Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Retooling Slashdot with Web Standards

Posted by michael on Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:02 AM
from the two-cents dept.
Joe Clark writes "Nearly a year after an interview with this correspondent highlighted a few problems with Slashdot's HTML, Daniel M. Frommelt and his posse have recoded a prototype of Slashdot that uses valid, semantic HTML and stylesheets. Frommelt projects four-figure bandwidth savings in the candidate redesign, were it adopted, not to mention better appearance in a wide range of browsers and improved accessibility. Next he needs volunteers to retool the Slashdot engine. And yes, he did it all with CmdrTaco's blessing." Slashdot has kept its HTML 3.2 design for a long time ("because it works"), but perhaps this effort will be a catalyst for change...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Retooling Slashdot with Web Standards | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 764 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • CTRL-R (Score:5, Funny)

    I'm all for it. If it makes /. load faster when I hit CTRL-R 10 times per half hour then I'd be very happy!

    On second thought, that could mean more time working. Scratch the idea.
    • Re:CTRL-R by dei3oe (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:13AM
      • Re:CTRL-R (Score:5, Funny)

        by krisp (59093) * on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:20AM (#7534742)
        (http://www.krisp.com/)
        though, if you read the article, you'd know that the design is exactly the same, except the old HTML 3.2 was replaced with standards-compliant CSS.

        Then again, this is slashdot, and we don't read articles.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:CTRL-R (Score:4, Funny)

          by the_other_one (178565) * on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:25AM (#7534767)
          (http://slashdot.org/)
          What's an article?
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:CTRL-R by ergo98 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:37AM
            • Re:CTRL-R by Mr Guy (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:08PM
          • Article (Score:5, Funny)

            by yerricde (125198) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:41AM (#7534860)
            (http://www.anotherbear.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 25 2003, @03:29PM)

            Many languages have two articles, which correspond to English "an" and "the". Many of those languages have multiple forms, called "allomorphs," for each article, determined by context; in English, "an" becomes "a" before a consonant and "some" before a mass or plural noun. Russian has no articles, their function having been replaced by sticking nouns before the verb (to imply "the"-itude) or after the verb (to imply "a"-ness).

            Another meaning of "article" is any of the interesting pages linked to in the story at the top of a Slashdot article.pl page. In this case, Slashdot users would call this page [alistapart.com] "the article".

            [ Parent ]
        • RTFB by useosx (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:01AM
          • Re:RTFB by Slack3r78 (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:03AM
            • Re:RTFB by sydb (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:27AM
            • Re:RTFB by Eight 01 (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:05AM
              • Re:RTFB by Darren Winsper (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:46AM
            • Re:RTFB by fader (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:10AM
              • Re:RTFB by bhtooefr (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:32AM
              • Re:RTFB by IthnkImParanoid (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:27PM
              • Re:RTFB by bhtooefr (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @08:59AM
            • Re:RTFB by AyeRoxor! (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:12AM
              • Re:RTFB by Slack3r78 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:26AM
              • Re:RTFB by AyeRoxor! (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:57AM
              • Re:RTFB by AyeRoxor! (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:02PM
              • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:RTFB by Mortanius (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:21PM
            • Portrait mode by Chris Pimlott (Score:2) Wednesday November 26 2003, @02:50AM
          • Re:RTFB by W32.Klez.A (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:53AM
          • Re:RTFB by CaptnMArk (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:27AM
          • Re:RTFB by skahshah (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:13AM
          • Re:RTFB by Cygnus78 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:58AM
            • Re:RTFB by ConceptJunkie (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:18PM
          • Re:RTFB by Ctrl-Z (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:45AM
            • Re:RTFB by FuzzyBad-Mofo (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:56PM
          • Re:RTFB by generic-man (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:55AM
          • Re:RTFB by lisany (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:40PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:CTRL-R by JebuZ (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:13AM
          • Re:CTRL-R by sketerpot (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:27PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:CTRL-R by henc (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:52AM
        • Re:CTRL-R by ericdano (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:41AM
          • Re:CTRL-R by JWSmythe (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:59PM
            • Re:CTRL-R by ericdano (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @12:11AM
              • Re:CTRL-R by JWSmythe (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @08:49PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:CTRL-R by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:22AM
        • Re:CTRL-R by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:55AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • F5 by ergo98 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:16AM
      • Re:F5 by y0bhgu0d (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:24AM
        • Re:F5 (Score:5, Insightful)

          This is the classic response to that comment (about wasteful whitespace), yet I don't buy it.

          a) Totally guessing, but about 99.9999% of the pages served up are interpreted by "no one" other than the browser. It's more "readable" by the browser minus the whitespace.

          b) Most pages, like this, is "mechanically generated" - What you see in the final results was rendered: It isn't the "source-code". As such there is absolutely no code maintenance issues.

          What you're left with is the prospect that maybe one out of every million page hits is going to a Slashdot developer who's debugging that the rendered properly, though if it's XHTML transitional then a XML editor would be a great choice and would again make it irrelevant if it's clogged full of waste whitespace.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:F5 by pixel.jonah (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:34AM
            • Re:F5 by ericdano (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:43AM
              • Re:F5 by typhoonius (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:27AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:F5 by Slime-dogg (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:41AM
            • Re:F5 by NeXTer (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:01AM
              • Re:F5 by altmel (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:35AM
              • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:F5 by Cameroon (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:53AM
            • Re:F5 by john82 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:28AM
            • Re:F5 by larry bagina (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:12AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:F5 by Doomdark (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:27PM
          • Re:F5 by sketerpot (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:34PM
          • Re:F5 by ergo98 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:54PM
          • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • by yerricde (125198) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:46AM (#7534883)
        (http://www.anotherbear.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 25 2003, @03:29PM)

        how about eliminating all of the completely wasteful, bandwidth and processor consuming, whitespace?

