your error is clear. If not, then I can't
help you.

[snip]

In article
<79f48729-f12a-405f-9806-c2b1e436324e (AT) r34g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
David Mark <dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Isn't this a tired old discussion (at least here?) I certainly
thought it was. Forgot I had wandered into the alt branch.

If you think it so tired why did you bother to pursue it at all. I am
odd in liking tired discussions, I particularly like ones that are
almost legally dead. You see, I like the idea of being resuscitated
myself when on death's door and I just have this terribly sincere
sympathy for other dying or dead things, be they discussions or rats.

If someone substitutes their own modified stylesheet, taking their cue
no doubt from the main ones used by all browsers, just changing a few

Aha, "all browsers." Now your error is clear. If not, then I can't
help you.

Yes, clear to you in your secret knowledge file!

--
dorayme

On May 14, 4:15*pm, David Mark <dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

User agents have default styles for a reason. *Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). *It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

It's hardly stupid or backwards. It is unfortunate that it has to be
done, it would be fantastic if with one line of CSS you could baseline
every browser (so without that command the browser retains its
'innate' styles), but in the absence of that - resetting CSS is a
worthwhile strategy. Doing so makes development faster, easier and
less headache prone. You also end up with lighter CSS files.

On May 15, 10:00*am, Andrea Costantini <cultosau... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 14, 4:15*pm, David Mark <dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

User agents have default styles for a reason. *Overriding all of them
assumes the Web developer knows more about a given agent than its
author(s). *It's stupid and backwards, but perfectly typical behavior
for Web developers.

It's hardly stupid or backwards. It is unfortunate that it has to be
done, it would be fantastic if with one line of CSS you could baseline
every browser (so without that command the browser retains its
'innate' styles), but in the absence of that - resetting CSS is a
worthwhile strategy. Doing so makes development faster, easier and
less headache prone. You also end up with lighter CSS files.

Nope.