The multicol tag reborn

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 28, 2012.

  1. Everyone knows that <multicol> was a great invention by Netscape but
    rejected by his enemies, later after his death abandoned by his
    unthankful grandson Firefox. The <multicol> tag allows you to format
    text in two or more columns in newspaper style (text flow goes from the
    bottom of a column to the start of the next column) very conveniently.
    For example:

    <multicol cols=3>
    this will be in three columns
    </multicol>
    <hr>
    <multicol cols=2>
    this will be in two columns
    </multicol>

    Would you believe that you can make this work on current mainstream
    browsers (not IE 9 - you have to wait until IE 10) in a simple manner,
    without modifying this markup at all, and without playing any JavaScript
    tricks?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 28, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jukka K. Korpela

    Neil Gould Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Everyone knows that <multicol> was a great invention by Netscape but
    > rejected by his enemies, later after his death abandoned by his
    > unthankful grandson Firefox. The <multicol> tag allows you to format
    > text in two or more columns in newspaper style (text flow goes from
    > the bottom of a column to the start of the next column) very
    > conveniently. For example:
    >
    > <multicol cols=3>
    > this will be in three columns
    > </multicol>
    > <hr>
    > <multicol cols=2>
    > this will be in two columns
    > </multicol>
    >
    > Would you believe that you can make this work on current mainstream
    > browsers (not IE 9 - you have to wait until IE 10) in a simple manner,
    > without modifying this markup at all, and without playing any
    > JavaScript tricks?
    >

    It would be very handy to have such a feature available, so I don't know why
    it wasn't included in HTML standards. However, being functional on a
    minority of the "current mainstream browsers" in actual use is of little
    value.

    --
    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Feb 28, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 2/28/2012 8:45 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Everyone knows that<multicol> was a great invention by Netscape but
    >> rejected by his enemies, later after his death abandoned by his
    >> unthankful grandson Firefox. The<multicol> tag allows you to format
    >> text in two or more columns in newspaper style (text flow goes from
    >> the bottom of a column to the start of the next column) very
    >> conveniently. For example:
    >>
    >> <multicol cols=3>
    >> this will be in three columns
    >> </multicol>
    >> <hr>
    >> <multicol cols=2>
    >> this will be in two columns
    >> </multicol>
    >>
    >> Would you believe that you can make this work on current mainstream
    >> browsers (not IE 9 - you have to wait until IE 10) in a simple manner,
    >> without modifying this markup at all, and without playing any
    >> JavaScript tricks?
    >>

    > It would be very handy to have such a feature available, so I don't know why
    > it wasn't included in HTML standards. However, being functional on a
    > minority of the "current mainstream browsers" in actual use is of little
    > value.


    <multicol> was a Netscape 4 proprietary element with buggy support by
    NS4 only.

    It has been reincarnated in CSS3 as "CSS Multi-column Layout Module":
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>
    which is a W3C Candidate Recommendation.
    Support as indicated here:
    <http://caniuse.com/#search=multicol>

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Feb 28, 2012
    #3
  4. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jiicau$s23$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > <multicol cols=3>
    > this will be in three columns
    > </multicol>
    > <hr>
    > <multicol cols=2>
    > this will be in two columns
    > </multicol>
    >
    > Would you believe that you can make this work on current mainstream
    > browsers (not IE 9 - you have to wait until IE 10) in a simple manner,
    > without modifying this markup at all, and without playing any JavaScript
    > tricks?


    mmm... which browsers? And how simple?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 28, 2012
    #4
  5. 2012-02-28 20:05, dorayme wrote:

    >> Would you believe that you can make this work on current mainstream
    >> browsers (not IE 9 - you have to wait until IE 10) in a simple manner,
    >> without modifying this markup at all, and without playing any JavaScript
    >> tricks?

    >
    > mmm... which browsers? And how simple?


    Firefox 9, Chrome 18, Safari 5.1, Opera 11, Android 2.3... and probably
    many older versions as well.

    Simple, but slightly awkward.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 28, 2012
    #5
  6. 2012-02-28 19:16, Gus Richter wrote:

    > <multicol> was a Netscape 4 proprietary element with buggy support by
    > NS4 only.


    Yes, that's one way of putting it.

