help please

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php

    with larryludwick.com/menu1.css and menu.js

    Three questions please.
    1. I have specified box widths in px and I am happy with how it works in
    FF, but IE6 seems to throw in 2 phantom pixels which makes the float right
    box wrap. Adding two pixels to the width of the wrapper box makes it look
    correct in IE6, but it causes FF to leave a little gutter between the float
    left and float right boxes. Why is that.

    2. The javascript for the clock works ok in IE6, but not in FF. Howcome???
    (I copied from a website -- I am learning JS, but slowly. PHP is much
    easier.)

    3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok. I added another
    <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just fine
    in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed in
    Firefox. What gives here?

    Thanks for any help you are willing to provide.

    Larry

    P.S. The Dilbert thingy has grown old already and will go away soon.
    Having that thing on my homepage when it's only useful once a day no longer
    makes sense to me. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but . . .
     
    Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phonedude

    Peter J Ross Guest

    In alt.html on Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:10:12 -0400, Phonedude
    <> wrote:

    > http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >
    > with larryludwick.com/menu1.css and menu.js
    >
    > Three questions please.
    > 1. I have specified box widths in px


    This is a bad idea.

    > and I am happy with how it works in
    > FF, but IE6 seems to throw in 2 phantom pixels which makes the float right
    > box wrap.


    This is one of the reasons why specifying dimensions in pixels is a bad idea.

    > Adding two pixels to the width of the wrapper box makes it look
    > correct in IE6, but it causes FF to leave a little gutter between the float
    > left and float right boxes. Why is that.


    It's because you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.

    > 2. The javascript for the clock works ok in IE6, but not in FF. Howcome???
    > (I copied from a website -- I am learning JS, but slowly. PHP is much
    > easier.)


    Dunno. What clock? In Konqueror 3.5.9 I see no clock.

    > 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok.


    Yes it does, even in Konqueror.

    > I added another
    > <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just fine
    > in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed in
    > Firefox. What gives here?


    On my screen, the email link overlaps the W3C images.

    > Thanks for any help you are willing to provide.


    I think you should aim to simplify. E.g., do you really need Javascript to
    display a clock? Some of your visitors may own clocks of their own.


    --
    PJR :)

    ,http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>
    <http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>
     
    Peter J Ross, Aug 10, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phonedude

    dorayme Guest

    In article <g7l84n$3gu$>, "Phonedude" <>
    wrote:

    > http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >
    > with larryludwick.com/menu1.css and menu.js
    >
    > Three questions please.
    > 1. I have specified box widths in px and I am happy with how it works in
    > FF, but IE6 seems to throw in 2 phantom pixels which makes the float right
    > box wrap. Adding two pixels to the width of the wrapper box makes it look
    > correct in IE6, but it causes FF to leave a little gutter between the float
    > left and float right boxes. Why is that.


    It sounds like you are running into what is often called the 3px float
    bug that IE6. Google it up to see all the ways to cope with it.

    Here is one way: in your CSS you have

    ..infobox {
    ...
    margin:0 0 0 5px;
    }

    But, presumably you want less. Lets suppose for a moment that you want
    no margin at all (everything tightly up to everything else). You would
    then remove the 3px that IE6 adds by telling IE6 (but no other browser)
    to give that right margin minus 3px.

    You would be wanting IE6 to see:

    ..infobox {
    ...
    margin: -3px;
    }

    There are different ways of telling IE6 to do this. One way is make a
    separate external style sheet for IE6 and link it in your head via a
    conditional comment (ask if you don't know what this means). In that
    sheet, you would have the corrective for IE6.

