From: "Gary Poster" <garyposter@earthlink.net>
I agree that we ought to trash frames we ought to use strict xhtml 1.0 we ought to rely on CSS for all graphic elements (correlative) we ought to not use *any* shims or non-logical tables the site ought to work completely without JS or Flash the site ought to be usable and legible without any CSS
I disagree that we ought to use iframes (why lock out NS4 if we don't have to?) we ought to avoid Flash like the plague (see my XML file tree email) this shouldn't be the default skin (it *should*)
I further feel that it would be very easy to develop a CSS file folder that one could place in a skin that would deliver different CSS files based on browser-sniffing. The CSS could be cached by the browser if we always call it from the same
Hmm... If only someone had thought of that, say about a year ago. ( http://www.zope.org/Members/haqa/ZStyleSheet ) My question is this: Everyone is saying "The ZMI is bad, it's confusing, users don't like it". Could anyone show me evidence of this? Personally I love the ZMI in the current versions. I have also found there is a negligable learning curve for users who already know how to use Windows Explorer and similar products. I just don't see the need to throw out the ZMI - Are we in a baby/bathwater situation here?
address. While CSS support varies widely in all the various browsers, and I think we should *ship* with a CSS file that requires a standards-compliant browser such as those that Toby lists, I see *no reason* why we should design the html itself so that a NS4 user could not use the default skin simply by building him or her a new CSS file. It might not look nearly as slick as the compliant browsers, but you can still do some reasonable things with NS4 only...