    > It has been reincarnated in CSS3 as "CSS Multi-column Layout Module":
    > <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>
    > which is a W3C Candidate Recommendation.
    > Support as indicated here:
    > <http://caniuse.com/#search=multicol>


    Yes, and that gives us a way use <multicol> again.

    <style>
    multicol[cols='2'] { column-count: 2; -moz-column-count: 2;
    -webkit-column-count: 2; display: block }
    multicol[cols='3'] { column-count: 3; -moz-column-count: 3;
    -webkit-column-count: 3; display: block }
    </style>

    A bit clumsy, and you may need to add more rules if you wish to get more
    columns, but then you can just use

    <multicol cols=2>
    Text to be shown in two columns.
    </multicol>

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 4, 2012
    #6
  7. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/4/2012 2:56 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    > <multicol cols=2>
    > Text to be shown in two columns.
    > </multicol>



    I don't understand why you wish/insist to use the <multicol> element?

    Multi-column layout in CSS style sheets can declare that the content of
    an element is to be laid out in multiple columns.
    A multi-column element (or multicol element for short) is an element
    whose ‘column-width’ or ‘column-count’ property is not ‘auto’ (default)
    and therefore acts as a container for multi-column layout.
    In the example below, column-count is not used to set the number of
    columns. In this example, the number of columns of the multicol element
    (the div classed as "columns") will be determined by the (available) div
    width and specified column width.


    <style>
    ..columns {display:block;
    column-width: 10em; /* multicol supporting browsers e.g.
    Opera (not quite) */
    column-gap: 3em;
    column-rule: medium solid;
    -moz-column-width: 10em; /* Mozilla eperimental e.g. Gecko
    (FF, SM, etc.) */
    -moz-column-gap: 3em;
    -moz-column-rule: medium solid;
    -webkit-column-width: 10em; /* Webkit experimental e.g. Safari,
    Chrome */
    -webkit-column-gap: 3em;
    -webkit-column-rule: medium solid;
    }
    </style>

    <h1>H. Rackham's 1914 translation of Lorem Ipsum</h1>
    <div class="columns">
    <p>[32] But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of
    denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a
    complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the
    great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No
    one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is
    pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure
    rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again
    is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of
    itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in
    which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a
    trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical
    exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right
    to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no
    annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no
    resultant pleasure?</p>
    <p>[33] On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and
    dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of
    pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee
    the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to
    those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same
    as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are
    perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power
    of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do
    what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain
    avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or
    the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have
    to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always
    holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects
    pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to
    avoid worse pains.</p>
    </div>

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 4, 2012
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/4/2012 5:53 PM, Gus Richter wrote:
    >
    > <style>
    > .columns {display:block;

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    Excuse the error, but in trying a few things to make Opera work the same
    as the others, I accidentally left display:block; - it should be removed.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 4, 2012
    #8
  9. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/4/2012 5:53 PM, Gus Richter wrote:
    >
    > <style>
    > .columns {display:block;
    > column-width: 10em; /* multicol supporting browsers e.g. Opera (not
    > quite) */



    As I said before "remove display:block;

    Additionally my most recent release version of 11.61 for Opera would not
    reflow the columns as the other browsers when the window/viewport was
    changed.

    Looking into it further, I found that by adding

    column-fill:balance; /*which is the initial value*/

    Opera rendered the same as the other browsers, as it did when I used

    column-fill:auto;

    Now when I remove column-fill from my style sheet, it also renders the
    same. Some switch must be set internally and then locked in. My opinion
    is therefore to include column-fill in either flavors as desired and
    Opera will render the same as all others right away.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 5, 2012
    #9
  10. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jj14av$kg6$>,
    Gus Richter <> wrote:

    > Additionally my most recent release version of 11.61 for Opera would not
    > reflow the columns as the other browsers when the window/viewport was
    > changed.


    My Opera 11.61 on a Mac had no trouble.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 5, 2012
    #10
  11. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/4/2012 8:34 PM, dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jj14av$kg6$>,
    > Gus Richter<> wrote:
    >
    >> Additionally my most recent release version of 11.61 for Opera would not
    >> reflow the columns as the other browsers when the window/viewport was
    >> changed.

    >
    > My Opera 11.61 on a Mac had no trouble.



    I tried repeatedly to redisplay the example anew and had repeated
    problems - the columns remained fixed and would not change when viewport
    was reduced ....... until I used column-fill as I described ...... and
    it then worked ok every time even w/o column-fill.

