Next XML changes

Jochen Schroeder jschrod at uni-muenster.de
Mon May 17 01:50:11 PDT 2004


Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Archaic said the following on 16-05-2004 03:06:
> 
>> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 01:31:09PM +0200, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
>>
>>> That actually was about font size, not font type. The reasoning for 
>>> choosing a font type is that while many users have good fonts 
>>> available, they won't be taken advantage of unless you configure your 
>>> browser to use them by default.
>>
>>
>>
>> No offense intended, but if someone doesn't like default fonts, he
>> should change them. I did, but now I have a problem. I have the fonts
>> you chose so Moz displays them. I don't like them, but now I cannot
>> change them because there are explicit. If I tried aliasing them, it
>> screws up all other packages. Before, I could change them without
>> affecting anything else negatively.
> 
> 
> No offense taken; please, I have pretty thick skin and always respond to 
> reasonable arguments :-)
> 
> Ok, I respect your choice of font-type, but let's try to solve this with 
> a solution that fits most people.
> 
> Few people set their default preferred font-size, even fewer people set 
> their default preferred font-type. You're actually the first which I've 
> ever heard complain about the setting of a font-type. Are you the 
> exception to the rule?
> 
> Most websites set a preferred font-type. Do different rules apply 
> because you're reading an electronic book? Should we allow greater 
> freedom because it's HTML, as opposed to PDF? Or should we provide a 
> sensible default rendering while allowing advanced users to plug in 
> their own stylesheet? Remember, the use of CSS for presentation allows 
> you to easily override settings in your user stylesheet. See eg. 
> <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/06/30/magazine/mozilla_stylesheets.html> 
> and <http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/userStyle.html>.
> 
> 
> 
>>>> It is in Moz-1.6. Wanna test putting "Up" on the top? :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Home/Up links are both on the bottom of the page, but only Home is
>> on the top. Of course, I put the smiley because I know you don't like it
>> that way. I'm just into symmetry. :)
> 
> 
> I'd rather not have a top navigation bar at all, but there are too many 
> people who like it. Now that I think about it, there would be a way to 
> compromise a bit (although I'm not sure it's specifically to your 
> liking, since it's not symmetric):
> 
>     Linux From Scratch - Version CVS-20040507
> Prev    Chapter 6. Installing basic system software    Next
> 
> Linux From Scratch: link to site
> Version CVS-20040507: link to home (same as bottom "home" link)
> Prev: previous page
> Chapter 6. Installing basic system software: link to chapter six (same 
> as bottom "up" link)
> Next: next page
> 

This seems to be a good compromise, although it might look a bit cluttered.

> This reduces the number of links for text browsers in the navigation to 
> tab through and needs less header space necessary :-)
> And once you're used to this, you'll find it a lot easier and wish there 
> were more links like this throughout the book! For example:
> 
> Less installation depends on: Bash, Binutils, Coreutils, Diffutils, GCC, 
> Glibc, Grep, Make, Ncurses, Sed.
> 
> Each dependency should ideally directly link to the installation page. I 
> believe BLFS already does it like this.
> 
> Thoughts?

This is a really good idea, I always liked this about BLFS, although 
it's a lot less useful for LFS because most people don't compile just 
single packages, still I think it would be a good option.

Jochen


-- 
An honest politician is one who, once he's bought, stays bought.
- Mark Twain



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list