3 ms·

A "document" is one of the many possible "ui"s for the underlying model of information that gets displayed. I must be missing some nuance in the distinction yo

A "document" is one of the many possible "ui"s for the underlying model of information that gets displayed. I must be missing some nuance in the distinction you're trying to draw between a "document" vs a "ui." Are you talking about static vs. dynamic content?

tsunamifury 14y ago
CSS was made to style and place text on a page, not position buttons or define interactions or transitions or platform delineation or any of the other crazy things a view controller does in a compiled language. Its an add-on to a markup language also built mostly only to display text.
- jm3 14y ago
  And the first computers were humans (women) doing things like plotting missile trajectories for the military. Technologies drift.
  - csallen 14y ago
    We no longer use humans to do our computing, but we continue to use CSS to do our HTML styling.
    - andybak 14y ago
      To the authors of the comments beneath this one: A more constructive angle to this debate would be to compare HTML/CSS to other declarative UI frameworks such as those in QT and iOS and discuss what features need to be added or removed to make HTML/CSS more maintainable and less painful. We all know the history of HTML and we're aware of the path it's evolution has taken. Are you arguing that it's inherently unfixable and needs to be scrapped? I think you'd have a tough time arguing that point so why not move the debate forward instead of playing the curmudgeon?
- talmand 14y ago
  Even then, if you plan things correctly and involve javascript for changes on the fly, it works quite well at positioning elements on the page, show results of interaction, performing transitions, and many of the other crazy things a view controller does.
praxulus 14y ago
My interpretation was that a document is something simply consumed by the user, whereas a UI involves more "interaction" with the user.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
It largely refers to the complexity of the layout. HTML and CSS were made for styling pages of text with headings, images, perhaps a table here or there. But now people want to make application UIs with fluid layouts with them.
arebop 14y ago
Also, transclusion never really took off, so traditional web pages are different to an app's page state, which might be initialized from computation by composed modules on the backend and a series of asynchronous updates in frontend. CSS has the cascade and @import and background-image links for example, but historically the document was typically one text file and some pictures; an app's UI is combined from many source files and subordinate resources. CSS works pretty well for declaratively styling a monolithic document, but it is not entirely satisfactory for styling the UI of complex app such as Facebook.

tsunamifury 14y ago

CSS was made to style and place text on a page, not position buttons or define interactions or transitions or platform delineation or any of the other crazy things a view controller does in a compiled language. Its an add-on to a markup language also built mostly only to display text.

jm3 14y ago
And the first computers were humans (women) doing things like plotting missile trajectories for the military. Technologies drift.
- csallen 14y ago
  We no longer use humans to do our computing, but we continue to use CSS to do our HTML styling.
  - andybak 14y ago
    To the authors of the comments beneath this one: A more constructive angle to this debate would be to compare HTML/CSS to other declarative UI frameworks such as those in QT and iOS and discuss what features need to be added or removed to make HTML/CSS more maintainable and less painful. We all know the history of HTML and we're aware of the path it's evolution has taken. Are you arguing that it's inherently unfixable and needs to be scrapped? I think you'd have a tough time arguing that point so why not move the debate forward instead of playing the curmudgeon?
talmand 14y ago
Even then, if you plan things correctly and involve javascript for changes on the fly, it works quite well at positioning elements on the page, show results of interaction, performing transitions, and many of the other crazy things a view controller does.

praxulus 14y ago

My interpretation was that a document is something simply consumed by the user, whereas a UI involves more "interaction" with the user.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

It largely refers to the complexity of the layout. HTML and CSS were made for styling pages of text with headings, images, perhaps a table here or there. But now people want to make application UIs with fluid layouts with them.

arebop 14y ago

Also, transclusion never really took off, so traditional web pages are different to an app's page state, which might be initialized from computation by composed modules on the backend and a series of asynchronous updates in frontend. CSS has the cascade and @import and background-image links for example, but historically the document was typically one text file and some pictures; an app's UI is combined from many source files and subordinate resources. CSS works pretty well for declaratively styling a monolithic document, but it is not entirely satisfactory for styling the UI of complex app such as Facebook.