New homepage design of d-p-l.org is now live. <eom>

Fri Dec 16 13:56:30 PST 2011

On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 21:19:27 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> A. While CSS is acceptable for styling (though I would change 
> some things), it's pure shit for layouts.

I wouldn't say that, completely. I do use a html template,
but only for the outer layouts; it's a frame of sorts that
I can put content into.

The content itself gets by pretty ok with css as long
as you group it. Sometimes the order of appearance matters
(ugh ugh ugh, I hate css float especially) but it's not
bad most the time. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.

> B. When you're talking about *inside* an article or posting, 
> etc, all of that *is* the content.

Yes, for the most part. I'd still say specify only what
needs to be specified for the content, so then it fits
in better with the user's environment. (In this case,
it's perverted in that the user is the web designer, but
it's the same idea.)

So <i>is cool</i>, but <body color=""> is probably bad.

> C. You may be operating with a workflow where the web designer 
> is CSS-only, but that's not always the case, and I think 
> reasonable argments can be made for doing it differently (point 
> "A" above, for example).

Yeah, that's why I do the hybrid thing, but when they tried to
make the arguments to get more access to the html, I reject them
and so far I think I'm right. (The designer hasn't actually needed
to edit any of the html files I gave him access too!)