Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Gravity waves != gravitational waves (Score 1) 56

Just a reminder: the gravity waves (waves resulting from gravity restoring an equilibrium) discussed in the article are different from gravitational waves (wave functions describing gravity itself).

In layman's terms it's the difference between waving at someone, and having a seizure. One is an external phenomena caused by gravity, the other is an internal (sorta) phenomena of gravity.

Comment Re:So, tables? (Score 1) 87

What kind of data are you displaying where it doesn't matter if you show it as a 10x10 grid (aka, a table of 10 rows and 10 columns) or as a list (aka, a table of 1 column and an infinite number of rows, which in this case I guess would be 100.)?

The context I meant for "data" above was all the data of the page. Navigation elements in headers, footers and asides. Currently these are positioned using floats and they have to be present in the HTML dom in a certain order for this to work. With grids (and to a lesser extent flexbox) the order the information appears in the DOM isn't relevant.

The example you gave of a 10x10 table isn't the same - it's just a table, not a web document that may need to have its data's presentation optimized for several environments. And yeah, you can set elements to display none and/or double send elements and turn on the one you want for a given view context but that's a waste of bandwidth.

I don't see grids replacing tables where tables make sense. Tables don't make sense as a layout grid mechanism. CSS Grids don't make sense as a table replacement either.

Comment Re:Royalties continue (Score -1, Troll) 87

Do you earn money for the page you developed in 2000?

That'd be like The Walt Disney Company earning money for short films it produced in 1928. Or like Gershwin Enterprises earning money for a musical piece written in 1924.

Oh wait, those are still the case because of the three-generation copyright regime.

How stupid are you? Seriously. The problems of copyright law are entirely off topic and the mediums could not be more different. There's no legitimate comparison to be drawn here so you're coming off as a prattling moron.

Comment Re:One thing... (Score 4, Insightful) 87

One thing I liked more about Chrome than IE is that it was closer to being standard. It didn't change every version and was almost always backwards compatible with previous versions.

This non-standard CSS Grid Layout, which, may be a great idea, is completely useless unless it is a standard used by all browsers.

If I recall correctly CSS Grid was a Microsoft proposal. It is already in Edge, just disabled by default, and Safari is expected to support it with it's next release this fall. That leaves Firefox, but I'm pretty sure they aren't too far behind. This particular segment of CSS4 has been in the works for nearly 3 years.

Comment Re:Not Keeping Up. Horseshit. (Score 2) 87

"In fact, with Chrome's regular additions and changes, developers have to keep up to ensure they are taking advantage of everything available. "

Uh, no. You don't. The page you developed yesterday (or in 2000) should display just the same if you did it right in the first place. If not it's the browsers fault, not yours for "not keeping up". It's a fucking web browser.

Do you earn money for the page you developed in 2000? Cause trust me, if you are still using table based layouts you are going to have a hard time getting a job, or even avoiding being laughed at during interviews.

Either keep up with the latest techniques, or lose jobs to people who do. This is true in all industries.

Comment Re:So, tables? (Score 1) 87

Remember 15-20 years ago when we had <table> based layouts? And then they invented CSS because that was such a terrible idea. Then we spend 10 years trying inventing css grid systems (ie bootstrap's grid, 960, etc) to replicate what we used to do with tables until they just finally gave up and made CSS Grid and Flexbox? That was sure fun.

No, not tables, not by a long shot. CSS grid, like CSS in general, decouples presentation rules from the data being presented. So you can take content and display it on a grid on desktop using cssgrid, or as a list on a phone. The order of the columns and rows can be swapped out according to the dimensions of the screen which is impossible with tables.

I've been doing this since 1996, so I'm quite aware of what table based layout involves and its limitation. While there is some passing similarity, the two are very different in what they can be used for.

The table tag itself needs to just become semantic but that's unlikely to happen since all the browsers have to support legacy behaviors associated with the tag.

Slashdot Top Deals

Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas