| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Moonharp |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 20:06:21
Now, first, before I even begin, let me state that I think Candlekeep is a wonderful site... I love its content, its eye appeal, design, and basically everything about it... Therefore, I do not want the hordes of the underdark to come after me saying I am a traitorous wretch, that I betrayed Candlekeep, and that I should be in exile.
First, the problem - and the reason that I am stating this as a topic - is that as I was using a web browser called Amaya (W3C) and tried to access Candlekeep, it told me that Candlekeep was using HTML 3.2 frames standard, which the browser does not support. This had me wondering... how many popular browsers (such as Netscape, or Explorer) would be able to display Candlekeep as it is supposed to be... I checked the most popular ones, and all displayed the site almost perfectly (except Amaya, of course)...
Opera - fine...
Netscape - fine...
Explorer - fine... (75% use this browser, or so, and if it works here, then what have we got to worry about... you might ask. I am just worried that future versions of Explorer might not accept HTML 3.2 frames anymore, though I am not sure whether this is a liable cause for worry...)
Amaya - not fine...
Text browsers - I did not check, because they are hardly used for web viewing any more.
Now, I know that in the Candlekeep main site there is the "About" page which states:
Candlekeep is developed and tested primarily with the Microsoft Internet Explorer Web Browser (version 5+) in mind. Whilst the site functions well using other Web Browsers such as Netscape Navigator, it is recommended that you download the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser for optimal...
Which is truly most a person can do, but not many people look at that page, and for those who come to Candlekeep and it does not appear as it is suppose to, they will just leave, not update their browser, and never discover the treasures that Candlekeep holds.
Therefore, my suggestion would be - reformat the Candlekeep markup into XHTML version 1.0 (which is probably the most acceptable version of XHTML now... well, maybe 2.0) and make Candlekeep universal for all web browsers - and so that it appears the same in all web browsers.
Please, remember that this is just a suggestion to make the site more compatible, and even though it would take some work, there are many people, like I, I am sure, that would want to help...
Please, again I say this is only a whimsical suggestion, for the betterment of Candlekeep (in my opinion) and I do not want people outraged by this... however, I would be most pleased to see what people had to say about this...
Once again, I love Candlekeep and am not complaining about it.
|
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 10:52:46
quote:
Originally posted by Valdar Oakensong
I thought it only had a +5 modifier, has Alaundo actually been spending his gold 
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
As well as it's crusty ol' moderators...
::Wait, what was that... WHOOP::  
The Staff of the Irritated Moderator +10 strikes again... 
No actually. Edain Shadowstar offered some "Epic" perspectives on the now famous staff. And, given all the off-topic discussion that was occuring at the time, it appeared to be a valid upgrade...
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 10:31:18
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Well, actually Alaundo, technically, you are already dead ... according to Ed and a bunch of sources with the FR logo on them.
I've always wondered about your moniker - perhaps Ulraunt, Keeper of Tomes would be more appropriate? Aye, it doesn't have the allure of "Alaundo" but at least no-one will deny that you are the head of Candlekeep.
-- George Krashos
Well......met 
Dead? me?  But...but.... ::feels around neck to insure head is still intact::
Oh they were just vicious rumors  ......weren't they? 
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 01:57:03
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
  Why I oughta.... just a moment, thats the second time I've said such.... hmmmmm, mayhaps there's some sort of conspiracy herein the library to drive me to an early grave obviously thou art not busy enough with thy Realmslore chores, eh, Sage?!
Well, actually Alaundo, technically, you are already dead ... according to Ed and a bunch of sources with the FR logo on them.
I've always wondered about your moniker - perhaps Ulraunt, Keeper of Tomes would be more appropriate? Aye, it doesn't have the allure of "Alaundo" but at least no-one will deny that you are the head of Candlekeep.
-- George Krashos
|
| Moonharp |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 23:49:14
Kahonen, your words were never taken as a reprise, trust me. I found them as a valued contribution, which gave me greater knowledge to fill out my ignorance. And thank you again for your last message. It is a very worthy explanation... and it has given me more to think about when I will attempt to develop the web in the future.
 No offense was ever taken... thank you. |
| kahonen |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 23:15:15
Moonharp, please don't get me wrong. If it sounded like I was correcting you then that is my fault for writing it that way - it wasn't my intention.
If I may be allowed to explain a little (without suffering the wrath of Alaundo), the main problem is that the W3C, like so many other "standards" bodies, has no power to control things. They can only make recommendations.
Unfortunately we all live in a very commercial world. Businesses do not like to produce products which are identical to those of competitors. They have to have "an edge" to encourage sales and justify the development costs. In the case of Microsoft, the edge with IE (and hence HTML) is their HTML extensions, intended to make IE that little bit better. They did the same with Java which was originally intended to be a "standardised" language. Fortunately, this was contested by Sun and Microsoft now produce J#.