    Another way is to simply put

    ..infobox {
    ...
    margin:0;
    }

    in your normal stylesheet and then just after, something that only IE6
    can read (it thinks there is an element higher than the root html)

    * html .infobox {margin:-3px;}

    You might adapt the figures but the principle is simple, you tell IE6 to
    take back the 3px it added. In other words: Thanks, but no thanks! <g>

    (Although many people think it is a bug, I have been going along with
    the theory that we have here an annoying case of MS being deliberately
    motivated by a desire to give a bit of padding (in case the author
    forgets!). One of the most common uses of floats has been for inserting
    pictures into text. A bit of grace is nice. But modern day layouts often
    depend on floats and this is a pesky thing to have to cope with MS's
    shortsighted but good intentions.)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 10, 2008
    #3
  4. Phonedude

    dorayme Guest

    In article <g7l84n$3gu$>, "Phonedude" <>
    wrote:

    > http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >
    > 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok. I added another
    > <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just fine
    > in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed in
    > Firefox. What gives here?
    >
    > Thanks for any help you are willing to provide.



    As for this, give your dilbertbox a greater height, 440px would be more
    like it than 340px.

    (btw, your layout looks a bit crowded in FF, the material under the
    three boxes butting up so close to the above boxes. Easy to fix)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 10, 2008
    #4
  5. Phonedude

    Bergamot Guest

    Peter J Ross wrote:
    >
    > you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.


    When were px deprecated?

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Aug 10, 2008
    #5
  6. Phonedude

    Ari Heino Guest

    > 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok. I added another
    > <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just fine
    > in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed in
    > Firefox. What gives here?


    It's not a div, it's a paragraph. Delete its height, margin, padding and
    width attributes, and it looks better.

    I dont' see a clock either, it's an empty div.

    Google image is distorted, delete the img properties from the css, at
    least the width if you want to keep the height.

    --
    Ari
     
    Ari Heino, Aug 10, 2008
    #6
  7. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In alt.html on Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:10:12 -0400, Phonedude
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >>
    >> with larryludwick.com/menu1.css and menu.js
    >>
    >> Three questions please.
    >> 1. I have specified box widths in px

    >
    > This is a bad idea.
    >
    >> and I am happy with how it works in
    >> FF, but IE6 seems to throw in 2 phantom pixels which makes the float
    >> right
    >> box wrap.

    >
    > This is one of the reasons why specifying dimensions in pixels is a bad
    > idea.
    >
    >> Adding two pixels to the width of the wrapper box makes it look
    >> correct in IE6, but it causes FF to leave a little gutter between the
    >> float
    >> left and float right boxes. Why is that.

    >
    > It's because you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.
    >
    >> 2. The javascript for the clock works ok in IE6, but not in FF.
    >> Howcome???
    >> (I copied from a website -- I am learning JS, but slowly. PHP is much
    >> easier.)

    >
    > Dunno. What clock? In Konqueror 3.5.9 I see no clock.
    >
    >> 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok.

    >
    > Yes it does, even in Konqueror.
    >
    >> I added another
    >> <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just
    >> fine
    >> in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed
    >> in
    >> Firefox. What gives here?

    >
    > On my screen, the email link overlaps the W3C images.
    >
    >> Thanks for any help you are willing to provide.

    >
    > I think you should aim to simplify. E.g., do you really need Javascript to
    > display a clock? Some of your visitors may own clocks of their own.
    >
    >
    > --
    > PJR :)
    >
    > ,http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>
    > <http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>


    Thanks for the input. I was suprised to see that length is pixels is
    deprecated, as this will require me to readdress my entire philosophy for my
    website. You see this particular website is simply my personal links page,
    which other people use as a matter of convenience. It's primary target
    audience is me. When I started my page many years ago it was a simple table
    that I created in notepad. Then I got lazy and started using MS Word to
    edit it which produced HTML so complex and convoluted that I stopped looking
    at it and just used the page. Wanting to become more proficient I decided
    to redo my page using CSS and not tables for layout purposes. But: I want
    my page to look the way I want it. I want it to be a set width on my screen
    and I want the boxs to blend together nicely with no wrapping. Having said
    that, I do want to learn how to make it work with different browsers.
    Especially Firefox which seems to, along with IE, make up most of the
    market. I don't think anyone using Konquerer would be interested in using
    my page, but it would be nice if it were at least usable, if not perfect in
    presentation.