        As you point out, XML, CSS, and ECMAScript, unlike Python, are not very sensitive to whitespace. Slashdot can mitigate whitespace's contribution to bandwidth in two ways: 1. mod_gzip (which Slashdot already uses), and 2. caching proxies that strip excess whitespace. But this article itself is intended to be read by developers, and clarity counts.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:F5 by dvdeug (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:20AM
        • Re:F5 by ergo98 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:26AM
          • Re:F5 by Mr. Slippery (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:39AM
            • Re:F5 by netsharc (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:58AM
              • PHP and Smarty by justMichael (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:56AM
      • Re:F5 by Webmonger (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:02PM
        • Re:F5 by ergo98 (Score:1) Sunday November 23 2003, @09:18AM
          • Re:F5 by Webmonger (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @12:04PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • forwardslashdot by essreenim (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:26PM
    • Re:CTRL-R by black mariah (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:07AM
    • Re:Confarnit! by Morosoph (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:16AM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • I'm worried... by SushiFugu (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:07AM
  • *looks down* (Score:5, Funny)

    by Xerithane (13482) <xerithane.nerdfarm@org> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:07AM (#7534664)
    (http://www.dacels.info/ | Last Journal: Monday January 05 2004, @10:45AM)
    Hell just froze over.

    Brr.
    • Re:*looks down* by gad_zuki! (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:10AM
      • Re:*looks down* by colinleroy (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:05AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:*looks down* by Nodatadj (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:05AM
    • Re:*looks down* by Jugalator (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:19AM
      • Re:*looks down* by gmhowell (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:40PM
      • Re:*looks down* by Xerithane (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:25PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by CSharpMinor (610476) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:08AM (#7534665)
    They're actually proud of this? That they went so many years without complying to HTML standards? It is obvious that Slashdot was just planning to break the HTML standard to force everyone to use Slashdot's "integrated" browser, Mozilla.

    This isn't the first time this has happened. Remember when BBS's became popular, and Slashdot "integrated" one into their site to kill any competition? Or all the times that Slashdot has brought down "competing" sites by linking to them, thereby safeguarding their website monopoly?

    It's a shame that the DoJ let them off for this....
  • While you're at it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GoldMace (315606) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:08AM (#7534668)
    Could you please make page 2 of comments actually be page 2 of the comments. I might be incredibly naive, but it seems something more like page 1.5. I don't know about the rest of you, but I always just read the odd numbered pages of comments, because like way too much stuff if repeated from the previous page on the even numbered ones.
  • Sounds good by kevin_conaway (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:08AM
    • Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Informative)

      by LFS.Morpheus (596173) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:39AM (#7534853)
      (http://www.wuputah.com/)
      Slashdot doesn't use "Times New Roman." It uses absolutely no font at all. This means that your browser renders it using its default proportional font. Proportional usually maps to one of "sans-serif" or "serif," and then you can change your default sans-serif or serif font.

      I'm not sure if this is settable in IE, but Mozilla, Safari, etc etc have these settings.

      Personally, I use serif, and then my serif font is Georgia. It looks great to me. But feel free to use sans-serif and Comic Sans if it suits you.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Sounds good by boatboy (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:50AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Sounds good by OldeClegg (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:20AM
      • Re:Sounds good by Maserati (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:31AM
  • well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by revmoo (652952) <slashdot@meep . w s> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:09AM (#7534674)
    (http://www.moolicious.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 26 2003, @01:51PM)
    but perhaps this effort will be a catalyst for change...

    How about a new look altogether?

    I had a look at the new site, and while it does fix many problems and should certainly be used to replace the existing setup, why not go a little farther and retool the look of the site as well?

    The look of slashdot has barely changed since the late 90's, and while the look certainly brings part of it's character, it's beginning to look dated. Perhaps it can be redesigned with a more effecient and cohesive interface while still retaining some of it's previous character?

    Or is it just a pipe-dream...
    • Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xerithane (13482) <xerithane.nerdfarm@org> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:16AM (#7534715)
      (http://www.dacels.info/ | Last Journal: Monday January 05 2004, @10:45AM)
      The beauty of CSS is that it can look different just by linking to a different stylesheet. If you read the full article, you would note he did make an alternate layout. It was sort of a mix between games and the traditional green, and wasn't exactly pretty. I don't think the idea was for it to be pretty, just to be "different."

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:well by eyeye (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:48AM
      • Re:well by Cthefuture (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:22AM
      • Re:well by RickHunter (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:53AM
      • Livejournal.com by cyranoVR (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:21PM
      • Re:well (Score:5, Informative)

        by trenton (53581) <trentonl@@@gmail...com> on Saturday November 22 2003, @04:19PM (#7538052)
        (http://slashdot.org/)
        For an excellent example of this, check out css Zen Garden [csszengarden.com]. I was astonished by the different renderings of the same content with stylesheets changes only. I never fully understood the hoopla about CSS until playing around with this site.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:well by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:31PM
        • Re:well by Reziac (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @03:56AM
    • Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shaitand (626655) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:20AM (#7534740)
      (http://www.ganjablogger.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 05 2006, @05:36PM)
      Not by this guy, he did a great job recreating the existing site, but did you look at his alternative skin? Dear god no...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:well by prichardson (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:26AM
    • Re:well by G-funk (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:23AM
      • Re:well by great throwdini (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:26AM
        • Re:well by Jeremi (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:37AM
          • Re:well by leviramsey (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:08AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:well by hankaholic (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:31AM
      • Re:well by bytesmythe (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:09PM
    • Re:well by follower-fillet (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:59AM
    • Re:well by JoeBuck (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:07AM
    • Re:well by DerekLyons (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:48AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:well by viware (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:06PM
    • Re:well by ericdano (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:48AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Compact fluorescent bulbs by yerricde (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:53AM
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • universal access (Score:5, Funny)

    by kurosawdust (654754) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:10AM (#7534676)
    will this work for browsers for those with disabilities? I think its only fair, considering I clicked on slashdot Games article and am now freakin' blind.
  • Volunteers? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:10AM
  • safari compliant by ack154 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:10AM
  • by Amiga Lover (708890) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:10AM (#7534685)
    The prototype is slowing already. You bastards! you slashdotted slashdot!
  • Finally! by cgranade (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:12AM
    • Re:Finally! by jesser (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:48AM
  • Explains some stuff by Stonent1 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:12AM
    • Re:Explains some stuff by momerath2003 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:32AM
    • Re:Explains some stuff (Score:5, Informative)

      by BJH (11355) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:35AM (#7534821)
      IE's character code handling is heuristic if no character code is specified in the HTTP header or the HTML head block.
      It scans through the page and tries to match the character frequency against average character frequencies for various languages. If you're seeing Slashdot as Big5, then that means IE thought that the character frequency matched Big5 most closely.
      [ Parent ]
  • "because it works" by TheRedHorse (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:12AM
  • Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EchoMirage (29419) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:12AM (#7534695)
    This is long long long long long overdue. Just because HTML 3.2 "worked" didn't make it good, or right. A proper application of [X]HTML and CSS can be a huge bandwidth saver. It looks like Google [google.com] also updated their design yesterday or today - no doubt to subtly cut down on the huge amounts of bandwidth they serve out. More importantly for Slashdot, however, is that writing their code in an open and updated fashion really opens up the market for the kinds of people that can access the site, and that's never a bad thing. So congratulations on starting this project, and I hope it gets underway soon!

    Now maybe I'll finally be able to change my .sig!
    • Re:Hallelujah! by great throwdini (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:35AM
    • Re:Hallelujah! by IntlHarvester (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:06AM
      • Re:Hallelujah! by CAIMLAS (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:00AM
        • Re:Hallelujah! by IntlHarvester (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:49AM
          • Re:Hallelujah! by EchoMirage (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:56AM
            • Re:Hallelujah! by bcs_metacon.ca (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:33PM
      • Re:Hallelujah! by nathanm (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:17PM
    • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zoop (59907) on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:18AM (#7535025)
      I like bandwidth savings but I am really curious: are any blind people (let's face it; we're not talking about "accessible" for paraplegics or the deaf) read Slashdot?

      And do you do it with a reader that doesn't interface directly with IE's rendering engine rather than reading the HTML directly?

      Despite running some very information-centric sites, I have yet to see a confirmed assistive technology surfing my site in the logs--yes, I know all about spoofing, which is why I ask...you'd think that some of them, given the Biblical proclamations about standards liberating the handicapped that come from ALA, would just be a HTML-slurpers that give a unique identifier to logs and simply break on IE-only sites.

      So, any of you out there? Is the site unusable on JAWS or some such? I want real blind people who use it every day rather than somebody who once listened to JAWS read it in a lab or academic setting.
      [ Parent ]
      • Humanconf by yerricde (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:20AM
      • Re:Hallelujah! by Aquitaine (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:00AM
      • Do blind people read [x]? by oneiros27 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:08AM
      • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2003, @11:09AM (#7536357)
        I'm a blind /. user and I use either JAWS interfacing with IE (yes, I know, windows sucks but Gnopernicus is not there yet) or command-line browsers such as lynx and links. For the most slashdot works alright, and I'd say CSS and XHTML only affect people using more semantic tools, like those who use Emacs to browse.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Hallelujah! by gmhowell (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:47PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Hallelujah! by jcoy42 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:39AM
    • Re:Hallelujah! by An Anonymous Hero (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:38AM
      • Re:Hallelujah! by hkmwbz (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:29AM
    • Tidying posts (Score:5, Insightful)

      Amen!

      I hope they implement ASAP.

      But there is another challenge, and that's the posts people write. Anybody care about their code? For example, quoting, to do it properly, one should write: <blockquote><p>blah, blah</p></blockquote>. That's an awful lot of typing.

      A page is not going to validate unless the posts are correct.

      The way I have planned to do this on one of my sites, is to make sure that every time somebody clicks "Preview" or "Submit", the post is handled to Tidy [sourceforge.net] for sanity checks and conversion. By using preview, you can correct you're code, but you can never submit something that isn't well-formed.

      I'm using Perl too, not Slashcode, but AxKit [axkit.org]. Nevertheless, a good Perl implementation of Tidy is still lacking. There is a HTML::Tidy [sourceforge.net] project page on Sourceforge, but it hasn't really gotten off the ground.

      Does anybody else want to work on this, or do you have other ideas for cleaning up posts?

      [ Parent ]
    • google by koekepeer (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:41AM
    • (OT Sig Troll) by cookd (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:58AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Agent sensing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trillan (597339) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:13AM (#7534698)
    (http://pyile.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @01:33PM)

    When the time comes, please add some code to switch to a light design when browsing with a PDA. I know right now you can select light mode, but it affects all browsers used from an account which isn't at all what I want...

