Current thinking (long)

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Dec 16, 2010.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    When I constructed the website below, my self imposed aim was to have each
    picture with its caption in a single window with no scrolling, which it
    does.
    A some of you will recall I was converted from using full tables on every
    page as placeholders (although I still use some to hold the buttons and
    side by side pictures)
    With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.
    However since the CSS buttons I use can be very small, I am moving towards
    the idea of putting all the big images on single topic pages as vertical
    scrolling may be a better alternative to using tiny buttons at the top.
    Before I do this, would such a move simple result in such pages taking ages
    to download and thus outweigh the advantages?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim S wrote:

    > With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    > allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    > horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.


    How did *xhtml* do that?

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:13:23 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >
    >> With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    >> allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    >> horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.

    >
    > How did *xhtml* do that?


    I really don't know, but it worked so I never questioned it.
    However don't let that distract you :eek:)
    I know I could try what I'm asking, but I have just spent ages putting the
    buttons in the corner of each (and every) page, so I thought I might rest
    while I sought advice.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 16, 2010
    #3
  4. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    > allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    > horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.


    Would have thought just good design, (no tables or other elements
    with unbreakable widths) would have have been responsible for
    this rather the doctype. HTML Strict is fine enough for now.

    > However since the CSS buttons I use can be very small, I am moving towards
    > the idea of putting all the big images on single topic pages as vertical
    > scrolling may be a better alternative to using tiny buttons at the top.


    What are these alternatives exactly?

    > Before I do this, would such a move simple result in such pages taking ages
    > to download and thus outweigh the advantages?


    Does not make much difference to load times whether pictures are
    HTML/CSSd to scroll down or not.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 16, 2010
    #4
  5. Jim S

    123Jim Guest

    "Jim S" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > When I constructed the website below, my self imposed aim was to have each
    > picture with its caption in a single window with no scrolling, which it
    > does.
    > A some of you will recall I was converted from using full tables on every
    > page as placeholders (although I still use some to hold the buttons and
    > side by side pictures)
    > With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    > allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    > horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.
    > However since the CSS buttons I use can be very small, I am moving towards
    > the idea of putting all the big images on single topic pages as vertical
    > scrolling may be a better alternative to using tiny buttons at the top.
    > Before I do this, would such a move simple result in such pages taking
    > ages
    > to download and thus outweigh the advantages?


    Couple of things occur to me. You can have a different stylesheet for
    mobile devices and other devices
    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/return-of-the-mobile-stylesheet
    This means you can have relatively larger buttons on the mobile devices if
    required.

    The other thing to consider ... Many people pay per megabyte of data
    downloaded on mobile devices .. they might not like to download many
    megabytes of images on one page .. thumbnails are the way to go (keep)
     
    123Jim, Dec 16, 2010
    #5
  6. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:25:16 +1100, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >> With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    >> allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    >> horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.

    >
    > Would have thought just good design, (no tables or other elements
    > with unbreakable widths) would have have been responsible for
    > this rather the doctype. HTML Strict is fine enough for now.
    >
    >> However since the CSS buttons I use can be very small, I am moving towards
    >> the idea of putting all the big images on single topic pages as vertical
    >> scrolling may be a better alternative to using tiny buttons at the top.

    >
    > What are these alternatives exactly?
    >
    >> Before I do this, would such a move simple result in such pages taking ages
    >> to download and thus outweigh the advantages?

    >
    > Does not make much difference to load times whether pictures are
    > HTML/CSSd to scroll down or not.


    I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.
    My alternative to having each picture on its own would be to have all the
    pictures in the 'Local' section on one page so the user would scroll down
    using whatever method their device uses.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 16, 2010
    #6
  7. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:53:28 -0000, 123Jim wrote:

    > "Jim S" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> When I constructed the website below, my self imposed aim was to have each
    >> picture with its caption in a single window with no scrolling, which it
    >> does.
    >> A some of you will recall I was converted from using full tables on every
    >> page as placeholders (although I still use some to hold the buttons and
    >> side by side pictures)
    >> With the growth of mobile phone browsers I converted to XHTML and this
    >> allowed the pictures to be seen on mobile devices with a minimum of
    >> horizontal scrolling, but some vertical scrolling.
    >> However since the CSS buttons I use can be very small, I am moving towards
    >> the idea of putting all the big images on single topic pages as vertical
    >> scrolling may be a better alternative to using tiny buttons at the top.
    >> Before I do this, would such a move simple result in such pages taking
    >> ages
    >> to download and thus outweigh the advantages?

