From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raymond den Ouden Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:57:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Website for mlmmj Message-Id: <4579371C.4030909@den-ouden.info> List-Id: References: <20061207113941.GC28318@mmj.dk> In-Reply-To: <20061207113941.GC28318@mmj.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: mlmmj@mlmmj.org Thomas Goirand wrote: >Raymond den Ouden wrote: > > >>I myself hate such default templates. >> >>No offense, but they are often bady built. I always split the content >>from the layout. Then even blind people can use it, or people with text >>browsers like lynx or links, which I often use when downloading files. >>If mads likes one it's often easy to make a proper design for that. >> >> > >On my experience with those templates, they ARE done the way you say, >most of the time using pure CSS design with div tags. > > > If so ignore my comment, but in the five years I worked as web-developer fulltime I have seen too many bad of such templates. Another thing why I dislkike them is because they look too default, do you get what I mean? >>CMS systems are not silly, probably cpu eaters, but often very useful, >>especially when you make a site which has to be maintained by someone >>else who can't build proper HTML pages. Although static HTML is the >>fastest and most stable way of hosting. >> >> > >My mean is only to say that it's a bit silly to use a (CPU eater) CMS >when we all know html, and when the content WILL be static. > > Then we agree on this point I think. HTML is fast and stable with "no" flaws. CMS's are for "silly" users who can't or don't want to do proper HTML themselves. >Thomas > > >!DSPAM:45793237219601072125841! > > >