    But, back to pixels. I am an anal type and if I specify my wrapper <div> to
    have, say, 880 pixels, then I want to be able to put in 880 pixels of stuff.
    Not 798. Make sense? Firefox works perfectly when I do this, but IE seems
    to have a bug. At least IE6. I guess I will have to learn how to
    distinguish between browsers and use separate style sheets.

    The clock seems only to work in IE. It doesn't work in FF and now you tell
    me it doesn't work in Konquerer. More study required, I guess. As to the
    necessity of a clock on my page, I am rethinking that as well. I use
    Windows so it's easy to simply look at the Windows clock at bottom right.
    What I really need is a simple calendar on my page so I can see what date
    and day it is (I often lose track) because Windows does not always show this
    without actually opening the clock app. A calendar I could do in php
    because it would only need to work each time the page is opened or
    refreshed. Like the quotes do.

    Again, thanks for the input.

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008
    #7
  8. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <g7l84n$3gu$>, "Phonedude" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >>
    >> with larryludwick.com/menu1.css and menu.js
    >>
    >> Three questions please.
    >> 1. I have specified box widths in px and I am happy with how it works in
    >> FF, but IE6 seems to throw in 2 phantom pixels which makes the float
    >> right
    >> box wrap. Adding two pixels to the width of the wrapper box makes it
    >> look
    >> correct in IE6, but it causes FF to leave a little gutter between the
    >> float
    >> left and float right boxes. Why is that.

    >
    > It sounds like you are running into what is often called the 3px float
    > bug that IE6. Google it up to see all the ways to cope with it.
    >
    > Here is one way: in your CSS you have
    >
    > .infobox {
    > ...
    > margin:0 0 0 5px;
    > }
    >
    > But, presumably you want less. Lets suppose for a moment that you want
    > no margin at all (everything tightly up to everything else). You would
    > then remove the 3px that IE6 adds by telling IE6 (but no other browser)
    > to give that right margin minus 3px.
    >
    > You would be wanting IE6 to see:
    >
    > .infobox {
    > ...
    > margin: -3px;
    > }
    >
    > There are different ways of telling IE6 to do this. One way is make a
    > separate external style sheet for IE6 and link it in your head via a
    > conditional comment (ask if you don't know what this means). In that
    > sheet, you would have the corrective for IE6.
    >
    > Another way is to simply put
    >
    > .infobox {
    > ...
    > margin:0;
    > }
    >
    > in your normal stylesheet and then just after, something that only IE6
    > can read (it thinks there is an element higher than the root html)
    >
    > * html .infobox {margin:-3px;}
    >
    > You might adapt the figures but the principle is simple, you tell IE6 to
    > take back the 3px it added. In other words: Thanks, but no thanks! <g>
    >
    > (Although many people think it is a bug, I have been going along with
    > the theory that we have here an annoying case of MS being deliberately
    > motivated by a desire to give a bit of padding (in case the author
    > forgets!). One of the most common uses of floats has been for inserting
    > pictures into text. A bit of grace is nice. But modern day layouts often
    > depend on floats and this is a pesky thing to have to cope with MS's
    > shortsighted but good intentions.)
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    Dorayme:

    As always, you are most helpful and truly nice about it. I guess I will
    have to learn about conditional statements and use different ones for FF and
    IE6. Your comments about the margin were something I tried, but the results
    were unsatisfactory. I do want 5px margin to the left of my infobox and
    that 5px was accounted for in my widths, along with any padding or other
    margins or borders that add width to an element. The elements add up to 880
    which is the width of the wrapper. It works perfectly in FF, but not in
    IE6. If I use a negative margin IE6 works fine, but then FF starts wrapping
    floating elements because it is two px short of space. I will go Google
    conditional expressions in HTML.

    By the way, only a truly nice person would believe MS had or has good
    intentions about anything. My first thought was that here's another example
    of MS trying to make it difficult for people to use multiple browsers --
    they do this as a means of keeping their market share. I did disregard this
    idea though because I really believe it's simply a matter of imcompetence.
    Just more evidence of how nice you are.

    Thanks,

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008
    #8
  9. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <g7l84n$3gu$>, "Phonedude" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
    >>
    >> 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok. I added another
    >> <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just
    >> fine
    >> in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when viewed
    >> in
    >> Firefox. What gives here?
    >>
    >> Thanks for any help you are willing to provide.

    >
    >
    > As for this, give your dilbertbox a greater height, 440px would be more
    > like it than 340px.
    >
    > (btw, your layout looks a bit crowded in FF, the material under the
    > three boxes butting up so close to the above boxes. Easy to fix)
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    Yes, I will add some padding to seperate those elements. I got caught up in
    this two pixel problem first though.

    Thanks,

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008
    #9
  10. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "Ari Heino" <> wrote in message
    news:g7mdmm$20v4$...
    >> 3. The Dilbert flash app is in a <div> and it works ok. I added another
    >> <div> inside the Dilbertbox to put a link to my email. It works just
    >> fine in IE6, but the email div shows up outside the dilbertbox div when
    >> viewed in Firefox. What gives here?

    >
    > It's not a div, it's a paragraph. Delete its height, margin, padding and
    > width attributes, and it looks better.
    >
    > I dont' see a clock either, it's an empty div.
    >
    > Google image is distorted, delete the img properties from the css, at
    > least the width if you want to keep the height.
    >
    > --
    > Ari


    I need to go resize that img to the correct size and not use the browser to
    do so. I will do this someday, but used the CSS to make it fit for now.

    Thanks,

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 10, 2008
    #10
  11. Phonedude

    Bergamot Guest

    Phonedude wrote:
    > "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> It's because you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.

    >
    > I was suprised to see that length is pixels is
    > deprecated


    It's not. What Mr Ross may be implying is that, where text is concerned,
    em is generally a better unit than px.

    That doesn't mean you have to abandon px. You don't, but you should
    reconsider your use of it, then pick the right unit for the particular
    context. Sometimes px is better, sometimes em is better, and sometimes %
    is better.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Aug 10, 2008
    #11
  12. Phonedude

    Paul Guest

    "Phonedude" <> ha scritto nel messaggio news:g7mv3k$ueb$...
    > Having said that, I do want to learn how to make it work with different browsers. Especially Firefox which seems to,
    > along with IE, make up most of the market.


    About the browsers used by visitors of my website (italian section) I have the following:
    - IE: 88%
    - Mozilla: 10%
    - others: 2%

    In the english section I have:
    - IE: 85%
    - Mozilla: 12%
    - Others: 3%

    Paul
    --
    www.tortebomboniere.com
     
    Paul, Aug 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Phonedude

    dorayme Guest

    In article <g7mvh3$u5$>, "Phonedude" <>
    wrote:

    > > You might adapt the figures but the principle is simple, you tell IE6 to
    > > take back the 3px it added. In other words: Thanks, but no thanks! <g>
    > >

    > ... I guess I will
    > have to learn about conditional statements and use different ones for FF and
    > IE6.


    Only for IE. It works like this, IE recognises this in your HTML

    <!--[if IE 6]>
    <p>You are using Internet Explorer</p>
    <![endif]-->

    and would insert this paragraph into your document. But no other browser
    would because they are trained to ignore commented instructions. IE 6 is
    deep this way and can look into the most unlikely spots for meaning. <g>

    You can take advantage of this to deliver not only content in the body
    of the HTML but to use this conditional to direct IE 6 to a different
    stylesheet which has instructions that override the ones that all
    browsers see. In the head, you would put:

    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="main.css">

    <!--[if IE 6]>
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="forIE6.css">
    <![endif]-->

    where forIE6.css would override instructions in main.css. If main said
    margin: 5px for a particular element but forIE6.css said 2px, the 2px
    would prevail in IE6 browsers.

    You can also use it for internal style instructions in the head:

    <style type="text/css" media="screen">
    h1 span {font-size: 80%; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic;}
    </style>

    followed by

    <!--[if IE 6]>
    h1 span {font-size: 70%;}
    <![endif]-->

    And this would make IE6 use the 70% figure.