    >
    > Couple of things occur to me. You can have a different stylesheet for
    > mobile devices and other devices
    > http://www.alistapart.com/articles/return-of-the-mobile-stylesheet
    > This means you can have relatively larger buttons on the mobile devices if
    > required.
    >
    > The other thing to consider ... Many people pay per megabyte of data
    > downloaded on mobile devices .. they might not like to download many
    > megabytes of images on one page .. thumbnails are the way to go (keep)


    I have just modified this page
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/St_Marys_10_island.html
    (So dorayme can see what I did not make clear)
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 16, 2010
    #7
  8. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.


    Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
    and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
    they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
    and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
    folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
    facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
    the equator.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 16, 2010
    #8
  9. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > I have just modified this page
    > http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/St_Marys_10_island.html
    > (So dorayme can see what I did not make clear)


    I always like looking at your pictures. I think I am very
    homesick. Can you please try to find out if that little island
    could be evacuated and me stay there. I would do your website for
    nothing if you can swing this one, make sure there is fast
    broadband there. I will bring the equator with me so I can still
    be south of it, not to upset too many things at once (being south
    of it being part of the dorayme identity).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 16, 2010
    #9
  10. Jim S

    Rob W. Guest

    Op 16-12-2010 23:43, dorayme schreef:
    > In article<>,
    > Jim S<> wrote:
    >
    >> I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.

    >
    > Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
    > and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
    > they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
    > and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
    > folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
    > facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
    > the equator.
    >



    <speaking up>
    Maybe it's not the Equator, maybe it's the Greenwich Meridian. I'm just
    east of it.
    </speaking up>


    --
    Rob
     
    Rob W., Dec 16, 2010
    #10
  11. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4d0a9cfa$0$41117$4all.nl>,
    "Rob W." <> wrote:

    > Op 16-12-2010 23:43, dorayme schreef:
    > > In article<>,
    > > Jim S<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.

    > >
    > > Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
    > > and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
    > > they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
    > > and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
    > > folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
    > > facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
    > > the equator.
    > >

    >
    >
    > <speaking up>
    > Maybe it's not the Equator, maybe it's the Greenwich Meridian. I'm just
    > east of it.
    > </speaking up>


    It was about latitude, not longitude. And, besides this little
    detail, there was an implied suggestion that things relevant to
    settle the question of whether the equator has anything to do
    with the communication, as received south of it, needed to be
    offered.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 16, 2010
    #11
  12. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:50:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <4d0a9cfa$0$41117$4all.nl>,
    > "Rob W." <> wrote:
    >
    >> Op 16-12-2010 23:43, dorayme schreef:
    >>> In article<>,
    >>> Jim S<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
    >>> and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
    >>> they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
    >>> and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
    >>> folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
    >>> facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
    >>> the equator.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> <speaking up>
    >> Maybe it's not the Equator, maybe it's the Greenwich Meridian. I'm just
    >> east of it.
    >> </speaking up>

    >
    > It was about latitude, not longitude. And, besides this little
    > detail, there was an implied suggestion that things relevant to
    > settle the question of whether the equator has anything to do
    > with the communication, as received south of it, needed to be
    > offered.


    Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
    The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on a
    mobile or my mobile anyhoo.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 17, 2010
    #12
  13. Jim S wrote:

    > Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
    > The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
    > a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.


    It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
    wrong with your server?

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 17, 2010
    #13
  14. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <ieefdi$6uj$-september.org>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >
    > > Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
    > > The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
    > > a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.

    >
    > It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
    > wrong with your server?


    Took 10 secs on mine. One of the pics is a reasonable 78K,
    another is unreasonable at 228K, have not checked the others.
    Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 17, 2010
    #14
  15. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:46 +1100, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <ieefdi$6uj$-september.org>,
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jim S wrote:
    >>
    >>> Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
    >>> The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
    >>> a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.

    >>
    >> It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
    >> wrong with your server?

    >
    > Took 10 secs on mine. One of the pics is a reasonable 78K,
    > another is unreasonable at 228K, have not checked the others.
    > Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!


    One last try, before I come down there and show/thump you.

    Currently if I click on the St Mary's Island thumbnail on the home page I
    get a new thumbnail page:
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/St_Marys_00_thumbnails.html

    (Apart from the 1st one Curry's Point) if I now click on a thumbnail, it
    takes me to a page with ONE picture on it and this page leads to the next
    or back to the thumbnail page.

    My new alternative would be to do away with the individual photo pages and
    only have one page with all the photos on it - like the one you now get if
    you click on the Curry's Point thumbnail.

    Geddit?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 17, 2010
    #15
  16. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1oar98q7wqshk$>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:46 +1100, dorayme wrote:
    >

    ....

    > > Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!