This is starting to happen now with XHTML and XML. Surprisingly, it isn't Microsoft responsible this time as they have made huge investments in the standardised version. The main thrust for additions is actually coming from the defence industries who wish to use it for purposes other than that which it was intended for. Defence Industries have huge amounts of money which they can give to companies to spend on research and development. These same companies then make even more money by re-using defence technology for non-defence products. It is this which is "corrupting" XHTML and XML. W3C have no control over this.
Again, accept my apologies if I sounded a little sharp. It was not intended.
I'll shut up now ... ...
|
| Valdar Oakensong |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 22:29:41
I thought it only had a +5 modifier, has Alaundo actually been spending his gold
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
As well as it's crusty ol' moderators...
::Wait, what was that... WHOOP::
The Staff of the Irritated Moderator +10 strikes again...
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 19:46:35
Well met
I'm glad thee mentioned this, Moonharp, thy point has not been wasted and will certainly be something we bear in mind for future development.
We are always happy to hear from fellow scribes on the libraries development. |
| Moonharp |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 18:32:01
quote:
XHTML isn't the Silver Bullet everyone though it was going to be. At work, we are already identifying compatability problems between different "implementations". We have identified some readers which require different file formats, for example, and others where "special features" are available. It could be argued that XHTML is already sliding down the same slippery slope that HTML fell down with the addition of Microsoft's extensions.
Kahonen, I was not aware that XHTML faced such problems, and therefore now I will retake most of what I said, if that is possible. I guess the Consortium bit of more than it could chew, and I was just swept away in the rush... but with your reasoning, I see that perhaps there can be no best option for Candlekeep or any site, so there is no point in changing it, if, as you said, 95% of people can view it. Please forgive me for propaganding the idea. Candlekeep is a wonderful site... and I guess if it works for most people, that should be enough.
quote:
Moonharp mentions that a browser (Amaya) doesn't work with Candlekeep and then goes on to say that he hasn't tried any text browsers "because they are hardly used for web viewing anymore". How many people use Amaya compared to the number of people using Text Browsers?
Again, forgive my ignorance. I was truly under the impression that text browsers are almost extinct, but then, I guess Amaya is almost extinct as well. I use it because I like its text editing powers, as well as its compatibility with new and the most popular web content. By the way Mozilla Firefox works excellently, and as it is supposed to be pretty good compared to the other browsers, I guess we have one less to worry about .
Therefore, Alaundo, and everyone, please let me retake my words on my proposal for the Candlekeep change. I guess it is not needed, and I was just swept away in a rush at discovering all the options of the Internet...
Thanks to everyone who contributed, though... |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 15:53:19
Well met
Thank ye for the information, kahonen. We will certainly bear this in mind when rebuilding Candlekeep. One cannot please everyone all of the time, but we can only hope to ensure Candlekeep is available to the vast majority. |
| kahonen |
Posted - 27 Aug 2004 : 13:10:03
I'd advise some caution on this Alaundo.
XHTML isn't the Silver Bullet everyone though it was going to be. At work, we are already identifying compatability problems between different "implementations". We have identified some readers which require different file formats, for example, and others where "special features" are available. It could be argued that XHTML is already sliding down the same slippery slope that HTML fell down with the addition of Microsoft's extensions.
Moonharp mentions that a browser (Amaya) doesn't work with Candlekeep and then goes on to say that he hasn't tried any text browsers "because they are hardly used for web viewing anymore". How many people use Amaya compared to the number of people using Text Browsers?
My experience in this area indicates that trying to satisfy averyone results in an almost exponential increase in the need for testing which invariably fails.
My advice: Stick with things as they are. Concentrate on the mainline browsers: IE and Netscape, and add Opera, Mozilla and perhaps Firefox if possible. That should cover in excess of 95.5% of browser users. |
| Moonharp |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 19:46:47
Thanks both to Alaundo and the Sage for your words. Of course, I see every reasoning, and am more than looking forward to the change you described. Candlekeep works well enough for me now, so I will go enjoy as much of it as I can. |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 16:34:21
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
As well as it's crusty ol' moderators...
::Wait, what was that... WHOOP::
The Staff of the Irritated Moderator +10 strikes again...
Why I oughta.... just a moment, thats the second time I've said such.... hmmmmm, mayhaps there's some sort of conspiracy herein the library to drive me to an early grave obviously thou art not busy enough with thy Realmslore chores, eh, Sage?! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 14:34:51
As well as it's crusty ol' moderators...
::Wait, what was that... WHOOP::
The Staff of the Irritated Moderator +10 strikes again...
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 11:04:02
Well met
Thank ye once again, Moonharp. Of course, the frames are indeed to be removed once the new face of Candlekeep appears. Remember that Candlekeep is quite old and the methods available to use at the time were simple, quick and easy. Things have developed considerably since that time, but it will take us many hours to transfer all the tomes and scrolls out of the library for the new redecoration.
