<p> inside <div>

K

Kabuki Armadillo

Butch61 said:
Sorry Sir. You don't get off that easily.
When you call somebody's work "shit" it's offensive no matter how you
spin it.
And yeah, I took offense.

Don't be offended. I periodically lurk here. You'll discover that there are
a group of regulars here that have inflated opinions of their design skills.
Most of them are HTML wizards no doubt, but their design skills are only
marginally better than yours.

The best response is simply to ask them for the url of one of the sites that
THEY designed so that you may bask in the glory of their web design skills.
Suddenly they go quiet. Or, attack you for the neophyte you are and remind
you are UNWORTHY to see their work.

I did check a few of their sites out that they offered up as proof of their
talents and had myself a good laugh at the grammatical errors / typos, 90s
style bad graphics, etc. Your site is at least as good as some of the ones
they designed.

There are other groups that focus more on the design aspects. This group is
best for technical questions.

That said, yeah, have a look at some commercial sites and cop their code for
your own purposes.

Also, get hold of one of the web developer toolbars. These exist for both
Firefox and IE that I know of -- dunno bout others -- but they can let you
see what's happening with your code / pages.

M
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
Hmm, I wonder if designating the effects of flatulence as an exotic new
cologne would work?

That's getting pretty close to eau de toilette.
 
T

Travis Newbury

That said, yeah, have a look at some commercial sites and cop their code for
your own purposes.

The best place to grab some good design ideas is to look at your
competition.
Also, get hold of one of the web developer toolbars.

Developer and fire bug for FF are great tools for the developer.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
Certainalment! And although the common form of the expression is French, I
have seen titillating evidence that it actually originated in the American
colonies prior to the days of deodorization when people walked past the
watercloset and remarked, "Eew, da toilet!"

Of course that "water closet" would've been an outhouse back then...
 
T

Travis Newbury

Have y'all seen Opera's new 'Dragonfly?' It's available in 9.50/b2.

I played with Opera several times over the last few years and they
have yet to impress me. I would even rate it lower than IE6 (nothing
rates lower than IE7) in look and feel (not in handling of HTML and
CSS) I really didn't like it. Then I fell upon FF and, well, the
rest is now history....

Not saying anything is wrong with Opera, I just didn't like it.
 
H

Holger Suhr

Butch61 said:
www.hotlinecomputing.com/wsls/index.html

Click on the "design your day" heart.
The paragraph that has "In order to..." is just text in the <div>.
The paragraph that has "If you have any questions..." is in a <p> with
no formatting.

The css for the <div class=introcenter> is
div.introcenter
{
position: absolute;
left: 40px;
top: 80px;
width: 90%;
font-size: small
}

Why wouldn't that css code be inherited by everything inside the <div>
that doesn't have inline formatting?

Thanks much
Butch
BTW. Your picture WSLS Header4.png looks bad because it has 800px width,
but you show it only with 700px.

Holger
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

dorayme said:
It does not "look bad because" it is html'd to be 800 rather than its
native 700 on my Safari. Want to bet on this? I have a nice test but you
need to put up $US25 (held in escrow, never rust a human, my papa used
to say).
??? What ever you're take you'd better cut the dose. I don't understand
any of your posts lately.

The image is actually as by bowser says and if you download it 800px ×
150px but the OP has redimensioned it with html attributes 700px ×
150px. The squeezing the width causes a jagged edge to the text because
browser "resample" by dropping pixels.
 
D

dorayme

"Jonathan N. Little said:
??? What ever you're take you'd better cut the dose. I don't understand
any of your posts lately.

You don't understand any of them? Really? I must look back on some of
them to see what you might have found so difficult. I expect it is too
much to ask you to offer some question marks at the time rather than
insulting me at a time of your choosing?

But never mind, perhaps you will at least understand (if not believe)
the following sentences:

I don't do drugs. I drink one or, at most, two glasses of wine a day
with meals usually.

With this profile, and yours unknown, perhaps you should look to your
own mind for the reason you cannot imagine what is being meant in *any*
of my latest posts. Remember, your complaint is not just about this
particular post about a pic. It is with *all* my recent posts.

What contempt do I actually deserve when it comes down to it? True, I
have been a bit vicious with some vicious characters. But that is no
crime is it? Perhaps it is a bit beneath an honourable being to indulge
in such temptations. But I am not so perfectly honourable.

You are a simple uncomplicated man, Jonathan. But mostly a good one.
Take no comfort from endorsements from the more vicious of my enemies
who will be wanting to jump in like rats to support you in insulting me.
But perhaps you are too simple and gullible a man to follow this advice.

A 4" isolated martian makes easy prey eh? You goose!

Tell me if you don't understand any of the following:

There is nothing that would justify the sentence:

"Your picture WSLS Header4.png looks bad because it has 800px width"

on the evidence of seeing the non-native dimensioned pic (*not*
comparing the two side by side) on my Safari, on my screen. There is
just too little in it for almost all website users. That was all.

If the person had said, "best practice is not to resize your pic in the
html...", I would have no disagreement. But he did not say this. He said
it looked bad. And I am telling you that it did not look bad to me cf
with the correct size in my Safari on my OS X on my LCDs. I know from
experience that I have had bad trouble with other browsers and platforms
with html resizing. But the bad effects are not so evident on my
platform on Safari on my preferences. That is a simple enough and
innocuous enough a point to make. Surely.

I am *not* meaning this "cf" in the sense of both (at 700 and at 800)
side by side.

About the bet:

We gather 10,000 people together and make 5000 of them sit at *my*
computer while WSLS.png is showing on my screen at its natural width in
Safari and we ask them:

Does picture WSLS.png look bad?

And we do the same with the other 5000 but with the pic showing at 100px
different width as redrawn by the browser.

What do you reckon will be the comparative score given average users?

Do say if you want to refine the experiment before shelling out your
miserable $US25,000 to escrow.

Don't understand what escrow is? What a bet is? What it means to refine
an experiment? Do ask! Don't sit there insulting me for no purpose than
to draw out the rats in the rank or to hurt my feelings or to vent your
frustration. There are more productive ways to vent them.

Wondering why I have upped the bet from 25 to 25,000? Because I realise
I could be without my computer for ages while 10,000 unwashed humans
tramp through my office and put my business on hold.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top