    Anyway, including column-fill:balance; simply reafirms the initial
    value and won't hurt any browser. (Even if it was only a quirk in my
    Opera on my machine.)

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 5, 2012
    #11
  12. Jukka K. Korpela

    BootNic Guest

    On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:01:02 -0500
    Gus Richter <> wrote:

    > On 3/4/2012 5:53 PM, Gus Richter wrote:


    [snip]

    > Excuse the error, but in trying a few things to make Opera work
    > the same as the others, I accidentally left display:block; - it
    > should be removed.


    What is Opera doing or not doing that the other are or are not?


    --
    BootNic Sun Mar 4, 2012 08:54 pm
    "They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them
    feel."
    *Carl W. Buechner*

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAk9UHPEACgkQOcdbyBqMFBEmdACfVEdhEcqto0mbhk26S3uvXYfj
    SRIAn1JrOnAq+CrtGR/+rzLxiEn3AHH2
    =yl23
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    BootNic, Mar 5, 2012
    #12
  13. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/4/2012 8:54 PM, BootNic wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:01:02 -0500
    > Gus Richter<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 3/4/2012 5:53 PM, Gus Richter wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> Excuse the error, but in trying a few things to make Opera work
    >> the same as the others, I accidentally left display:block; - it
    >> should be removed.

    >
    > What is Opera doing or not doing that the other are or are not?



    Varying the viewport size should change the number of columns.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 5, 2012
    #13
  14. 2012-03-05 0:53, Gus Richter wrote:

    > I don't understand why you wish/insist to use the <multicol> element?


    Because we can! :)

    > Multi-column layout in CSS style sheets can declare that the content of
    > an element is to be laid out in multiple columns.


    Yes, and you need several browser-specific properties. The <multicol>
    tag nicely hides this.

    Of course you _can_ use <div class="multicol">...</div> instead, but
    it's not as cool as using the good old Netscapism.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 5, 2012
    #14
  15. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/5/2012 12:56 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > 2012-03-05 0:53, Gus Richter wrote:
    >
    >> I don't understand why you wish/insist to use the <multicol> element?

    >
    > Because we can! :)


    Wow! *Shakes head and walks away*

    >> Multi-column layout in CSS style sheets can declare that the content of
    >> an element is to be laid out in multiple columns.

    >
    > Yes, and you need several browser-specific properties. The <multicol>
    > tag nicely hides this.


    Until moz and webkit support the properties as per the spec and then
    experimental prefixes will no longer be necessary.

    > Of course you _can_ use <div class="multicol">...</div> instead, but
    > it's not as cool as using the good old Netscapism.


    Wow again! *Shudders and runs away*

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 5, 2012
    #15
  16. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jj1le9$q62$>,
    Gus Richter <> wrote:

    > On 3/5/2012 12:56 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > > 2012-03-05 0:53, Gus Richter wrote:
    > >
    > >> I don't understand why you wish/insist to use the <multicol> element?

    > >
    > > Because we can! :)

    >
    > Wow! *Shakes head and walks away*
    >
    > >> Multi-column layout in CSS style sheets can declare that the content of
    > >> an element is to be laid out in multiple columns.

    > >
    > > Yes, and you need several browser-specific properties. The <multicol>
    > > tag nicely hides this.

    >
    > Until moz and webkit support the properties as per the spec and then
    > experimental prefixes will no longer be necessary.
    >
    > > Of course you _can_ use <div class="multicol">...</div> instead, but
    > > it's not as cool as using the good old Netscapism.

    >
    > Wow again! *Shudders and runs away*


    One idea of the benefit is that *potentially* the multicol element is
    smart and semantic, and surely, compared with that dumb taxi, the DIV,
    has a cool flavour.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 5, 2012
    #16
  17. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/5/2012 4:14 AM, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > One idea of the benefit is that *potentially* the multicol element is
    > smart and semantic, and surely, compared with that dumb taxi, the DIV,
    > has a cool flavour.



    I suspect that you mean the html <multicol> element (describing it as
    smart, semantic and having a cool flavour) and comparing it to the html
    <DIV> element (describing it as a dumb taxi) [for being a CSS morphed
    multicol element].

