Des wrote:
> This will only be used in internet explorer (not my decission)
> and it will be 900 wide to support 1024 x 768. minimum.
You should inform the ones in charge that Internet Explorer may no longer be
used in a couple of years. Also, more people may wish to view the pages on
their PDA in a year or two.
...Jukka is tough. Don't be insulted by his harsh words... *smile* (no
offence at all, Jukka)
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> "Des" <desotuatail@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not using buttons as fonts.
>
> What are you talking about? Please quote the relevant part of the message
> you are responding to. This is Usenet, not chat.
I think he meant to say "fonts (text) as buttons".
>> What I want is a newspaper style page where the text wraps around an
>> image forming what in nespaper terms would be 4 columbs.
>
> Stop wanting that. The Web is not the press, and my screen is not a
> newspaper. Even more so for a portable device, a speech browser, or
> Braille rendering - but even if we (foolishly) assume that everything runs
> a graphic browser in a maximized window, it's _much_ smaller than a
> newspaper (especially considering the resolution).
I pointed this out at the top of the message. You can construct pages that
work under strict conditions, or you can stick to standards and benefit
greatly in the long run. Any time you build a page improperly, all you do
is leave more corrective work to some day in the future. It is
procrastination.
>> if I have a
>> table with 4 columbs of diferent sizes that add up to the table width
>> should it not apear that way?
>
> What way?
>
> The width attributes are just suggested minimum widths, and they may be
> overridden for several reasons. Sometimes you might find out the
> particular reason why they are overridden in a specific case. This often
> takes some time, since rendering of tables is fairly complex in browsers.
> Personally, I would need a good reason to attack such problems; in this
> case, it very much looks like you are trying to solve the wrong problem.
No comment here.
Hope it helps,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