    > > (Although many people think it is a bug, I have been going along with
    > > the theory that we have here an annoying case of MS being deliberately
    > > motivated by a desire to give a bit of padding (in case the author
    > > forgets!). One of the most common uses of floats has been for inserting
    > > pictures into text. A bit of grace is nice. But modern day layouts often
    > > depend on floats and this is a pesky thing to have to cope with MS's
    > > shortsighted but good intentions.)



    > By the way, only a truly nice person would believe MS had or has good
    > intentions about anything.


    It is very nice of you to say this but the only thing that is required
    is not to be biased against IE. True, this is a remarkable feat if it
    can be achieved in a cold manner. And where IE is concerned, my manner
    is always cool. Modesty, naturally, prevents me from drawing a certain
    conclusion from this. <g>

    It is also an old principle of rational debate, to take the things one
    is opposed to according to the most charitable interpretation (opposite
    to treating "straw men", if you like).

    But about nice, I have another principle, I delight in the most terrible
    cruelty against ...

    no... I better stop, it's Monday morning and there is a pile of work
    here...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 10, 2008
    #13
  14. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <g7mvh3$u5$>, "Phonedude" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> > You might adapt the figures but the principle is simple, you tell IE6
    >> > to
    >> > take back the 3px it added. In other words: Thanks, but no thanks! <g>
    >> >

    >> ... I guess I will
    >> have to learn about conditional statements and use different ones for FF
    >> and
    >> IE6.

    >
    > Only for IE. It works like this, IE recognises this in your HTML
    >
    > <!--[if IE 6]>
    > <p>You are using Internet Explorer</p>
    > <![endif]-->
    >
    > and would insert this paragraph into your document. But no other browser
    > would because they are trained to ignore commented instructions. IE 6 is
    > deep this way and can look into the most unlikely spots for meaning. <g>
    >
    > You can take advantage of this to deliver not only content in the body
    > of the HTML but to use this conditional to direct IE 6 to a different
    > stylesheet which has instructions that override the ones that all
    > browsers see. In the head, you would put:
    >
    > <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="main.css">
    >
    > <!--[if IE 6]>
    > <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="forIE6.css">
    > <![endif]-->
    >
    > where forIE6.css would override instructions in main.css. If main said
    > margin: 5px for a particular element but forIE6.css said 2px, the 2px
    > would prevail in IE6 browsers.
    >
    > You can also use it for internal style instructions in the head:
    >
    > <style type="text/css" media="screen">
    > h1 span {font-size: 80%; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic;}
    > </style>
    >
    > followed by
    >
    > <!--[if IE 6]>
    > h1 span {font-size: 70%;}
    > <![endif]-->


    [snip]

    This works perfectly and solves the problem neatly. I added a new style
    sheet with just the one affected class and the page looks the same on
    Firefox and IE6. Perfect. Now I need to find out how IE7 and beyond
    handles this situation.

    You are most helpful and I am grateful -- thanks very much

    Larry

    http://larryludwick.com/menu1.php
     
    Phonedude, Aug 11, 2008
    #14
  15. Phonedude

    dorayme Guest

    In article <g7o1ga$iua$>, "Phonedude" <>
    wrote:

    > Now I need to find out how IE7 and beyond
    > handles this situation.



    IE7 has not got that 3px float "addition". It may have happened this way
    at the meeting of the IE 7 developers:

    MS developer: We have been laughed at and abused for trying to give the
    world an extra 3px of grace in IE 6. Does the world appreciate it? Do
    they deserve our gift?

    Chorus from all the others around the MS table: Nooooooo!

    And so they decided to withdraw this feature from IE 7.

    (Rudyard Kipling wrote a series of stories known as the Just So Stories.
    I used to read them to kids)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 11, 2008
    #15
  16. Phonedude

    Peter J Ross Guest

    In alt.html on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:17:16 -0500, Bergamot
    <> wrote:

    > Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>
    >> you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.

    >
    > When were px deprecated?


    When I deprecated them. ;-)

    As far as the OP is concerned, pixels were deprecated as soon as his
    layout was messed up when the browser window was resized.


    --
    PJR :)

    ,http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>
    <http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>
     
    Peter J Ross, Aug 11, 2008
    #16
  17. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In alt.html on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:17:16 -0500, Bergamot
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>>
    >>> you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.

    >>
    >> When were px deprecated?

    >
    > When I deprecated them. ;-)
    >
    > As far as the OP is concerned, pixels were deprecated as soon as his
    > layout was messed up when the browser window was resized.
    >
    >
    > --
    > PJR :)
    >
    > ,http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>
    > <http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>


    As the OP, I must say that they layout does not change when either IE or FF
    is resized. No matter how small or large. And that's the way I want it. I
    think you've lost track of the subject.

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 12, 2008
    #17
  18. On 2008-08-12, Phonedude wrote:
    >
    > "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In alt.html on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:17:16 -0500, Bergamot
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.
    >>>
    >>> When were px deprecated?

    >>
    >> When I deprecated them. ;-)
    >>
    >> As far as the OP is concerned, pixels were deprecated as soon as his
    >> layout was messed up when the browser window was resized.

    >
    > As the OP, I must say that they layout does not change when either
    > IE or FF is resized.


    But it should. It should change to fit the window.

    > No matter how small or large. And that's the
    > way I want it.


    Why do you want to make it hard for your viewers to read the page?

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Aug 12, 2008
    #18
  19. Phonedude

    Phonedude Guest

    "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:2f18d$48a0ded2$cef88ba3$...
    > On 2008-08-12, Phonedude wrote:
    >>
    >> "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In alt.html on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:17:16 -0500, Bergamot
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.
    >>>>
    >>>> When were px deprecated?
    >>>
    >>> When I deprecated them. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> As far as the OP is concerned, pixels were deprecated as soon as his
    >>> layout was messed up when the browser window was resized.

    >>
    >> As the OP, I must say that they layout does not change when either
    >> IE or FF is resized.

    >
    > But it should. It should change to fit the window.
    >
    >> No matter how small or large. And that's the
    >> way I want it.

    >
    > Why do you want to make it hard for your viewers to read the page?


    False assumptions. First, I do not want to make the page hard to read for
    anyone -- and, second, it's not. If you use a window smaller than the page
    you can scroll to see it. It's not hard at all. You're going to end up
    scrolling in any case because if the size wasn't fixed it would wrap and,
    you guessed it, you'd have to scroll to see wrapped content anyway. Six of
    one or half a dozen of the other -- and the page looks the way I want it to.
    So use a large enough window or scroll. Unless, of course you want to see
    microscopic text shrunk down to fit your 30x40 pixel window.

    Larry
     
    Phonedude, Aug 12, 2008
    #19
  20. Phonedude wrote:

    >
    > "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote in message
    > news:2f18d$48a0ded2$cef88ba3$...
    >> On 2008-08-12, Phonedude wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Peter J Ross" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In alt.html on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:17:16 -0500, Bergamot
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> you're using pixels instead of non-deprecated units.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When were px deprecated?
    >>>>
    >>>> When I deprecated them. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> As far as the OP is concerned, pixels were deprecated as soon as his
    >>>> layout was messed up when the browser window was resized.
    >>>
    >>> As the OP, I must say that they layout does not change when either
    >>> IE or FF is resized.

    >>
    >> But it should. It should change to fit the window.
    >>
    >>> No matter how small or large. And that's the
    >>> way I want it.

    >>
    >> Why do you want to make it hard for your viewers to read the page?

    >
    > False assumptions. First, I do not want to make the page hard to read for
    > anyone -- and, second, it's not. If you use a window smaller than the page
    > you can scroll to see it. It's not hard at all. You're going to end up
    > scrolling in any case because if the size wasn't fixed it would wrap and,
    > you guessed it, you'd have to scroll to see wrapped content anyway.


    People don't mind scrolling down. People mind having to scroll back and
    forth horizontally.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 12, 2008
    #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. JC
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,976
    Jeff C
    Jul 8, 2004
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    514
    Chris Uppal
    May 5, 2005
  3. KK
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    577
    Big Brian
    Oct 14, 2003
  4. MuZZy
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,760
    Mike Hewson
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. mera
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,111
Loading...

Share This Page