Printing web page prob
BoyPete
fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting a 20mm border each
side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print isn't a true copy of the
page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all sorts of different settings to
no avail. Any suggestions please?
TIA
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
r@y
> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and text. It looks
> fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting a 20mm border each
> side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print isn't a true copy of the
> page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all sorts of different settings to
> no avail. Any suggestions please?
Printer settings?
Page layout?
Don't forget a web page is landscape. Most print defaults are portrait
A4.
I'm not familiar with printing from IE but it could be just trying to
get what's on the screen onto your bit of paper without losing any of
it. If you see what I mean.
I've just had a look at IE on the Mac and there is a print preview
option. Do you have that?
--
to email me please go here
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.html
iChat AV datasmog7
BoyPete
> BoyPete <pet...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and text. It
>> looks fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting a
>> 20mm border each side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print
>> isn't a true copy of the page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all
>> sorts of different settings to no avail. Any suggestions please?
>
> Printer settings?
> Page layout?
> Don't forget a web page is landscape. Most print defaults are portrait
> A4.
> I'm not familiar with printing from IE but it could be just trying to
> get what's on the screen onto your bit of paper without losing any of
> it. If you see what I mean.
>
> I've just had a look at IE on the Mac and there is a print preview
> option. Do you have that?
Easy when you know innit!! Printed landscape ok. Thanks :) :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
news:1grrwrz.1lhrtjzhwm5b0N%data...@hotmail.com...
> BoyPete <pet...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and text.
>> It looks fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting
>> a 20mm border each side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print
>> isn't a true copy of the page.
>> Printer is Pixma 3000.
A Printout of a Web Page can very rarely (if ever) be expected
to turn out the same as it looks on Screen, cos the Size (& Proportions)
of the Printable Area on a typical Page of Paper aren't likely to be
the same as the Available Area on a Browser Window.
>> I've tried all sorts of different settings to no avail.
>> Any suggestions please?
>
> Printer settings?
> Page layout?
> Don't forget a web page is landscape.
Not necessarily...
But yes, Printing *some* Web Pages using Landscape Orientation on
a Printer can Help.
But then you're likely to need more Pages of Paper, aren't you?
(a typical Web Page is actually often taller than it is wide - even
though a typical *Browser* Window will be wider than it is tall - you
just Scroll down through a Web Page, to see it all don't you?)
> Most print defaults are portrait A4.
> I'm not familiar with printing from IE but it could be just trying
> to get what's on the screen onto your bit of paper without losing
> any of it. If you see what I mean.
>
> I've just had a look at IE on the Mac and there is a print preview
> option. Do you have that?
Yep, IE on windoze also has a Print Preview.
:-)
BTW - IE V5.5 & above actually has some quite good Print Layout
& Settings facilities - *much* better than IE4
In IE (windoze) it's usually best *not* to just use the [Print] Button
(Or Menu>File>Print...) when Printing Web Pages.
But to use Menu>File>Print Preview...
& then use the [Page Setup] Icon to get to the Printer Settings
Dialog Box. That Reads the actual "Printable Area" of the Page from
the Printer Driver & allows you to Set the Margins - Top, Bottom, Right
& Left.
& you can choose whether or not to have any Header &/or Footer Text -
If you choose to Print Headers & Footers (which is the Default), that
will use up valuable Page Space.
& you can also get to the actual Printer Driver Options from that
Dialog Box as well - many Printer Drivers (including Canon) offer
various "Scaling" & "Fit to Page" Options. (& also their own "Print
Preview - in addition to the IE one)
Also, how Web Pages Print out depends a lot on how the Layout is
specified on the Web Page.
If the Print Size is Set in Pixels, (which some Pages are, in an
attempt to create "Fixed" Layouts), then very often that can cause Probs
when Printing.
BoyPete, can you give us the URL of the Web Page?
That will Help people to come up with some suggestions.
Also, don't forget that you can specify different Styles - (Sizes,
Spacing etc,) for both Print Media & Screen Media, using the CSS
(Cascading StyleSheets) for a Web Page.
If you've Written the Web Page yourself, you could adjust the StyleSheet
accordingly?
& even if you haven't, you can Set your Internet Explorer to use your
own StyleSheet(s) for Web Pages.
Menu>Tools>Options>
You could include your own Settings in it, so as to give you the layout
you want.
But it's prolly best (if you're writing the Web Page yourself), to just
make sure that the Layout is designed to be "Fluid & Flowing", rather
than to any Fixed Width - that avoids all sorts of Probs, not only when
Printing the Pages out, but also when Viewing OnScreen as well.
HTH
--
pmj
r@y
Do you? Wow, I never knew that :-)
Anyway you're late, this is old hat, we're disussing bread and butter
pudding now.
Do keep up old chap.
pmj
>> > Don't forget a web page is landscape.
