3 ms·

If we're talking about fundamental problems, then the only fundamental problem is that we're using document markup tools to build rich UIs, which is super-retar

If we're talking about fundamental problems, then the only fundamental problem is that we're using document markup tools to build rich UIs, which is super-retarded even comparing to early 90s VB6 era. WTF is <p> or <ul> or <div> and all that crap? I haven't seen an HTML template that looked comprehensible after a year in development. What do they have to do with UI programming? What we really need is something like MXML or XUL, only cleaned up and widely supported by all browsers, especially IE9.

sjs382 18y ago
<p> <div> <ul> don't have anything to do with UI.* They are document markup elements. UI is applied to a document (html) via CSS (style) and JS (behavior). This is all pretty elementary for someone reading this site... Maybe I missed some sarcasm? :p *Well, they do in a lot of instances, but when properly used, they have nothing to do with UI.
- potatolicious 18y ago
  Well yes, in theory those are not UI - but how many times have you seen someone create two divs for the semantically same data just so the CSS styles will play nicely? The problem is that CSS is not powerful enough to do rich layouts, and that forces developers to cripple the semantic goal of CSS/HTML by injecting presentation into what is supposed to be a presentation-free markup.
- fauigerzigerk 18y ago
  Yes that's the dogma. Alas, it's completely lost on me. I fail to understand how tables are more "semantic" than nested divs. Tables only have semantics within the context of some formalism that defines their semantic meaning. Outside of such a context they can be anything, so why not a way of laying out information on a page? I don't see how swaths of divs, some of them used for semantics (according to some metadata standard), some of them used for purely presentational purposes, improve anything. CSS people (or should I say modern web developers) are completely anal about not using tables for layout whilst at the same time the whole notion of document structure is so utterly destroyed in any JavaScript heavy app. These priorities make no sense to me. Laying out web pages with divs and CSS is a black art. It's fragile. It breaks in all kinds of nasty ways. It reduces the productivity of UI development to pre 90s levels and leads ot entire pages done in Flash.
  - sjs382 18y ago
    "I fail to understand how tables are more "semantic" than nested divs. Tables only have semantics within the context of some formalism that defines their semantic meaning." Tables are not more semantic than nested divs. But nested divs aren't very semantic, either. Tables are used for tabular data. Divs are used for dividing content. "I don't see how swaths of divs, some of them used for semantics (according to some metadata standard), some of them used for purely presentational purposes, improve anything." No one is proposing that you make every element a div. In the web standards community, we call this "divitis" and while better than table-based layouts, it still isn't semantic. "CSS people are completely anal about not using tables for layout whilst at the same time the whole notion of document structure is so utterly destroyed in any JavaScript heavy app." Don't lump these developers (who's code doesn't gracefully degrade for non-JavaScript users0 together with the rest of us. "These priorities make no sense to me. Laying out web pages with divs and CSS is a black art. It's fragile. It breaks in all kinds of nasty ways." Just because you don't understand how to make something work doesn't mean it's a "black art". Plenty of web developers are able to create semantically-meaningful documents styled (cross-browser) with CSS. CSS offers advantages, but you seem to only see (imaginary) disadvantages. "It reduces the productivity of UI development to pre 90s levels and leads ot entire pages done in Flash." I'm not even sure how to respond to this. It's ridiculous.

sjs382 18y ago

<p> <div> <ul> don't have anything to do with UI.* They are document markup elements. UI is applied to a document (html) via CSS (style) and JS (behavior). This is all pretty elementary for someone reading this site... Maybe I missed some sarcasm? :p *Well, they do in a lot of instances, but when properly used, they have nothing to do with UI.

potatolicious 18y ago
Well yes, in theory those are not UI - but how many times have you seen someone create two divs for the semantically same data just so the CSS styles will play nicely? The problem is that CSS is not powerful enough to do rich layouts, and that forces developers to cripple the semantic goal of CSS/HTML by injecting presentation into what is supposed to be a presentation-free markup.
fauigerzigerk 18y ago
Yes that's the dogma. Alas, it's completely lost on me. I fail to understand how tables are more "semantic" than nested divs. Tables only have semantics within the context of some formalism that defines their semantic meaning. Outside of such a context they can be anything, so why not a way of laying out information on a page? I don't see how swaths of divs, some of them used for semantics (according to some metadata standard), some of them used for purely presentational purposes, improve anything. CSS people (or should I say modern web developers) are completely anal about not using tables for layout whilst at the same time the whole notion of document structure is so utterly destroyed in any JavaScript heavy app. These priorities make no sense to me. Laying out web pages with divs and CSS is a black art. It's fragile. It breaks in all kinds of nasty ways. It reduces the productivity of UI development to pre 90s levels and leads ot entire pages done in Flash.
- sjs382 18y ago
  "I fail to understand how tables are more "semantic" than nested divs. Tables only have semantics within the context of some formalism that defines their semantic meaning." Tables are not more semantic than nested divs. But nested divs aren't very semantic, either. Tables are used for tabular data. Divs are used for dividing content. "I don't see how swaths of divs, some of them used for semantics (according to some metadata standard), some of them used for purely presentational purposes, improve anything." No one is proposing that you make every element a div. In the web standards community, we call this "divitis" and while better than table-based layouts, it still isn't semantic. "CSS people are completely anal about not using tables for layout whilst at the same time the whole notion of document structure is so utterly destroyed in any JavaScript heavy app." Don't lump these developers (who's code doesn't gracefully degrade for non-JavaScript users0 together with the rest of us. "These priorities make no sense to me. Laying out web pages with divs and CSS is a black art. It's fragile. It breaks in all kinds of nasty ways." Just because you don't understand how to make something work doesn't mean it's a "black art". Plenty of web developers are able to create semantically-meaningful documents styled (cross-browser) with CSS. CSS offers advantages, but you seem to only see (imaginary) disadvantages. "It reduces the productivity of UI development to pre 90s levels and leads ot entire pages done in Flash." I'm not even sure how to respond to this. It's ridiculous.