  • It does look better by perotbot (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:14AM
  • Wow, slashdot is ugly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:15AM (#7534710)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday November 26 2002, @05:46PM)
    So I looked at final example [alistapart.com] and I was just about to complain about how messed up it was. The words in the boxes on the right were all scrunched against the left edge. There were these stupid little dots in front of the links. It was just plain ugly. Then I went to the real site and realized it had always been that way, I just haven't paid attention to it.
  • About the author... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lank (19922) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:16AM (#7534718)
    Daniel M. Frommelt is the University World Wide Web Coordinator at the University of Wisconsin - Platteville, an executive committee member of the Campus Web Council of Wisconsin, and a web standards advocate. Daniel spends his free time brewing beer.

    I like the guy already.
  • Teeny Bug (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Audity (600754) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:17AM (#7534721)
    That's all well and good, but you don't want to break the old page. I read slashdot often with my "text zoom" on mozilla 1.0.1 at 120 or 150%.

    Right now slashdot looks normal at any text zoom setting, but the version proposed in the article hides parts of words when I turn up my zoom to 200%. I don't often read with text that large, but I've done it before, and I'm sure there's users out there who do it regularily.
    • Re:Teeny Bug (Score:5, Informative)

      by alphaseven (540122) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:56AM (#7534939)
      Looking at the css file, it looks like the centre column is set at 96 pixels from the left, no matter how big the text in the left hand column is. So if the text in the left column is wider than 96 pixels it will bleed over the middle column.

      I'm not really up on my css, but I would guess a solution would be to have the centre column floating next to the left column, or to define the distance from the left hand side in em units instead of pixels.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Teeny Bug (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ubernostrum (219442) on Saturday November 22 2003, @03:57AM (#7535357)
        (http://www.b-list.org/)

        I'm not really up on my css, but I would guess a solution would be to have the centre column floating next to the left column, or to define the distance from the left hand side in em units instead of pixels.

        Or the CSS property overflow [w3.org], which could be used in a variety of ways to make the text visible when it gets too large for the column.

        [ Parent ]
      • Dont set absolute sizes by Hecatonchires (Score:1) Sunday November 23 2003, @01:10AM
      • ahem. ahem. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:41AM
        • Re:ahem. ahem. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:35AM
          • Re:ahem. ahem. by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:48PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:ahem. ahem. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:27AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Teeny Bug by InfoCynic (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:08AM
    • Re:Teeny Bug by CaptnMArk (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:02AM
  • Custom Colors by VirtuaKnight (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:17AM
  • Millennium! by spektr (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:18AM
  • YRO: How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise by Hektor_Troy (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:18AM
  • The problem is the CVS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ericdano (113424) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:18AM (#7534731)
    (http://www.jazz-sax.com/)
    One of the problems is the constant twiddling that happens on the CVS of slash. If you run a slash site, which I do, and keep up to date, you need to usually update every template on the site. Little things change, etc, etc. It's a pain in the ass. And look at when the Slashcode [slashcode.com] site was updated. Like months ago.

    It would be GREAT to see them finally, 3 or 4 years later, dump the old theme and streamline it with CSS and stuff. Is it going to happen anytime soon. Probably not.....

  • XML? by POds (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:19AM
    • Re:XML? by Brento (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:24AM
      • Re:XML? by POds (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:56AM
        • Re:XML? by POds (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:11AM
          • Re:XML? by POds (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:45AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:XML?-Bag-pipes. by POds (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:40AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:XML? by tirenours (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:23PM
  • bravo by ragnar (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:19AM
    • Re:bravo by IM6100 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:57AM
  • What about the graphic design (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drpentode (586437) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:20AM (#7534741)
    (http://www.pentodelabs.com/)

    Now that you've made slashdot standards compliant, why not make it look good? CSS has powerful leading, word spacing and font tools (all of them with relative measurements to look good across most browsers). If a browser doesn't like a text attribute, it won't display it, so you won't have to worry about the same unpredictability as you would with layers and div boxes. The one thing that sucks the most on slashdot is its typesetting. Type is the one thing web designers forget about, but doing it right drastically improves the appearance and readability of a site.

  • Re: Changing the look (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PotatoHead (12771) <`gro.keegnepo' `ta' `guod'> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:26AM (#7534774)
    (http://www.opengeek.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 07, @02:25PM)
    is a bad idea. Personally, I like it. Reducing the necessary bandwidth to use the site is a good thing though for everyone involved. Why spend money you don't have to in a down economy.

    Things do look a bit dated, but maybe that is a good thing. The popularity of /. is not an issue so what's to prove by changing the look? Gain new users? Have more impact?

    Anyone that matters knows the site already. The content is the reason they return, not the pretty icons. Getting more impact through a more compelling rendering might matter to a few folks, but will the expense be worth it?

    Maybe this is the wrong comparison... Take an established publication like the Times or WSJ. Do they make big changes often? No. The formula works and is a big part of their identity.

    I think they keep things the way they are because they know change works against the needs of their readers; namely, access to relevant content easily.

    Unless I am missing something, major changes to /. would prove to be a mistake.

    • Re: Changing the look by polyhue (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:50AM
      • Well, then by PotatoHead (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:49AM
    • Re: Changing the look by ericdano (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:56AM
      • Agree by PotatoHead (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:52AM
      • Win/win? by Dhraakellian (Score:1) Sunday November 23 2003, @08:16PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • It's been done before (unofficially) (Score:5, Informative)

    by cioxx (456323) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:26AM (#7534775)
    (http://www.microsoft.com/)
    There is a project called CSSZenGarden [csszengarden.com]. It's a collection of different stylesheets which modify the same content according to contributor's tastes and design abilities. There are few dozens of examples, and amongst them there is the Slashdot [csszengarden.com] interface, albeit not a perfect copy as shows in the article.

