9 ms·

$ links https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html Link: [start: Top] Link: [index: Concept Index] Link: [contents: Table

by Hello71 12y ago

$ links https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html Link: [start: Top] Link: [index: Concept Index] Link: [contents: Table of Contents] Link: [up: (dir)] The GNU C Library Short Table of Contents * [1 Introduction] * [2 Error Reporting] * [3 Virtual Memory Allocation And Paging] * [4 Character Handling] * [5 String and Array Utilities] * [6 Character Set Handling] * [7 Locales and Internationalization] * [8 Message Translation] * [9 Searching and Sorting] * [10 Pattern Matching] ^C $ links http://elmerland.com/gnu_manual.html The GNU C Library [About] [By: Elmer Landaverde] Edit: Added [] to show selectable links (note that [] are not actually displayed in links' output)

striking 12y ago
This is the most graceful CSS-degradation I've ever seen. The world needs to learn from this manual in how to do HTML right. If you haven't tried it yourself you're missing out. It's truly art.
- jdjb 12y ago
  And yet the whole thing doesn't load if you block javascript. No content at all.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    So goodbye to accessibility.
    - wirrbel 12y ago
      how does this reduce accessibility? javascript interpreters are not hard to find nowadays.
      - easytiger 12y ago
        There are in fact a huge number of both usability and accesability issues with this that do not exist with the original: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html
        wirrbel 12y ago
        does javascript reduce "accessibility" as in: does it keep average users and handicapped users from accessing the pages? The usual texinfo output is probably more accessible from a technical standpoint, but from a usage perspective it is not. Markup formats like ReST/Sphinx are much more semantic and improve accessibility for the impaired as well. Simple JS is not the problem here.
        easytiger 12y ago
        > The usual texinfo output is probably more accessible from a technical standpoint, but from a usage perspective it is not. Can't possibly agree with that. Slap a fancy clean font on it and it prob solves half the issues people have with it. From a usage perspective this page is crippled compared with the original. > does it keep average users and handicapped users from accessing the pages? If the third part tools they need to navigate and consume the content stop working, then yes, yes it does.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - _ak 12y ago
      Bullshit. Modern screenreaders in browsers directly look at the visible parts of the DOM. Wilfully turning off Javascript in the browser is not an accessibility issue.
      - easytiger 12y ago
        Well the content is loaded dynamically so that is going to screw a lot of utilities up.
  - elmerland 12y ago
    That's right, this was intentional. The content is loaded dynamically. I thought this would help with mobile users, to reduce the amount of data used.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      People who rely on screen readers probably don't like this.
    - spc476 12y ago
      But you broke the back button. Perhaps using frames might be better?
    - elmerland 12y ago
      Ahhh, thats a good point. I will fix that! I tried using iframes at first. But they are a pain to deal with. I think I can solve the back button problem without them though. Thanks for pointing that out!
    - e12e 12y ago
      I applaud your effort to apply some styling to the manual, but this is, frankly, ridiculous. To whit: # Debian Jessie $ du -hs /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/ 9.0M /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/ $ cat /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/* > all.html $ wget https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html $ gzip -9 -k *.html $ du -hs * 7.5M all.html # Local html 1.1M all.html.gz # -"- gzip'ed 4.9M libc.html # single-file version, from wget above 900K libc.html.gz # -"- gzip'ed So, under a mb of data, for the whole thing -- and that's not even working with the various sections. It might have made sense on dial-up, but not really for mobile clients. The fact that you've completely broken the whole thing (eg: no mirroring with wget) doesn't make up for the savings. Also, if you'd kept the/a single html-file -- that file would've been cached, so doing some js-magic with hide/show should be instant, after the thing is downloaded. That's the old Dreamweaver way of pre-loading content (set sections/div/whatever as display:none, and toggle on mouseover link/clicks etc). So this is not degrading css, this is just broken html for no good reason. If you want to load "partials", keep the traditional structure, and do your magic "upgrading" in js -- load the content asynchronously into a div or what-not -- and leave the links working for browsers without javascript/wget/etc. All that said, the work you've done with the CSS is very nice. I'd probably add a media-query to collapse the sidebar -- it takes up quite a lot of space on mobile (especially in portrait mode). I'm also no fan of typekit -- if possible I'd prefer to use locally hosted (freely licensed, of course!) fonts. As for search, maybe have a look at http://lunrjs.com/ http://lunrjs.com/ . And just as a reminder, on the off-chance that there might be some readers that are unaware: CSS Zen garden is still a good example of how html and css can go together in creative and gracefully degrading manner: http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/ http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/ A final note on links/urls. With eg. vimperator, "gu" (go up) works for going from example.com/some/where to example.com/some/ -- so while most browsers have gotten rid of "forward" and "up" navigation arrows, they still do work.
- elmerland 12y ago
  Thanks! I honestly hadn't even tried it. Just following best practices and doing the least amount of styling to achieve the desired look.
elmerland 12y ago
I didn't know about this tool. Thanks for pointing that out, I will improve the link layout.
- geofft 12y ago
  In case the name is not clear: It's not a link-finding tool, it's a text-mode web browser, a cousin of lynx.
  - e12e 12y ago
    See also: w3m.
- zackelan 12y ago
  Links is certainly an interesting tool, but you certainly shouldn't look at it as the only "niche" way in which people might read your website. This is Windows 7, with the latest version of Chrome - the only difference from "normal" being the installation of ScriptSafe blocking JavaScript: http://i.imgur.com/vH4MTdV.png http://i.imgur.com/vH4MTdV.png
  - easytiger 12y ago
    I use w3m every day for a couple of reasons. May be the minority but the only reason w3m would stop working well with most sites is that we have forsaken our semantic heritage that the web was built on.
comex 12y ago
In lynx, the table of contents appears but the links are all 404s. Similar behavior occurs when disabling CSS in Firefox... Though I suppose I should ask why a command line user would not just use GNU info or another program to access the info files.
- elmerland 12y ago
  I just checked disabling CSS with firefox. I can still see and interact with all of the content. What type of errors are you referring to?
zvrba 12y ago
Ohh, reminds me of Gopher days!