Until that time, please bear with the crusty ol' place |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 07:42:43
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Allow me to make a philosophical observation (because I lack the proper computer engineering knowledge to go into the technical aspects of this discussion). Basically: wouldn't having a worldwide standard be both a blessing and a curse? with one, unified and seamless standard, do you not become more prone to attackers who now have only one type of code to study, hack into, and have fun with? I am a retired military officer, and I can attest that old technology (old enough not to be compatible with modern systems) can sometimes, in the most critical times, save your behind by being just that: so old that no one knows how to get into it...
Just wondering... 
A wonderful, and very accurate observation.
It should also be taken into account, that there are significant technological differences between much of the computer technology at play in most countries of the world.
As well as this obstacle, there are literally hundreds of different operating systems available on the market that many different people have decided to use for whatever reason. Not all OSs have been programmed with a simplified web interface in mind. In order to employ a web standard, every server, every computer, ever link in the worldwide web would have to use or subscribe to a similar OS, or use a similar sub-network system.
I intend to do into more detail, but my data-algorithms and sub-routines need me... I'll check back later.
|
| Moonharp |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 00:38:39
First of all, let me congratulate you on the ingenuity of your observation... which is, once thought about - true.
And yes, it will be easier for more people to know how to create and hack into webpages once there is a universal system. This is true,but consider, how many hackers there are, and how many webpages there are, and what the downfall of having a non-standard web-page could be.
I believe the chance that someone will hack your site (any site, lets say) is worth the risk if that site is more succesful by far, then if it would be innaccessible to many people.
But then, that is my opinion, and there may be others, of course. Hey, I am no expert in programming either, just like to work around with flashy webpages...
Heh, good observation though. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 00:34:04
Allow me to make a philosophical observation (because I lack the proper computer engineering knowledge to go into the technical aspects of this discussion). Basically: wouldn't having a worldwide standard be both a blessing and a curse? with one, unified and seamless standard, do you not become more prone to attackers who now have only one type of code to study, hack into, and have fun with? I am a retired military officer, and I can attest that old technology (old enough not to be compatible with modern systems) can sometimes, in the most critical times, save your behind by being just that: so old that no one knows how to get into it...
Just wondering... |
| Moonharp |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 23:19:14
First of all, thank you very much regarding your understanding concerning my proposal...
Second, I had not known that Candlekeep will be undergoing reformatting to create better interaction and navigation... etc. This more than I could ever have hoped for, even though the site is very nagiotable right now.
My concern was slightly different, however. As you probably know, the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) has created XHTML about 4 years ago. This was a major step toward unifying the web... specifically the world wide web... XHTML is the new, strict, organised version of HTML, but uses XML as its meta markup language. I am sure you know this, but for those who do not, I just decided to include the information. While HTML, up till version 4.01 is the most widely recognized markup language now, it has become highly unstable, with all the different browsers on the horizon and element tags being specific to such browsers (such as Netscape, etc...). This has created a lot of problems with compatibility... and while Candlekeep is fairly stable, and fairly uniform, it uses (I am quite sure of this, but not completely - correct me if I am wrong) HTML 3.2 framesets - which is now the equivalent of using a 3086 Pentium computer in the modern world (Hey, trust me, I know a lot of people that still use such old computers, but majority has a newer version, just like the majority of browsers are stopping to support old versions of markup). Therefore, I propose to update the whole site "mark-up" (which would be an extremely hard work, but programs such as "Tidy" easify the work) into XHTML 1.0. This is, as I have stated, the newest and standard version of markup. Well, up to now, this was a repeat of my previous message, heh. Sorry.
The feature of the XHTML that would be used the most is CSS (Cascading Style Sheets)... which is a markup for formatting your webpage uniformly, modernly, and with style... the W3C is highly promoting the use of this markup language.
By updating the site, I would hope to ensure as universal a recognition from all browsers as possible... so that as many people have access to it.This is not a big problem yet, but with the fast evolving web, XHTML is the only solid standard there is, and all future products will be geared toward that standard.
Sorry, I sound like I am advertising XHTML, which I guess I am... If anyone wishes to know more, visit http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ which is the Consortium's webpage on XHTML.
Ok, I am apologizing now, I run on, and bore everyone to death... sorry.
You must understand, I am not a computer maniac, or even very skilled with XHTML, I just wish that Candlkeep be as acceptable as possible.
Please, I will answer any more questions on my idea with pleasure.
PS - When I looked at the source of the Candlekeep website, I could not precisely determine what version it is made in... any idea? |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 22:18:07
Well met
::chuckle:: Worry ye not, Moonharp, no offense has been taken at all Come, sit ye down and tell me of these enhancements of which ye speak.....
Indeed your suggestion is quite worthy and I will certainly look into this. As mentioned in a scroll not too long ago, Candlekeep will be redesigned to aid in better display, navigation, maintenance and visitor interaction. Until then, I'm afraid we're stuck with the dowdy old place. I will however, see what I can do in the meantime regarding compatibility.
Thank ye for bringing this to our attention, it is useful to know. |
|
|
