Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Slash Open Source Project

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    About time guys!
  • latest firefox - changed styles - beautiful (though still ugly...you know what i mean)

    not a <table> element to be found in the page source.

    great job, folks!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It's about time!

    Anyway, I'm at work, so I can't look at the slashdot css, but the default one looks really impressive. kudos
  • Guys xhtml, 4.01 strict is a waste of time, innovate don't regress! Also it's ok to use tables when you are displaying tabular data (a calendar, stock chart, etc.). CSS-driven and standards-based design is about semnatic, relevant markup, not simply ejecting tables.

    May I refer you to some important reading material:

    Bullet Proof Web Design [simplebits.com]

    Web Standards Solutions [simplebits.com]

    and important sites:

    www.csszengarden.com [csszengarden.com]

    www.simplebits.com [simplebits.com]

    www.alistapart.com [alistapart.com]

    • Those designers that you've linked to (seem to) no little (and care little) about the reasons why xhtml isn't really xml since it's not served as xml, thereby making all of their reasons for using xhtml over html moot.

      HTML 4 is just as semantically complete as xhtml, and if xhtml isn't served as xml you get zero benefits from the xml-ness of the document.

      HTML 4 was the best choice for this and I applaud the slashcode team of making the right choice, not the popular one.
      • "HTML 4 is just as semantically complete as xhtml, and if xhtml isn't served as xml you get zero benefits from the xml-ness of the document." Yes no benefits at all, like forward compatibility, meeting accessibility standards or portability between devices (an issue I've already seen complained about on this site).
        • Forward compatibility with what? As long as XHTML is served as HTML, User Agents treat it as HTML. This negates ANY forward compatibility you can ever hope for (other than some hackish method ala IE 5 for the Mac's DOCTYPE switcher). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why does the server keep calling it a dog? HTML 4 meets exactly the same accessibility standards as XHTML, as far as I've seen. Portability between devices is a semantic and CSS issue, the markup language
          • You know what I have to agree with your point and after reading some other posts I can see why SlashDot is not embracing xhtml.
  • Running the main page of this site through validator.w3.org, reveals 8 HTML errors. Even if you switched to HTML 4.01 transitional, you'd still have 4 errors. So you've got some work to do there. When validating the article page itself, there's 9 errors. Valid HTML, will keep you from having CSS issues in some cases. As for the CSS itself, if you run that through a validator (a good one's at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ [w3.org] ), you'll also find you have an error and a couple warnings to deal with. val
  • call me a hypocrite or a rebel or whatnot but I find the original layout of this site (red white blueish gradient bg) better and more aesthetic. Can't both styles available on slashdot?
  • I've just filed a bug: [ 1283326 ] CSS: New SlashCode is illegible on Treo 650 [sourceforge.net]

    I bet it's probably illegible on other handheld devices as well... try it on yours!

  • Good work, but currently looks like a case of divitis [wikipedia.org]. Oh yeah, and XHTML.
  • Simply killing the two extra divs for every will save bandwidth. They aren't needed. Style the h4 directly.
  • I like the red look. I really like the way you can instantly change the view, thats the CSS I assume. Looking forward to when there's a couple style sheets to chooses from.
  • I thought this site was completely dead! ☺ Very glad to see that it's not.

    This change was much needed. Valid HTML+CSS makes the geeks' favorite web site look more respectable. Thanks for all the hard work to make it happen.

    Does clearing this hurdle mean we'll see some more updates here regarding slash development? For instance, about a migration to Apache 2?

    --
    Constitutionally Correct [cpne.org] ⇐
    • I am also a bit puzzled as to why you aren't using xhtml 1.1 . Is there something in html4.0 that isn't in xhtml1.1 that you need? I can't imagine what it is. Or is it just that the time to make it xhtml1.1 compliant would be much more than html 4.0?
    • If an advertiser puts non-XML code on an XHTML page, the standard-compliant browser behavior is to refuse to display it. That's not a tolerable situation for Slashdot. That's the main reason.

      (We had a long discussion about this a few months back, and 4.01 only squeaked past XHTML by a hair.)

      And there are many great reasons to move "part of the way" to 4.01. It makes our development smoother, makes customization for other sites a lot easier (once we provide some tools and docs for that), frees up some of

      • Since when did Microsoft write the standards for XHTML?

        Using XHTML now would be better than trying to retrofit the code AGAIN in the next year or so.

        You and I BOTH know Microsoft will NEVER put proper support for HTML, XHTML or anything relating to them, in IE.
    • The real question is how we're going to write a module to solicit style sheet contributions from our users and let everyone try them out and vote on which ones they like best.

      Patches welcome.

      Bonus points if your code automatically ships free ThinkGeek T-shirts to the most popular.

      • Actually, I have some ideas on that.

        A few years ago when I did the slashcss theme, I had planned on doing some sort of slashzen-garden type thing.

        Hit me up on IRC later today about it.
        --
        lottadot [lottadot.com]
    • WFM

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20050906 Firefox/1.6a1 ID:2005090607
      --
      THE INTERNETS ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS.