Stumped:: web HTML. Caution, may be OT.
kline at thought.org
Thu May 29 20:52:29 UTC 2008
On Thu May 29 2008 13:26:43 DAve wrote:
> Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <kline at thought.org> wrote:
> >>> Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page
> >>> was so hard to read. She said that part of my text was black
> >>> on the deep-blue bg on my RHS. I stopped and checked with
> >>> firefox; things looked fine. I've done all markup by hand since
> >>> '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree--
> >>> mozilla, firefox, a couple others.
> >>> About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost
> >>> flipped out. One "free" commercial historical calender event
> >>> feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar (<TABLE></TABLE>)
> >>> on the RHS of the page. And yep, the new text and other things
> >>> were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle.
> >>> Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research,
> >>> it's time to update my main web page. My friend was using IE;
> >>> it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position
> >>> things on a .php or .html page.
> >>> Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly
> >>> what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any
> >>> other ideas? I've never learned an HTML editors because of the
> >>> learning curve. But:: if/when I come up with a better design
> >>> for my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML
> >>> editors in ports?
> >>> I'd be much obliged for any help here.
> >> I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do.
> >> Instead of finding a HTML Editor
> >> just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean
> >> manner.
> >> I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know
> >> use simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS
> >> on Windows.
> > /*
> > * strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and
> > theads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL
> > embedded, but * it must be down-queue. ....
> > */
> > I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple,
> > readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the
> > strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3.
> > I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was!
> > And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my
> > initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find
> > out what CMS is...
> I still prefer html by hand. I use VIM though all our designers and
> developers use Dreamweaver, funny few if any can fix the HTML if the
> tool munges it. Many have no idea how HTML works.
> As far as CMS tools go some create nice pages but at a cost. We have
> several clients who insist on CMS tools. The joke around our Office is
> [Joomla|Rails|other] is the only tool known to man to require 1GB server
> memory to load all the required libs in displaying "Hello World". Some
> of the CMS tools are very very heavy. Straight static HTML can be
> blisteringly fast in comparison unless you have low traffic or a fairly
> hefty server. Static HTML also doesn't show up in my CERT emails every
> month with security issues.
> My 2 cents worth...
well, for years my favored method is "kiss" == "keep it simple, sir."
i'm still chiuckling over that tool that requires a GIG to load.
ps: thanks to Google: CMS == "content mgnt system"
Gary Kline kline at thought.org www.thought.org Public Service Unix
More information about the freebsd-questions