by Hello71 12y ago

striking 12y ago

This is the most graceful CSS-degradation I've ever seen. The world needs to learn from this manual in how to do HTML right. If you haven't tried it yourself you're missing out. It's truly art.

jdjb 12y ago
And yet the whole thing doesn't load if you block javascript. No content at all.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  So goodbye to accessibility.
  - wirrbel 12y ago
    how does this reduce accessibility? javascript interpreters are not hard to find nowadays.
    - easytiger 12y ago
      There are in fact a huge number of both usability and accesability issues with this that do not exist with the original: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html
      - wirrbel 12y ago
        does javascript reduce "accessibility" as in: does it keep average users and handicapped users from accessing the pages? The usual texinfo output is probably more accessible from a technical standpoint, but from a usage perspective it is not. Markup formats like ReST/Sphinx are much more semantic and improve accessibility for the impaired as well. Simple JS is not the problem here.
        easytiger 12y ago
        > The usual texinfo output is probably more accessible from a technical standpoint, but from a usage perspective it is not. Can't possibly agree with that. Slap a fancy clean font on it and it prob solves half the issues people have with it. From a usage perspective this page is crippled compared with the original. > does it keep average users and handicapped users from accessing the pages? If the third part tools they need to navigate and consume the content stop working, then yes, yes it does.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - _ak 12y ago
    Bullshit. Modern screenreaders in browsers directly look at the visible parts of the DOM. Wilfully turning off Javascript in the browser is not an accessibility issue.
    - easytiger 12y ago
      Well the content is loaded dynamically so that is going to screw a lot of utilities up.
- elmerland 12y ago
  That's right, this was intentional. The content is loaded dynamically. I thought this would help with mobile users, to reduce the amount of data used.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    People who rely on screen readers probably don't like this.
  - spc476 12y ago
    But you broke the back button. Perhaps using frames might be better?
  - elmerland 12y ago
    Ahhh, thats a good point. I will fix that! I tried using iframes at first. But they are a pain to deal with. I think I can solve the back button problem without them though. Thanks for pointing that out!
  - e12e 12y ago
    I applaud your effort to apply some styling to the manual, but this is, frankly, ridiculous. To whit: # Debian Jessie $ du -hs /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/ 9.0M /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/ $ cat /usr/share/doc/glibc-doc-reference/html/* > all.html $ wget https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html $ gzip -9 -k *.html $ du -hs * 7.5M all.html # Local html 1.1M all.html.gz # -"- gzip'ed 4.9M libc.html # single-file version, from wget above 900K libc.html.gz # -"- gzip'ed So, under a mb of data, for the whole thing -- and that's not even working with the various sections. It might have made sense on dial-up, but not really for mobile clients. The fact that you've completely broken the whole thing (eg: no mirroring with wget) doesn't make up for the savings. Also, if you'd kept the/a single html-file -- that file would've been cached, so doing some js-magic with hide/show should be instant, after the thing is downloaded. That's the old Dreamweaver way of pre-loading content (set sections/div/whatever as display:none, and toggle on mouseover link/clicks etc). So this is not degrading css, this is just broken html for no good reason. If you want to load "partials", keep the traditional structure, and do your magic "upgrading" in js -- load the content asynchronously into a div or what-not -- and leave the links working for browsers without javascript/wget/etc. All that said, the work you've done with the CSS is very nice. I'd probably add a media-query to collapse the sidebar -- it takes up quite a lot of space on mobile (especially in portrait mode). I'm also no fan of typekit -- if possible I'd prefer to use locally hosted (freely licensed, of course!) fonts. As for search, maybe have a look at http://lunrjs.com/ http://lunrjs.com/ . And just as a reminder, on the off-chance that there might be some readers that are unaware: CSS Zen garden is still a good example of how html and css can go together in creative and gracefully degrading manner: http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/ http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/ A final note on links/urls. With eg. vimperator, "gu" (go up) works for going from example.com/some/where to example.com/some/ -- so while most browsers have gotten rid of "forward" and "up" navigation arrows, they still do work.
elmerland 12y ago
Thanks! I honestly hadn't even tried it. Just following best practices and doing the least amount of styling to achieve the desired look.

elmerland 12y ago

I didn't know about this tool. Thanks for pointing that out, I will improve the link layout.

geofft 12y ago
In case the name is not clear: It's not a link-finding tool, it's a text-mode web browser, a cousin of lynx.
- e12e 12y ago
  See also: w3m.
zackelan 12y ago
Links is certainly an interesting tool, but you certainly shouldn't look at it as the only "niche" way in which people might read your website. This is Windows 7, with the latest version of Chrome - the only difference from "normal" being the installation of ScriptSafe blocking JavaScript: http://i.imgur.com/vH4MTdV.png http://i.imgur.com/vH4MTdV.png
- easytiger 12y ago
  I use w3m every day for a couple of reasons. May be the minority but the only reason w3m would stop working well with most sites is that we have forsaken our semantic heritage that the web was built on.

comex 12y ago

In lynx, the table of contents appears but the links are all 404s. Similar behavior occurs when disabling CSS in Firefox... Though I suppose I should ask why a command line user would not just use GNU info or another program to access the info files.

elmerland 12y ago
I just checked disabling CSS with firefox. I can still see and interact with all of the content. What type of errors are you referring to?

zvrba 12y ago

Ohh, reminds me of Gopher days!