>>
>> Not necessarily...
>> But yes, Printing *some* Web Pages using Landscape Orientation
>> on a Printer can Help.
>> But then you're likely to need more Pages of Paper, aren't you?
>> (a typical Web Page is actually often taller than it is wide -
>> even though a typical *Browser* Window will be wider than it
>> is tall - you just Scroll down through a Web Page, to see it all
>> don't you?)
>
> Do you? Wow, I never knew that :-)
LOL!!!
Well, yes, it may seem as if that's "stating the obvious", but I'm
sure that for many people it's something they do without thinking?
They just look at Web Page & don't really think about how it's "laid
out", do they?
& it's only when they come to Print stuff like Web Pages out, that they
find that there's actually quite a bit involved.
I'm often asked "Can you go to such & such Web Site & Print it out
please"?
They don't seem to realise that more & more Websites aren't designed to
be Printed out...
How do you Print an Animated GIF?
Or a ShockWave Flash Movie?
Or a Sliding Dynamic Scripted Menu?
For instance?
> Anyway you're late, this is old hat, we're disussing bread and butter
> pudding now.
LOL!!!
:-)
I haven't got to that bit yet!
:-)
> Do keep up old chap.
Sorry!
I tend to forget that in here it's often a Race to Post Replies within
minutes of the original Post being made & if anybody Reads the Posts
& makes Replies later in the day, it's no longer thought relevant.
:-(
That's a pity - cos much of what is discussed, I find very interesting
& well worth Reading & Replying to, though I can't always Read it
(& Reply to it) the Minute that it's Posted.
I hope though, that some people will find following the various
discussions later still worthwhile?
--
pmj
BoyPete
yep
>> Most print defaults are portrait A4.
>> I'm not familiar with printing from IE but it could be just trying
>> to get what's on the screen onto your bit of paper without losing
>> any of it. If you see what I mean.
>>
>> I've just had a look at IE on the Mac and there is a print preview
>> option. Do you have that?
>
> Yep, IE on windoze also has a Print Preview.
> :-)
> BTW - IE V5.5 & above actually has some quite good Print Layout
> & Settings facilities - *much* better than IE4
>
> In IE (windoze) it's usually best *not* to just use the [Print] Button
> (Or Menu>File>Print...) when Printing Web Pages.
>
> But to use Menu>File>Print Preview...
Thats what I was doing.
> & then use the [Page Setup] Icon to get to the Printer Settings
> Dialog Box. That Reads the actual "Printable Area" of the Page from
> the Printer Driver & allows you to Set the Margins - Top, Bottom,
> Right & Left.
did that. set left/right to 5mm, but it printed with 20mm each side.
> & you can choose whether or not to have any Header &/or Footer Text -
> If you choose to Print Headers & Footers (which is the Default), that
> will use up valuable Page Space.
> & you can also get to the actual Printer Driver Options from that
> Dialog Box as well - many Printer Drivers (including Canon) offer
> various "Scaling" & "Fit to Page" Options. (& also their own "Print
> Preview - in addition to the IE one)
Tried various. ie. same size/fit to page etc..
> Also, how Web Pages Print out depends a lot on how the Layout is
> specified on the Web Page.
> If the Print Size is Set in Pixels, (which some Pages are, in an
> attempt to create "Fixed" Layouts), then very often that can cause
> Probs when Printing.
Majority of text set at size 1 in DW
> BoyPete, can you give us the URL of the Web Page?
> That will Help people to come up with some suggestions.
It isn't uploaded. It's a piece of work for college.
> Also, don't forget that you can specify different Styles - (Sizes,
> Spacing etc,) for both Print Media & Screen Media, using the CSS
> (Cascading StyleSheets) for a Web Page.
> If you've Written the Web Page yourself, you could adjust the
> StyleSheet accordingly?
> & even if you haven't, you can Set your Internet Explorer to use your
> own StyleSheet(s) for Web Pages.
Wouldn't know how. (yet)
> Menu>Tools>Options>
> You could include your own Settings in it, so as to give you the
> layout you want.
>
> But it's prolly best (if you're writing the Web Page yourself), to
> just make sure that the Layout is designed to be "Fluid & Flowing",
> rather than to any Fixed Width - that avoids all sorts of Probs, not
> only when Printing the Pages out, but also when Viewing OnScreen as
> well.
Hopefully, that's how it is.
> HTH
It's something for college, which has to be printed out, also it's code, to
go in my portfolio (Ooohh, that sounds posh :) )
Thanks :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
pmj
news:371ngmF...@individual.net...
> pmj wrote:
<snip>
>> BTW - IE V5.5 & above actually has some quite good Print Layout
>> & Settings facilities - *much* better than IE4
>>
>> In IE (windoze) it's usually best *not* to just use the [Print]
>> Button (Or Menu>File>Print...) when Printing Web Pages.