    >
    > One last try, before I come down there and show/thump you.
    >
    > Currently if I click on the St Mary's Island thumbnail on the home page I
    > get a new thumbnail page:
    > http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/St_Marys_00_thumbnails.html
    >
    > (Apart from the 1st one Curry's Point) if I now click on a thumbnail, it
    > takes me to a page with ONE picture on it and this page leads to the next
    > or back to the thumbnail page.
    >
    > My new alternative would be to do away with the individual photo pages and
    > only have one page with all the photos on it - like the one you now get if
    > you click on the Curry's Point thumbnail.
    >
    > Geddit?


    Yes, I ged the two alternatives you are wrestling with now. To
    avoid you coming over and thumping me, the pleasure of you being
    so honest in the threat being entertainment enough for me, I will
    venture forth on the matter with confidence.

    It does not matter if there is just one enlarged pic or just a
    few on a page, as long as the total loads fast. If you have 4 or
    5 pics about 70K, these days, that is fair enough and you would
    do this if it is convenient. If a group of pics are related, it
    is a good reason, the user just can scroll, he or she will
    probably be looking at the first one while others load.

    There is *no firm rule* on this and it depends: in your case, I
    noticed that one of your pics was over 200k. If you are going to
    prepare pics that big in file size, then that is an argument for
    not many, maybe just one on a page. That said, all the others
    look reasonable and I note you have improved in image preparation
    from years back.

    If you have a lot of related enlargements, consider making them
    not quite so large in px size (which brings down the file size)
    for the benefit of them being together on a page. Try not to have
    a whole MB on a page (as you do), that is getting a bit big but
    perhaps I am old fashioned.

    If big is very important, you can make each normal 350 to 600px
    enlargement a link to an even larger. No messing about: just make
    a folder called "biggest" and stick in your 800 to 1000px wide
    versions there on the server and simply link like:

    <a href="biggest/lighthouse.jpg" title="see a bigger version
    still if you like"><img src="big/lighthouse.jpg" alt=""></a>

    No need for any special page for the biggest, the browser will
    simply display the pic starting in top left corner. Most people
    would likely be satisfied with your 300 to 600px versions, the
    *biggest* just being an extra.

    Just btw, it is a very handy thing to have the different sizes in
    different folders because all the files can have the same names,
    a big saving in construction. It is also very handy in how it
    ties in with batch image prep. You start with the biggest, and
    instruct the image program to make smaller versions and to put
    them in a different folder. Not having to worry about the file
    names is a big gain, the folder on the server will identify the
    thumbs from the normal enlargements from the super sized ones.

    3. Do consider - yeah I know, I risk being thumped again - some
    handy html/css for pics and captions. There is no point in not
    taking advantage of the fabulous inline-block css for creating
    flexible pic/captions if you are going to have more than one pic
    and caption per page, take advantage of the direction you are
    going in. Get with the program as my daughter says!

    Something like this is what I have done and it is terrific when
    people have big wide screens, they often do not have to scroll.
    They send me gifts (anyone want some stuffed Teddy Bears?)
    because they are finally getting value from their monitor
    investments.

    This is roughly how for both thumbnail pages and medium
    enlargement pages:

    <style type="text/css" media="screen">
    div {padding: 0; display: inline-block; margin: 1em 2em 1em 0;}
    div div {padding: 0; margin: 0;}
    div img {display: block; border: 2px ridge #ccc;}
    </style>

    <!-- support IE 6/7 -->
    <!--[if lt IE 8]>
    <style type="text/css">
    div {
    display: inline;
    zoom: 1;
    }
    </style>
    <![endif]-->

    <div>
    <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    </div>

    <div>
    <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    </div>

    <div>
    <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    </div>

    There are improvements you can add but this is the basic.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 17, 2010
    #16
  17. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    >>
    >> Geddit?

