<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liquid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Raena</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/#comment-313</link>
		<dc:creator>Raena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=509#comment-313</guid>
		<description>I've been told by art teachers and UI types alike that the right length for a line is 'an alphabet and a half,' 40-odd characters per line.



I'm all over liquid. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've been told by art teachers and UI types alike that the right length for a line is 'an alphabet and a half,' 40-odd characters per line.</p>
<p>I'm all over liquid. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gh</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/#comment-314</link>
		<dc:creator>gh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=509#comment-314</guid>
		<description>Absolutely agree! The less design, the better really. Whitespace is useful in print. I mainly use a 12" 1024x768 PowerBook screen. Auto-flowing, whitespace-free layouts win. Daring Fireball's "design" is very troublesome. Any window under 800 pixels width gets a horizontal scroller if you enable the horrible style sheets.



"If Daring Fireball looks like shit in your browser, you&#8217;re using a shitty browser that doesn&#8217;t support web standards" -- or maybe I'm not using the author's machine! He uses lots of fixed pixel-widths that doesn't belong on the web and the site clearly discriminates users of older software and lower screen resolutions. But it's CSS, you can turn it off like I do. Wonderful plain HTML appears.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely agree! The less design, the better really. Whitespace is useful in print. I mainly use a 12" 1024x768 PowerBook screen. Auto-flowing, whitespace-free layouts win. Daring Fireball's "design" is very troublesome. Any window under 800 pixels width gets a horizontal scroller if you enable the horrible style sheets.</p>
<p>"If Daring Fireball looks like shit in your browser, you&rsquo;re using a shitty browser that doesn&rsquo;t support web standards" -- or maybe I'm not using the author's machine! He uses lots of fixed pixel-widths that doesn't belong on the web and the site clearly discriminates users of older software and lower screen resolutions. But it's CSS, you can turn it off like I do. Wonderful plain HTML appears.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gruber</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/#comment-315</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gruber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=509#comment-315</guid>
		<description>Hi GH. I disagree, strongly, with your assessment of the appropriateness of using pixel units for on-screen font sizing on the web.  The only signficant problem with doing so is that IE Win users are unable to resize the text. That's IE Win's problem, and is highly unfortunate.



I do agree with Michael, however, that the column widths at Daring Fireball would be better off if they were relative to the font size, rather than hard-coded pixel values. It's on the list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi GH. I disagree, strongly, with your assessment of the appropriateness of using pixel units for on-screen font sizing on the web.  The only signficant problem with doing so is that IE Win users are unable to resize the text. That's IE Win's problem, and is highly unfortunate.</p>
<p>I do agree with Michael, however, that the column widths at Daring Fireball would be better off if they were relative to the font size, rather than hard-coded pixel values. It's on the list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gh</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2003/06/19/liquid/#comment-316</link>
		<dc:creator>gh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=509#comment-316</guid>
		<description>I didn't mean that the pixel-sized fonts were the problem, I was referring to the layout elements like the navigation menu, which are specified in pixels.  My Mozilla setup always uses my preferred fonts and sizes, so I really don't care about fonts. My problem with the layout is that you get to scroll horizontally with window sizes that could fill the whole screen on an older machine...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn't mean that the pixel-sized fonts were the problem, I was referring to the layout elements like the navigation menu, which are specified in pixels.  My Mozilla setup always uses my preferred fonts and sizes, so I really don't care about fonts. My problem with the layout is that you get to scroll horizontally with window sizes that could fill the whole screen on an older machine...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