    You can view all the available CSS designs here [mezzoblue.com]. Same content, different stylesheet. Just shows off all the wonderful things that's possible with CSS standards-based page creation.

    "HTML is dead." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • What does it pay? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:27AM (#7534778)
    (Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
    /. makes money off ads and subscriptions. Why should we work for free? After all, the editors will not even edit their site nor will the check for dups. And some of the bandwidth cost savings could go to those that do the work.
  • Blech... by 11223 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:28AM
    • Re:Blech... by setmajer (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:00AM
      • Re:Blech... by setmajer (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:53AM
        • Re:Blech... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by setmajer (212722) on Saturday November 22 2003, @04:00AM (#7535363)
          (http://www.setmajer.com/)
          The designer hardcoded a fontface because CSS doesn't automatically resize columns like tables do.

          Er, 'fontface'? WTF is a 'fontface'?

          As for CSS resizing automagically, resize in relation to what, pray tell? A box with width: 30%; resizes in relation to the viewport, a box with width: 15em; resizes in relation to font size, as of CSS 2.1 a box with float: left or float: right and no width resizes in relation to content (most browsers--including IE/Win--do this anyway) and table-layout will get you table-style layout with whatever tags you like. MS just didn't feel the need to support it in IE 5/Win or IE/Mac so people don't use it much. That's Microsoft's fault, not the W3C's

          Because CSS was designed by doofus eggheads and not experts in solving real world web design problems.

          Ian Hickson [hixie.ch] edited the CSS2.1 spec, and he's been 'solving real world web design problems' since at least 1998 when I worked with him at the Web Stanards Project [webstandards.org]. Hakon Wium Lie [w3.org] edited CSS 1, 2 and 2.1 and has been working on Opera [opera.com] since 1999, earned an MS in Visual Studies from MIT and wrote his thesis on electronic display of newspapers. TantekCelik [tantek.com] is responsible for the widely-lauded Tasman rendering engine used in IE 5.x/Mac. These people do use this stuff in the real world, and if you don't like the directions they're taking your'e free to join the www-style [w3.org] discussion list and let them know.

          Which then forces me to do a bunch of work

          One line of CSS is 'a bunch of work'? I suppose you find tying your own shoes a pretty onerous task as well?

          or accept undesirable browser settings

          Let me get this straight: you're hacked because the site doesn't use your settings for font size and face, but setting your browser to override the site's settings with your choices is 'undesirable'? Huh?

          [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Blech... by ubernostrum (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:06AM
  • Big fonts by MrP- (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:29AM
  • italics? by 00420 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:30AM
  • Wow, what a difference by alanjstr (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:30AM
  • Ok, good idea. by pair-a-noyd (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:34AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Much nicer in Safari now by CODiNE (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:34AM
  • 50 million pages! by blair1q (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:35AM
  • Editor Queue enhancements? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:37AM (#7534837)
    (http://www.halley.cc/ed/)

    Not a flame.

    If you're thinking of retooling the slash engine itself, I hope you consider some of the oft-complained areas for the most improvement. Things get mixed up in any random-access submission "queue" engine, but slash seems to suffer from these things often. Even editors have grumbled about not seeing other editors' status on various stories.

    • detect multiple/overlapping story submissions by their URLs, and make it easier for editors to find the earliest and to find the best (longest, most links, no broken links) examples of a breaking story
    • automatically give submitters a reason for their rejections: "rejected; another poster broke the story earlier and/or better."
    • capitalize stories according to title rules (not just every word)
    • fix or highlight the top fifty most common grammatical mistakes in submissions automatically (s/\bmore then\b/more than/g)
    • automatically mirror (and provide as separate link) a front-page snapshot of featured stories for the first hour of a story going public
    • searcher should be aware of common three-letter acronyms, and index them better
    • allow meta-moderation of "overrated" and "underrated"
  • other look by millette (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:41AM
  • Finally? by goofy183 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:42AM
  • Slashdot CSS Suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scoobysnack (144572) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:43AM (#7534869)
    (http://almostog.com/)

    Good article, just a couple of suggestions...

    In general, it's usually better to avoid giving layout-suggestive names to your div tags. In the example, the author calls the Login/Sections/Help div leftcolumn. It would probably be better to name it something that is more suggestive of it's content rather than it's location - this way, if in the future a new skin was added that moved the content to the right-side, or even bottom of the page, the div name wouldn't contradict it's location.

    Another suggestion would be to disable all images in the print.css file. The author already went ahead and disabled the advertisement, the left and right columns, but he left those pesky story icons. I know that when I print an article, usually all I care about is the text. It's a simple way to make a page a little more printer friendly.

    My last suggestion would be to move the content div tag, up near the top of the page. This way, as your browser downloads the information from the server, it will download the story information (important) before downloading the left/righthand content panes (unimportant). If someone stops loading their browser before the page download has been completed, at least the browser can attempt to render the story data. And with css, the layout will be preserved.

  • haha by VAXGeek (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:44AM
  • Sadly... by Al Al Cool J (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:51AM
  • What about PNGs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yosho (135835) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:52AM (#7534919)
    (http://sakabatou.net/)
    Come on, Slashdot still hasn't converted its GIFs to PNGs. That alone would save a good amount of bandwidth, not to mention that Slashdot is supposedly pro-open source and all that.

