Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

blog.echoenduring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#51

Post by arethuza »

jff wrote: post #49
arethuza wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever used a hypertext environment built around PostScript? I worked with one for a few years in the early 90s (HyperNeWS). While this was very powerful and hugely entertaining from a geek perspective it was never going to be suitable for a wider audience - primarily due to the nature of PostScript itself. Don't get me wrong, I really liked PostScript as a programming language, but you have to admit that it i…

I use postscript all the time--as an automatically generated result of my LaTeX files. A decent set of LaTeX macros would let you make basic text+hyperlinks postscript web pages without too much trouble, I'd think.

True.

However, if you wanted scripted behavior in your generated documents then things could get interesting.

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#52

Post by nanairo »

mgcross wrote: post #22
nanairo wrote: post #10

I agree with the author wholeheartedly. I always assumed these were experimental of the "just 'cause I can" type. Trying to show off how far CSS can go, but not really in a realistic usage. I read here though that people believe this is a useful type of use. Without getting into a flame-war if it is or isn't, I think the answer there is SVG: that should be just perfect for these sort of usage.

Unfortunately, IE 8 won't render SVG at all. I suppose graphics could be designed in a vector-based tool like Illustrator that can export SVG for compatible browsers as well as raster for lte IE8.

Isn't IE 9 going to come with full SVG support? Or did I dream that?

Anyway my point was only that SVG will solve this problem soon (say a year or so).

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#53

Post by protomyth »

jacobolus wrote: post #29
protomyth wrote: post #9

Somedays I just wish we had used Postscript with hyperlinks instead of HTML/CSS/Javascript.

Any further explanation? I think for most people with websites, postscript would be an absolutely terrible choice: the barrier to entry is simply too high. (Note: I think PostScript, and stack-based languages generally, can be great fun, but really not for the average “guy making a site about his dog” sort of user)

I am not as sure it would be such a horrible choice. Most people don't hand code their site and a Postscript derivative would have probably got decent support from Illustrator and the DTP crowd. It would have probably been easier for the normal user because writing software to create the pages would have been quite a bit easier. It would have spawned a lot more software instead of the user-unfriendly "use a text editor" culture we have now. Also, having an actual display model that was well understood by the creative crowd would have been pretty nice.

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#54

Post by protomyth »

jacquesm wrote: post #17
protomyth wrote: post #9

Somedays I just wish we had used Postscript with hyperlinks instead of HTML/CSS/Javascript.

Port 83 is free as far as I can see, I'm game. HPTP? Or Content-type: text/hyper-postscript?

It would be cool to try something like this, but I also wonder if the web is "it". With all this talk about net neutrality, it sometimes gets lost that the cool thing was being able to invent a new service on a new port. Would the web have been here if the net port restricted like it does today in the days of gopher?

If you were going to do this.... I would probably go with something more persistent in a protocol (more X windows than http). Flip the axis (0,0 top left) and ... well a lot of things from display postscript ... might be fun,

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#55

Post by sp332 »

sp332 wrote: post #4

If you want to minimize HTTP requests, or store everything in one document, couldn't you embed a GIF or PNG in the HTML using MIME? I just checked, and a PNG of the "profile" icon is about half the size of the CSS. (261 bytes vs. 560).

If you want to see it, put this in your address bar:

  data:image/png;base64,
  iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAOCAYAAAAWo42rAAAAAXNSR0IArs4
  c6QAAAL9JREFUKM%2BNkE2KhDAUhMvMUoQQyCK6yE30Jp5C5LmbC%2Bkm5E
  Au9BDZ1Cy604Md%2BqegoEg%2B3ksFvCulRBGh957ee4oIU0r5mshBRAjg4
  mVZStA5V4DOuQeocFdVVXiWUuo%2F5zCOYwFezp7LWGtprS3KVCSJL%2FRY
  va4r%2Br6HMQbGGAzDgG3brqunaSoaZ8%2FzfPueEMJLKDvGyJ%2FjOH73f
  X%2F7vvM8gbquP05smoZKa%2F2xsdYaCCGwbduX07quY4yRf337vKb8xjnB
  AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
After base-64 encoding and including whitespace, it's still only 408 chars for the PNG.

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#56

Post by uxp »

w1ntermute wrote: post #35
uxp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is highly practical, since one very skilled designer and CSS programmer with enough programming skill (or a team) can create a template that many other less skilled and less experienced designers can then take and use at will. The template, while being rather complex compared to the hand-coded and "beautiful" markup that Thomas was talking about, can also have enough dumb logic in itself to degrade gracefu…

Wouldn't the degraded version depend upon the same old Photoshop approach? If so, you might as well keep using that approach until all major browsers support the necessary components of CSS3.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Button

    .mybutton {
        padding: 10px 5px;
        border: 1px solid black;
        background: red;
        width: 100px;
        text-align: center;
    }
Instead of a gradient background and rounded corners, which is still trivial to write by hand.

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#57

Post by jacquesm »

protomyth wrote: post #54
jacquesm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Port 83 is free as far as I can see, I'm game. HPTP? Or Content-type: text/hyper-postscript?

It would be cool to try something like this, but I also wonder if the web is "it". With all this talk about net neutrality, it sometimes gets lost that the cool thing was being able to invent a new service on a new port. Would the web have been here if the net port restricted like it does today in the days of gopher? If you were going to do this.... I would probably go with something more persistent in a protocol (mo…

> With all this talk about net neutrality, it sometimes gets lost that the cool thing was being able to invent a new service on a new port.

But we can do that just as easily today.

> Would the web have been here if the net port restricted like it does today in the days of gopher?

There are very little port restrictions. The only ones that I am aware of that are routinely enforced are http and mail servers running on end-user lines and mail server other than the ISP ones connected from those lines.

Anything else is fair game.

> f you were going to do this.... I would probably go with something more persistent in a protocol (more X windows than http). Flip the axis (0,0 top left) and ... well a lot of things from display postscript ... might be fun,

Display postscript is a very impressive language, it takes some getting used to though.

But it is a lot more flexible and orthogonal than HTML will every be.

Re: Are We Taking CSS Too Far?

#58

Post by jff »

arethuza wrote: post #51
jff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use postscript all the time--as an automatically generated result of my LaTeX files. A decent set of LaTeX macros would let you make basic text+hyperlinks postscript web pages without too much trouble, I'd think.

True. However, if you wanted scripted behavior in your generated documents then things could get interesting.

Just as people who know only plain HTML or use crappy site builders end up with simple static pages, those who do not wish to learn Postscript would only be able to make static pages. However, more advanced users would obviously learn Postscript and write their own dynamic behaviour, ala Javascript.
Post reply on HN