new documentation format for std.algorithm

[Jeff Nowakowski]

On 02/03/2011 11:54 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't quite get your point there. Of course there is the
> standard 960px desktop viewport to target, and typical mobile device
> dimensions are getting more and more important as well. It's part of
> delivering a good job to make sure that your work looks splendid at the
> few »standard« configurations, and not too bad on the rest. Where is the
> contradiction? And what does »pleasing the managers« have to do with that?

What 960 pixel "standard"? Who the hell decided that? Who even knows how 
large a pixel is on my monitor, or my preferred browser width, or what 
font settings I might be using either due to preference or poor eyesight?

Laptop screens, desktop monitors, and mobile devices come in a dizzying 
array of sizes and resolutions.

The "standard" used to be 800x600 back in the 90s. The idea was idiotic 
then, and it's idiotic now. There are no standard display sizes on the 
web. The whole idea is trying to force-fit a print design mindset onto a 
medium that was explicitly designed to not have one.

> I just wanted to point out that using relative font sizes has hardly any
> intrinsic advantages to just specifying sizes in pixels (zoom controls
> work for both).

Using pixels means it's much more likely that somebody is going to have 
to manually adjust the zoom. Also, fixing the amount of content you're 
going to display based on pixels, instead of properly flowing, is broken 
when the client's resolution doesn't match your chosen "standard". They 
will either get too much content or not enough, and zooming won't help.