    I do not think that it is cool to suggest any potential benefit for any
    nonexisting html <multicol> element. There are other instances, although
    interesting to take note of as curiosities, where browser support is
    included in order to not break legacy web pages. That does not mean that
    one should use them even though they may work.

    The DIV is only an example of a multicol element, to wit:
    "There is no specific markup element for multiple columns, CSS is used
    to modify a given element and turn it into a multicol element, which
    occurs automatically when certain column styles are set on an element.
    Exceptions: A table element, any replaced block-level element, or
    inline-block elements cannot be made into a multicol element."

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 5, 2012
    #17
  18. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jj2gpd$2nc$>,
    Gus Richter <> wrote:

    > On 3/5/2012 4:14 AM, dorayme wrote:
    > >
    > > One idea of the benefit is that *potentially* the multicol element is
    > > smart and semantic, and surely, compared with that dumb taxi, the DIV,
    > > has a cool flavour.

    >
    > I suspect that you mean the html <multicol> element (describing it as
    > smart, semantic and having a cool flavour) and comparing it to the html
    > <DIV> element (describing it as a dumb taxi) [for being a CSS morphed
    > multicol element].


    You are a detective, Gus! You interested in joining me in applying for
    jobs in the Homicide Unit of the Baltimore Police? We would work with
    John Munch, Meldrick Lewis, Al Giardello, Tim Bayliss, Frank
    Pembleton, Kay Howard, Mike Kellerman, Stuart Gharty, Paul Falsone,
    Terri Stivers, Megan Russert, Beau Felton, Stanley 'Big Man' Bolander.
    Now that I guarantee would be cool.

    > I do not think that it is cool to suggest any potential benefit for any
    > nonexisting html <multicol> element.


    No one is suggesting that it is cool to suggest anything.

    > There are other instances, although
    > interesting to take note of as curiosities, where browser support is
    > included in order to not break legacy web pages. That does not mean that
    > one should use them even though they may work.
    >


    You are quite right, it does not mean this. But if someone does use it
    and it does not cause any harm, if it degrades fine, it is not clear
    that one should not use it, depends on the importance of the need. If
    the need is not crucial, if the mood is light and one is wearing cool
    shades, well... why not be a devil now and then?


    > The DIV is only an example of a multicol element, to wit:
    > "There is no specific markup element for multiple columns, CSS is used
    > to modify a given element and turn it into a multicol element, which
    > occurs automatically when certain column styles are set on an element.
    > Exceptions: A table element, any replaced block-level element, or
    > inline-block elements cannot be made into a multicol element."


    The DIV is not an example of a multicol element, there are no kosher
    examples. This is what needs to be understood to understand the
    temperature of the cool of the Netscape element.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 5, 2012
    #18
  19. Jukka K. Korpela

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 3/5/2012 4:48 PM, dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jj2gpd$2nc$>,
    > Gus Richter<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 3/5/2012 4:14 AM, dorayme wrote:
    >>>
    >>> One idea of the benefit is that *potentially* the multicol element is
    >>> smart and semantic, and surely, compared with that dumb taxi, the DIV,
    >>> has a cool flavour.

    >>
    >> I suspect that you mean the html<multicol> element (describing it as
    >> smart, semantic and having a cool flavour) and comparing it to the html
    >> <DIV> element (describing it as a dumb taxi) [for being a CSS morphed
    >> multicol element].

    >
    > You are a detective, Gus! You interested in joining me in applying for
    > jobs in the Homicide Unit of the Baltimore Police? We would work with
    > John Munch, Meldrick Lewis, Al Giardello, Tim Bayliss, Frank
    > Pembleton, Kay Howard, Mike Kellerman, Stuart Gharty, Paul Falsone,
    > Terri Stivers, Megan Russert, Beau Felton, Stanley 'Big Man' Bolander.
    > Now that I guarantee would be cool.


    Clear some of this nonsense from your memory banks to make room for the
    multicol element as described in the specifications and as I have
    outlined in this thread, with an example. All the meat is in this
    thread. Don't add further nonsense to your memory banks such as the html
    <multicol> element.

    >> I do not think that it is cool to suggest any potential benefit for any
    >> nonexisting html<multicol> element.

    >
    > No one is suggesting that it is cool to suggest anything.


    I suggest that your are indeed suggesting it after having chewed on your
    ill composed sentence (probably in a hurry to watch your Hawaii 5-0 or
    whatever) at the top of this article.