    The only argument I've seen against them is for compatibility's sake -- honestly, I would be surprised if even as much as 1% of Slashdot's readership was using an image-based browser that did not support PNGs. There are probably plugins available for the ones that don't. So, why not?
    • Re:What about PNGs? by ericdano (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:04AM
    • Re:What about PNGs? by qewl (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:19AM
    • seconded! (Score:4, Informative)

      by eddy (18759) on Saturday November 22 2003, @05:17AM (#7535473)
      (http://gazonk.org/~eloj/ | Last Journal: Tuesday June 07 2005, @01:18PM)

      Actually, you'll have to go back to stuff like Internet Explorer 1.5 and the like to find a browser that doesn't support the basics.

      And for the record, PNGs are always smaller, except in a few very special cases which doesn't matter because the absolute size difference is next to nothing in those.

      And yes, the PNG-writer in Adobe products is fucking broken last time I checked, and to top it off, many "webdesigners" doesn't understand that PNG supports truecolor, so they'll happily compare their paletted GIF and their GIF saved RGBA and explain the size difference not with "I'm an idiot" but "PNG sucks".

      And as for animation.. that's a feature! Personally, I have animated GIFs disabled -- always -- but if you really want to animate pictures you'll use MNG which is animations made out of PNG-images

      [ Parent ]
      • Experiment by eddy (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:32AM
        • Re:Experiment by eddy (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:07AM
        • Re:Experiment by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:08AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What about PNGs? by DarkSarin (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:26AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Table layouts do not work for forums by jesser (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:54AM
  • Four simple feature requests (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brrrrrrt (628665) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:57AM (#7534943)
    If Slashdot is going to be recoded, I would like to ask for four features that are easy to implement, and that would be very nice to have.

    1. When you click on your username, you see all of your comments, and next to your comments, you see the number of replies to your comments.
    It would be really nice if this number would be clickable, so you could immediately read the replies to your comments. (It's quite complicated to get to the replies now, especially when you've put a high comment threshold in place)

    2. Can story submissions be placed (more logically & more conveniently) on people's slashdot-homepages, instead of on the page that you get when you click on "submit story"?

    3. It would be nice if you could see your own story submissions (not just the subject, but also the body & other details) when you click on them. Just to see them back.

    4. Could the default comment-submission mode be changed to "plain old text" instead of "html-formatted"?
    It is confusing that you have to write your own html in a text area on slashdot to get something as basic as newlines, where there is no other site that I can think of - not even a geeky one - that requires you to manually enter the BRs.
    It's just not useful, not intuitive and not nice this way.
  • Sweet creepin' jesus! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikeswi (658619) * on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:00AM (#7534956)
    (http://www.spywareinfo.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 20 2003, @08:22AM)
    14 gigs PER DAY savings ????

    I do ~90-100 gigs per MONTH and freak out at that.

    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
    I will never bitch about my bandwidth use again.
  • Search Function (Score:4, Interesting)

    by General Sherman (614373) on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:00AM (#7534957)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday December 31 2003, @01:25AM)
    While you're updating the (X)HTML to be compliant, why don't you make the search engine actually search? As it is now it's almost completely random as to what you get when you click "search", no matter what you put in the box. I've gotten completely different results just by hitting reload.
    • Re:Search Function by CvD (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:05AM
    • Re:Search Function by iantri (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:30AM
    • Amen by Chris Pimlott (Score:2) Wednesday November 26 2003, @02:45AM
  • ALA is ok but CSS is broken (Score:5, Interesting)

    by metalhed77 (250273) <andrewvc.gmail@com> on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:02AM (#7534968)
    (http://www.andrewvc.com/)
    Ok, I like ALA, I'm a bit of standards guy even, my whole website is XHTML 1.0 strict. Unfortuanately slashdot has a table based layout, which, to put it simply, CSS cannot handle. I've spent days researching correct CSS tables in the past and it is an impossibility. The problem? Font overlapping. Try a text zoom to as little as 200% (yes, doubling the text size is not that extreme) and most CSS table based designs instantly break. Much like this one. My site works fine with it as everything is position ed such that font size only breaks at absurdly high magnification, but if it were any more complex I'd HAVE to use tables. I don't know if this si a browser issue, or a problem with the CSS spec, but text overflow is a serious issue, one which breaks nearly every CSS page with complex layout in existance. There needs to be a way to style tables in CSS without having to use a table tag. In short, CSS boxes are just that, boxes, they don't link together to correctly handle font sizes. The new slashdot is more broken than the current slashdot in a functional sense.
  • Could do even more by AT (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:05AM
  • One problem I would like to point out by Qa1 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:08AM
  • Recently, I changed to NO GRAPHICS by Progman3K (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:09AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Another idea to save bandwidth by Hanzie (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:12AM
  • Great idea by marderj (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:12AM
  • Bandwidth by SnprBoB86 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:16AM
  • Their layout.css is actually broken by Skapare (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:20AM
  • Did anyone else notice? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:22AM (#7535037)
    The example page does look pretty much exactly like the existing Slashdot layout, to which I say job well done. The only problem I see with it is that, at least in IE6, when the window isn't maximized, the category images all crowd up in the visible window and overlap things they aren't supposed to instead of trailing off the visible screen to the right. I don't know anything about advanced HTML, so I don't know whether that's a bug or a limitation of the technique, but it's definitely a big issue, I'd think.
  • some shortcomings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by locus_standi (631116) on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:27AM (#7535048)
    the italic words on slashdot are rendered in bold on konqueror 3.1.4 no matter what font i use. also, the font for comments seem to depend on the general font of X and konqueror. i would prefer if slashdot specified a standard typeface for comments and other aspects of the website. while slashdot loads pretty quick here, i would welcome a fresh look to the website. a better way to view comments would be nice too. the threaded system is cumbersome when there are too many comments. just my $0.02
  • XHTML or HTML 4.,01 Strict? (Score:5, Informative)

    by kuzb (724081) on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:28AM (#7535051)

    If XHTML, there are some things to consider:

    It's important to note that using XHTML 1.1 requires you to send your documents as XML [w3.org]. This means the document should have an XML declaration above the doctype, and needs to be sent with an XML mime-type [w3.org], ideally application/xhtml+xml. This has a significant drawback; IE can't see it [w3.org].