    >
    > Yes, I ged the two alternatives you are wrestling with now. To
    > avoid you coming over and thumping me, the pleasure of you being
    > so honest in the threat being entertainment enough for me, I will
    > venture forth on the matter with confidence.
    >
    > It does not matter if there is just one enlarged pic or just a
    > few on a page, as long as the total loads fast. If you have 4 or
    > 5 pics about 70K, these days, that is fair enough and you would
    > do this if it is convenient. If a group of pics are related, it
    > is a good reason, the user just can scroll, he or she will
    > probably be looking at the first one while others load.
    >
    > There is *no firm rule* on this and it depends: in your case, I
    > noticed that one of your pics was over 200k. If you are going to
    > prepare pics that big in file size, then that is an argument for
    > not many, maybe just one on a page. That said, all the others
    > look reasonable and I note you have improved in image preparation
    > from years back.
    >
    > If you have a lot of related enlargements, consider making them
    > not quite so large in px size (which brings down the file size)
    > for the benefit of them being together on a page. Try not to have
    > a whole MB on a page (as you do), that is getting a bit big but
    > perhaps I am old fashioned.
    >
    > If big is very important, you can make each normal 350 to 600px
    > enlargement a link to an even larger. No messing about: just make
    > a folder called "biggest" and stick in your 800 to 1000px wide
    > versions there on the server and simply link like:
    >
    > <a href="biggest/lighthouse.jpg" title="see a bigger version
    > still if you like"><img src="big/lighthouse.jpg" alt=""></a>
    >
    > No need for any special page for the biggest, the browser will
    > simply display the pic starting in top left corner. Most people
    > would likely be satisfied with your 300 to 600px versions, the
    > *biggest* just being an extra.
    >
    > Just btw, it is a very handy thing to have the different sizes in
    > different folders because all the files can have the same names,
    > a big saving in construction. It is also very handy in how it
    > ties in with batch image prep. You start with the biggest, and
    > instruct the image program to make smaller versions and to put
    > them in a different folder. Not having to worry about the file
    > names is a big gain, the folder on the server will identify the
    > thumbs from the normal enlargements from the super sized ones.
    >
    > 3. Do consider - yeah I know, I risk being thumped again - some
    > handy html/css for pics and captions. There is no point in not
    > taking advantage of the fabulous inline-block css for creating
    > flexible pic/captions if you are going to have more than one pic
    > and caption per page, take advantage of the direction you are
    > going in. Get with the program as my daughter says!
    >
    > Something like this is what I have done and it is terrific when
    > people have big wide screens, they often do not have to scroll.
    > They send me gifts (anyone want some stuffed Teddy Bears?)
    > because they are finally getting value from their monitor
    > investments.
    >
    > This is roughly how for both thumbnail pages and medium
    > enlargement pages:
    >
    > <style type="text/css" media="screen">
    > div {padding: 0; display: inline-block; margin: 1em 2em 1em 0;}
    > div div {padding: 0; margin: 0;}
    > div img {display: block; border: 2px ridge #ccc;}
    > </style>
    >
    > <!-- support IE 6/7 -->
    > <!--[if lt IE 8]>
    > <style type="text/css">
    > div {
    > display: inline;
    > zoom: 1;
    > }
    > </style>
    > <![endif]-->
    >
    > <div>
    > <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    > <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    > </div>
    >
    > <div>
    > <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    > <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    > </div>
    >
    > <div>
    > <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
    > <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
    > </div>
    >
    > There are improvements you can add but this is the basic.


    Thanks d.
    I'll look into the big picture thingy.
    However my idea if putting all the pictures in one folder was NOT one of my
    best ideas because it ceases to be reasonable where there are scores of
    pictures in a folder. (I guess I already knew that).
    My maximum height/width combination of 460/840 stems from assuming some
    folks still operate on 800 x 600 screens and so I can get a caption in
    without scrolling down (much). Having said that, my local library uses a
    setup where my 610 wide images fill their big screens.
    I have been playing with the CSS button size so it doesn't look daft on a
    desktop, but is big enough for a mobile touch screen.
    Now to find the picture that she was banging on about being 220k+
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 17, 2010
    #17
  18. Jim S

    notbob Guest

    notbob, Dec 17, 2010
    #18
  19. notbob wrote:

    > Jim S <> wrote:
    >> I'll look into the big picture thingy.

    >
    > I'm hardly one to be giving advice, being so new to the html/css
    > thing, but I did run across this, last night. Perhaps it may be of
    > help with some alternate ideas:
    >
    > <http://www.webreference.com/programming/css_gallery2/index.html>


    There are some thought-provoking ideas shown there which might help with
    design processes. However, the author recommends XHTML and does not
    specify either Strict or Transitional. See "Section 2 The !DOCTYPE".
    Then he states "I use XHTML1.1 for all my current web pages." but the
    page itself uses HTML 4.01 Transitional. <lol!>

    I'd recommend using HTML 4.01 Strict.
    http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 17, 2010
    #19
  20. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On 17 Dec 2010 14:40:36 GMT, notbob wrote:

    > On 2010-12-17, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'll look into the big picture thingy.

    >
    > I'm hardly one to be giving advice, being so new to the html/css
    > thing, but I did run across this, last night. Perhaps it may be of
    > help with some alternate ideas:
    >
    > http://www.webreference.com/programming/css_gallery2/index.html
    >
    > nb


    My problem is that my groups need text and my large pictures need captions.

    I'm coming round to thinking I had got it more or less right and if I can
    get the thumbnails so they are big enought to touch, but not so big that
    they look silly on a desktop..
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Dec 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    755
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    370
  3. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,249
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  4. Mathieu Dutour

    long long and long

    Mathieu Dutour, Jul 17, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    519
    santosh
    Jul 24, 2007
  5. optimistx

    Linear thinking vs essential thinking

    optimistx, Oct 28, 2009, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    196
    Dr J R Stockton
    Oct 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page