    >> There are other instances, although
    >> interesting to take note of as curiosities, where browser support is
    >> included in order to not break legacy web pages. That does not mean that
    >> one should use them even though they may work.

    >
    > You are quite right, it does not mean this. But if someone does use it
    > and it does not cause any harm, if it degrades fine, it is not clear
    > that one should not use it, depends on the importance of the need. If
    > the need is not crucial, if the mood is light and one is wearing cool
    > shades, well... why not be a devil now and then?


    You are promoting garbage instead of a supported and de facto
    recommended method. Shame on you for turning to the dark side.

    >> The DIV is only an example of a multicol element, to wit:
    >> "There is no specific markup element for multiple columns, CSS is used
    >> to modify a given element and turn it into a multicol element, which
    >> occurs automatically when certain column styles are set on an element.
    >> Exceptions: A table element, any replaced block-level element, or
    >> inline-block elements cannot be made into a multicol element."

    >
    > The DIV is not an example of a multicol element, there are no kosher
    > examples. This is what needs to be understood to understand the
    > temperature of the cool of the Netscape element.


    The div *is* an example of a multicol element in my example of the
    multicol element! What you don't understand is what I quoted above! In
    my example I used a div (automatically morphed into a multicol element
    when certain column styles are set on the div) although I could have
    used another element instead. You need to understand the multicol
    element, so I suggest that you get up to par on the subject by reading:
    "CSS Multi-column Layout Module": <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>
    That is what is needed to understand and only that is what is cool.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Mar 6, 2012
    #19
  20. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jj3v59$mf8$>,
    Gus Richter <> wrote:

    > On 3/5/2012 4:48 PM, dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<jj2gpd$2nc$>,
    > > Gus Richter<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 3/5/2012 4:14 AM, dorayme wrote:
    > >>>

    ....
    >
    > >> I do not think that it is cool to suggest any potential benefit for any
    > >> nonexisting html<multicol> element.

    > >
    > > No one is suggesting that it is cool to suggest anything.

    >
    > I suggest that your are indeed suggesting it


    I have never suggested that anyone should use <multicol>. And no one
    has suggested it is cool to suggest anything in this thread.

    >

    ....
    >
    > You are promoting garbage instead of a supported and de facto
    > recommended method. Shame on you for turning to the dark side.
    >


    I am not recommending that anyone use it and I feel no shame for
    trying and failing to indicate to you a certain playfulness that I
    detect in JK's pointing out that it works in some modern browsers and
    that it is cool.

    > >> The DIV is only an example of a multicol element, to wit:
    > >> "...CSS is used
    > >> to modify a given element"

    > >
    > > The DIV is not an example of a multicol element, there are no kosher
    > > examples. This is what needs to be understood to understand the
    > > temperature of the cool of the Netscape element.

    >
    > The div *is* an example of a multicol element


    You and others, including the writers of some CSS webpages like

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>,

    are welcome to talk this way. Seems a loose sense to me. A DIV, in
    this loose sense, is an example of a floated element, as is a LI
    element, as are many elements. The DIV is just a container element and
    can be styled in many different ways.

    If you or others want to want to say an element is *modified* whenever
    it is styled, that is fine by me, but I prefer to think of elements as
    having default browser styles that can be overidden and added to by
    authors and that they have a measure of independence from styling
    (especially author styling). I see the *multicol css* as being css, as
    styling and to do with properties and values, perhaps more at home for
    the CSS usenet group than the authoring ones.

    In

    <http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/#new-elements>

    I see no new element in '3.1 New Elements' called <multicol> and if I
    did see it, I would happily talk like you about a multicol element but
    then it would be towards a real dedicated and semantic element.

    Perhaps there is an argument that we are witnessing something halfway
    between elementalism and styling and that I guess is interesting.
    Perhaps someone knows if a modern multicol *element* was ever
    considered for HTML 5?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 6, 2012
    #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. jstack
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    616
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    Jul 4, 2003
  2. kishan bisht

    struts tag inside a tag

    kishan bisht, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,490
    Wendy S
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    842
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  4. Vinko Njabas

    multicol & colspan in XML

    Vinko Njabas, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    904
    Vinko Njabas
    Jun 16, 2004
  5. Osiris

    reborn ?

    Osiris, May 15, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,720
    Richard Heathfield
    May 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page