    A fairly well established workaround is to use mod_rewrite and munge the mime-type of a document [w3.org] based on what a user agent sends in its Accept header (To date, Mozilla is the only browser to include application/xhtml+xml in its Accept header). However, some would argue that this too has drawbacks. Since only Mozilla understands application/xhtml+xml, your documents will be sent as text/html, and XHTML does not validate as HTML.

    The arguments around this issue have been summarized in the widely linked "Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful [hixie.ch]"

  • Extend those four-figure bandwidth savings... by Ygorl (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:41AM
  • um... by pb (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:18AM
    • Re:um... by Micah (Score:3) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:41AM
  • Works much better... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Polo (30659) * on Saturday November 22 2003, @02:20AM (#7535184)
    (file:///etc/passwd)
    I tried it on my phone, and the display is lots more readable.

    The original version had lots of italics and the text flow wasn't great.

    The updated version looked much better (except that the header of the first story was separated from the body by the section nav and poll and stuff)

    Handspring Treo 600, blazer browser.

    Now there's no reason to fix http://slashdot.org/palm [slashdot.org] (which doesn't seem to work) to be as good as http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palm [wired.com] looks on a handheld.

    Maybe even make it automatic.

  • by legLess (127550) on Saturday November 22 2003, @02:54AM (#7535248)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday June 23 2004, @04:53PM)
    This is an elegantly-designed page, and a nice recode of the original.

    For the last several months I've been working on the same project from a slightly different perspective. We have a working Slash-based site, currently in live beta, at http://www.news4neighbors.net [news4neighbors.net].

    The site doesn't validate, but it's all structural XHTML with CSS for layout and style. This is much rougher than the beautiful markup presented here, but the difference is that nearly our entire site is running this template system. My work is based on the Openflows strict theme, released early this year at http://strict.openflows.org [openflows.org]. But not much of that theme is left, as their project and mine had very different goals. I've changed all of the 120-something templates, and much of the code that sends them data.

    The site needs a lot of work, no doubt. But we're developing it rapidly, and have made much progress.

    The biggest challenge is that Slash itself doesn't separate content from presentation from business logic. To change one set of tags you may have to rewrite a template, change a database variable, write some Perl, or a combination. This isn't a knock on Slash -- it's very powerful and I enjoy using it -- it's just that the presentation layer hasn't been their focus.

    The end-goal for this project, Slash-wise, is to have a fully XHTML/CSS compliant theme that people can easily use on their sites.

    If you want more information about it, send me email at randall -at- sonofhans.net

    [ FYI, I also posted this in the ALA discussion ].
  • dynamic threads! by datalife (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:07AM
  • about time by mcbridematt (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:22AM
    • Re:about time by mcbridematt (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:44AM
  • Bug in the 'final example'? by rufusdufus (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:30AM
  • text browsers by umrk (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @03:59AM
  • Guh? by Feztaa (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:07AM
  • This is nice but.. by cyberfunk2 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:09AM
  • If I can't read it in Lynx... by Trolling4Dollars (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:16AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • it makes a person wonder by CAIMLAS (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:48AM
  • compression by fr0dicus (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:00AM
  • I like this look by The One KEA (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:29AM
  • Er...slash doesn't use templates? by pacman on prozac (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:39AM
  • Old browsers by obi (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @05:57AM
  • don't forget the "light display" by roskakori (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:11AM
  • I would like to see ... by torpor (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:15AM
  • PDA display much better in the new version by blorg (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:18AM
  • How would this affect browsers in PDAs? by Danathar (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:37AM
  • Tables vs CSS - 15 points to consider by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:45AM
  • But didja see the savings?!? by H8X55 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:08AM
  • Since we are talking by Insipid Trunculance (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:27AM
  • Good idea technically, awful design by jopet (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:28AM
  • Now we know why there was a Y2K problem by budGibson (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:35AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • New site validates properly by Helevius (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @08:37AM
  • Handheld-friendly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ralphclark (11346) on Saturday November 22 2003, @08:38AM (#7535841)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday June 24 2003, @10:34AM)
    The article suggests as a consequence of the CSS-based implementation that printer-friendly and handheld-friendly views would be available. Now that's surely going to be the killer argument for many of us. How much time would I save if I could read slashdot comfortably on the way to and from work? I'd get my life back finally after five years of being glued to my desk every evening...
  • Actually, I like /. like it is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theolein (316044) on Saturday November 22 2003, @08:52AM (#7535873)
    Slashdot has never been a pretty site (pun not intended), but a site that has been about content, the whole content and nothing but the content. While huge numbers of tables have a way of eating bandwdth, the html 3.2 works on everything on the planet with the possible exception of Mr. Ozimba's Netscape 1. 419 browser in Nigeria, and it renders damn fast as well, and seems to be pretty much indestructible.