>>
>> But to use Menu>File>Print Preview...
>
> Thats what I was doing.
Ah, right.
I mentioned that cos I know that a lot of people just Automatically
use the [Print] Button & don't realise that that doesn't offer all
the various Settings & adjustments that are available when using the
Print Preview in Internet explorer.
>> & then use the [Page Setup] Icon to get to the Printer Settings
>> Dialog Box. That Reads the actual "Printable Area" of the Page from
>> the Printer Driver & allows you to Set the Margins - Top, Bottom,
>> Right & Left.
>
> did that. set left/right to 5mm, but it printed with 20mm each side.
Oh?
Well, in that case it would seem that the prob is down to the particular
way the Page (& it's Layout/Styling etc,) is Written?
I'd be very interested (purely for educational purposes!) to see the
actual Web Page, if you could Post it up somewhere?
I'd like to see how it Prints out here & I'd like to find out *why*
it Prints the way it does.
& how to make it Print how you want/expect.
>> & you can choose whether or not to have any Header &/or Footer Text -
>> If you choose to Print Headers & Footers (which is the Default), that
>> will use up valuable Page Space.
>> & you can also get to the actual Printer Driver Options from that
>> Dialog Box as well - many Printer Drivers (including Canon) offer
>> various "Scaling" & "Fit to Page" Options. (& also their own "Print
>> Preview - in addition to the IE one)
>
> Tried various. ie. same size/fit to page etc..
So, that means that something in the Style/Layout of the Page
is telling the Print Driver/Engine that the Page is a given width
(even though the *Text* on the Page doesn't take up all that width?
>> Also, how Web Pages Print out depends a lot on how the Layout is
>> specified on the Web Page.
>> If the Print Size is Set in Pixels, (which some Pages are, in an
>> attempt to create "Fixed" Layouts), then very often that can cause
>> Probs when Printing.
>
> Majority of text set at size 1 in DW
Well, again, exactly *how* that is specified in the Code generated
by DreamWeaver will explain why it's doing it.
>> BoyPete, can you give us the URL of the Web Page?
>> That will Help people to come up with some suggestions.
>
> It isn't uploaded. It's a piece of work for college.
OK - but if you could put up an example, it would be interesting?
For several of us!
:-)
>> Also, don't forget that you can specify different Styles - (Sizes,
>> Spacing etc,) for both Print Media & Screen Media, using the CSS
>> (Cascading StyleSheets) for a Web Page.
>> If you've Written the Web Page yourself, you could adjust the
>> StyleSheet accordingly?
>> & even if you haven't, you can Set your Internet Explorer to use
>> your own StyleSheet(s) for Web Pages.
>
> Wouldn't know how. (yet)
See this bit below...
>> Menu>Tools>Options>
OopS!
I missed off the next bit in that Dialog Box! - Sorry...
In the Internet Options, on the General Page, Click the Button labelled
[Accessibility...]
Try Ticking:
[/] Ignore Font Sizes Specified on Web Pages
& try Ticking:
[/] Format documents using my StyleSheet
& then browse to a .CSS (Cascading StyleSheet) File that contains the
Style Definitions of how you want the Page Laid out.
>> You could include your own Settings in it, so as to give you the
>> layout you want.
>> But it's prolly best (if you're writing the Web Page yourself), to
>> just make sure that the Layout is designed to be "Fluid & Flowing",
>> rather than to any Fixed Width - that avoids all sorts of Probs, not
>> only when Printing the Pages out, but also when Viewing OnScreen as
>> well.
>
> Hopefully, that's how it is.
Well like I said, if we could see the actual Web Page (or a similar
example), then we could look at it & suss out why it's Printing the way
it is.
>> HTH
>
> It's something for college, which has to be printed out, also it's
> code, to go in my portfolio (Ooohh, that sounds posh :) )
LOL!
:-)
> Thanks :)
My pleasure!
:-)
--
pmj
BoyPete
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:371ngmF...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
> <snip>
> I'd be very interested (purely for educational purposes!) to see the
> actual Web Page, if you could Post it up somewhere?
ok will do
> I'd like to see how it Prints out here & I'd like to find out *why*
> it Prints the way it does.
> & how to make it Print how you want/expect.
snip
snip
I can't do that, because I have to follow the instructions, using methods as
taught, and we haven't done CSS yet.
> Well like I said, if we could see the actual Web Page (or a similar
> example), then we could look at it & suss out why it's Printing the
> way it is.
>
>>> HTH
>>
>> It's something for college, which has to be printed out, also it's
>> code, to go in my portfolio (Ooohh, that sounds posh :) )
>
> LOL!
> :-)
>
>> Thanks :)
>
> My pleasure!
> :-)
BoyPete
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:371ngmF...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
> <snip>
> actual Web Page, if you could Post it up somewhere?
