From: Aredridel <aredridel@...>
Date: 2003-07-25T04:22:26+09:00
Subject: Re: New RDoc template, and a question

On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:09, Michael Granger wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 23, 2003, at 07:32 US/Pacific, Aredridel wrote:
> 
> >> Now the question: this new template relies on DHTML, Javascript, and a
> >> lot of CSS. Has the world of browsers advanced to the point where I
> >> could make this the default style, or do we still need to support the
> >> previous generation?
> >
> > Considering I use w3m for browsing docs while coding, yes, support old
> > browsers.
> 
> Have you tried looking at it in w3m? It looks good to me.

'tis decent.  [Source] link should not show, though.

> 
> > Also, people turn JS off.
> 
> Noted. See the <noscript> block below.

Good solution.

> 
> > Also, for I in /usr/share/doc/*/*.html; do lynx -dump "$I" > "$(echo $I
> > | sed -e 's/.html/.txt/')"; done
> 
> Have you tried looking at it in lynx?

'tis decent.  Frames still suck, but that's not /your/ problem.

> > Also, scripts shouldn't be inlined whenever possible -- make the
> > javascript an external library, referenced by a <script src="..."/>
> > tag.  It's even possible to add event handlers via the DOM that way, so
> > you can have pure HTML files, and the script is entirely orthagonal.
> > It's not easy to think that way, but once you do, your script is
> > cacheable and your code is faster, and your HTML is smaller and also
> > completely backward-compatible.  I would love to see all the "onclick"
> > events handled that way, and even the "[Source]" links added that way.
> 
> Noted. I was just following the convention of the original template, as 
> well as being a bit lazy: moving the script off into a separate file 
> would require additional code-writing, and it just doesn't seem to be 
> worth it for a 22-line script. Your preferences/motivation may vary of 
> course.

I think it's valid.  Pages load faster that way, less load, less burden
on servers, less stress waiting for pages. <grin>

Ari