    There are bound to be issues with the multitude of browsers available, each rendering even CSS 1.0 in their own inimitable style (pun intended), because what Mac IE5 considers as a box, and what Windows IE5 consider as decent box or text attribute sometimes tend to be entirely different things.

    If it works don't break it, I think. Rather fix the search engine.
  • Current /. is rubbish on a phone by gjh (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:03AM
  • Text browsers by babbage (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:40AM
  • NO!!!! by wwwgregcom (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @11:42AM
  • YES (Score:3, Informative)

    by Apreche (239272) on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:03PM (#7536675)
    (http://www.apreche.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 08 2005, @11:17PM)
    YES, Slashdot should definitely be perfectly XHTML compliant. This has the following benefits

    1) looks better
    2) allows people to easily make custom ./ css
    3) slashdot can have multiple css to choose from, especially for those of us blinded by games.slashdot.org. Also in Firebird users can switch between the different stylesheets with east
    4) people can easily write XSLT stuffs to take slashdot and mix it up.
    5) Maybe we can make an RSS that's a little bit better and more customizeable. Doesn't exactly have to do with it, but it's related somewhat.

    Yes ./ become compliant.
  • All the work for $4K saving a year? Not worth it by 42.5 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:18PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Of course it'll save bandwidth! by caudron (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:52PM
  • Redesign good for Slashdot Journals by cyranoVR (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:02PM
  • Try my UserCSS by Domo-Sun (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:10PM
  • Freaking dotted lines by PurpleBob (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:14PM
  • Apache2 by Thax (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:19PM
  • I for one by Treacle Treatment (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:19PM
  • for the love of pete... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cygnus (17101) on Saturday November 22 2003, @01:57PM (#7537342)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    Daniel M. Frommelt and his posse have recoded a prototype of Slashdot that uses valid, semantic HTML and stylesheets.

    HTML is not a semantic web technology! here's the W3C Semantic Web page [w3.org]. Notice how (X)HTML isn't mentioned?

    i don't know who to blame for the propagation of this usage of the word 'semantic,' but i think it might be Jeffrey Zeldman [zeldman.com]. i like the dude, but this has to stop...

  • The one missing feature that keeps me away... by maddog2o_2o (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:18PM
  • Volunteers? by buddha42 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:44PM
  • $3650/yr??? by istartedi (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:47PM
  • But what about older browsers... by CaptCanuk (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:17PM
  • The most significant improvement to /. by Alaska Jack (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @04:37PM
  • I have a k5 JSP/CSS prototype if anyone interested by freality (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:24PM
  • Except current slashdot is better... by Snaller (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @09:35PM
  • Prototype shmototype by tf23 (Score:2) Sunday November 23 2003, @08:27PM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Unabageler (669502) <josh@NospaM.3io.com> on Saturday November 22 2003, @12:10AM (#7534679)
    (http://hackforfood.com/)
    did you not read the article?

    the code was converted to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and validated


    that's almost as standard as you can get.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Thank God! by revmoo (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:11AM
    • Re:Thank God! by grilo (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:20AM
      • Re:Thank God! by revmoo (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:50AM
      • Re:Thank God! by BJH (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:51AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • YAY I GOT MY ENGLISH DEGREE TODAY by JasonUCF (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:13AM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... by deacent (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:23AM
  • Re:Um.. where's the example by jshare (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:28AM
  • Re:Cool! by pinkboi (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:45AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Um.. where's the example by cplim (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:45AM
  • RTFA by useosx (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:45AM
    • Re:RTFA by cRueLio (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:01AM
    • Re:why XHTML, then? by stud9920 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:27AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:making slashcode usable.. by ericdano (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:53AM
  • Re:why HTML? by mrpuffypants (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @12:55AM
  • Yes, please! by pmuellr (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:02AM
  • Re:why HTML? by en4ca (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:06AM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... by MuckSavage (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @01:13AM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... (Score:3, Informative)

    by BladeMelbourne (518866) on Saturday November 22 2003, @04:12AM (#7535384)
    You can have 100% W3C compliant pages, but it is very possible that they will be rendered slightly differently in different browsers (even standards compliant browsers).

    For example, I can create a validated XHTML page with one paragraph inside it, and it will look different in Mozilla than what it does in MSIE. Even though Mozilla and MSIE support the standards used to render this one paragraph.

    When I create a site, I use font sizes like xx-small, x-small, small, medium, large, x-large, xx-large. (Browsers can dynamically resize these with text size settings, to cater for older people or the visually impaired.)

    However the fonts appears bigger in MSIE (or smaller in Mozilla if the glass is half full). The solution is to have another style sheet. If the reported HTTP_USER_AGENT contains MSIE, this style sheet is served after the first, and it makes the fonts in MSIE smaller. For example if the forementioned paragraph was x-small and Arial, the MSIE style sheet would need to specify xx-small - to make the font sizes as close as possible in different browsers.

    I'm all for web standards, but a web developer who takes his/her work seriously will seek perfection: identical appearance and functionality in different browsers, using W3C standards.

    Nobody was suggesting making /. MSIE only.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... by oohp (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @06:54AM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... by Magus424 (Score:2) Saturday November 22 2003, @07:26AM
  • Re:Make it dillo compatible by lambsonic (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @10:38AM
  • Re:Not ANOTHER non-standard page... by smeg168 (Score:1) Saturday November 22 2003, @02:39PM
  • Re:New page NOT compatible with Wetscrape 4.08 by rduke15 (Score:1) Sunday November 23 2003, @06:57AM
  • 38 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2