Here it is, in all it's glory. All coding is by DW, except the underline of
the heading.
The text was supplied to us, to format using all font styles, colours,
tables anchors..etc..... to demonstrate we can use them. No giggling at the
back! :)
http://www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/chs/chs.htm
--
ßōyžėtė
pmj
> pmj wrote:
>> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:371ngmF...@individual.net...
>>> pmj wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I'd be very interested (purely for educational purposes!) to see
>> the actual Web Page, if you could Post it up somewhere?
>
> Here it is, in all it's glory. All coding is by DW, except the
> underline of the heading.
I'm not sure what you mean by that?
Surely yo uwould have told dreamweaver to make that buit Underlined?
Or are you saying you edited the generated code to include the
Underlined bit?
> The text was supplied to us, to format using all font styles,
> colours, tables anchors..etc.....
I have to say at this point, that I *haven't* yet looked at the HTML
Source Code! - I just Clicked the Link & have the Page Open in a Window
on my Screen, while I'm writing this (quick) Reply in another Window
beside it...
But from what you're saying it *sounds* like they are expecting you
to use various HTML Tags to do the Font Styles & Colors?
>... to demonstrate we can use them.
Surely they aren't actually teaching people (in the 21st Century
& Version 4, 5, 6 & 7 Browsers) to use those Deprecated Tags for things
like Fonts & Colors?
OK, yes I can well understand them (briefly) touching on the the fact
that there *are* such Tags, but they shouldn't be spending loads of time
teaching you about using them - they should be explaining how *not* to
use them & that HTML is a *MarkUp* Language ((HyperText Markup Language,
is what the Initials stand for) & as such, the *Layout* (& appearance)
of the stuff shouldn't be done using HTML Tags - that is what
StyleSheets (whether as separate Files, or included in the Page) should
be used for.
Having to *UN*Learn about things like <font> Tags is going to get in the
way of when you want to do Web Pages that look (& print) how you want.
>... No giggling at the back! :)
> http://www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/chs/chs.htm
I'm not giggling, honestly.
I'm just making comments & observations.
I see *loads* of Web Pages that are written by people who have been
taught the old, 90's style way & then they wonder why their Pages show
up completely differently, when they are viewed on another machine.
if the Styling & Layout is done with an assumption that the actual
Browsetr in use is out of the Control of the Web designer, then the
Design can take account of that & make allownaces for it.
OK - before I even do a Print Preview, (or Print the Page), I (& you)
can see why you get that Border (Margin?) round it when you Print it...
& I *still* haven't (yet) looked at the HTML of it.
There's a wacking great big huge Gap (Border/Margin) to the Left & the
Right of the Text even in the ordinary *Browser* Window - so when it's
Printed, the Browser Rendering Engine does its best to reproduce that.
So, in fact, what is being Printed out would actually match (pretty
closely) what is shown on the Screen.
Does any of that make any sense?
Right - now let's look at the Code & see exactly which bit is causing
that Margin/Border each side...
BBL!
:-)
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj wrote:
<snip>
>>>> Also, don't forget that you can specify different Styles - (Sizes,
>>>> Spacing etc,) for both Print Media & Screen Media, using the CSS
>>>> (Cascading StyleSheets) for a Web Page.
>>>> If you've Written the Web Page yourself, you could adjust the
>>>> StyleSheet accordingly?
>>>> & even if you haven't, you can Set your Internet Explorer to use
>>>> your own StyleSheet(s) for Web Pages.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't know how. (yet)
>>
>> See this bit below...
>>
>>>> Menu>Tools>Options>
>>
>> OopS!
>> I missed off the next bit in that Dialog Box! - Sorry...
>>
>> In the Internet Options, on the General Page, Click the Button
>> labelled [Accessibility...]
>>
>> Try Ticking:
>>
>> [/] Ignore Font Sizes Specified on Web Pages
>>
>> & try Ticking:
>>
>> [/] Format documents using my StyleSheet
>> & then browse to a .CSS (Cascading StyleSheet) File that contains
>> the Style Definitions of how you want the Page Laid out.
> snip
> I can't do that, because I have to follow the instructions, using
> methods as taught, and we haven't done CSS yet.
LOL!
:-)
But can't you be just a teeny weeny bit of a rebel...
& go & take a little sneeky peek, just off your own back?
:-)
I won't tell them that you had the sheer audacity to actually want
to find something out about how Web Pages work, for yourself!"
:-)
Go on - be devil!
:-)
You never know, you might learn (or find out) something interesting
& useful.
:-)
You can do all the "structured learning" bit in the College time,
can't you?
Besides, there's always more than one way that things work & can
be done & the way they teach things may not necessarily be the best
(or most appropriate) way, for what you want?
--
pmj
BoyPete
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:371pipF...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
> <snip>
> But can't you be just a teeny weeny bit of a rebel...
> & go & take a little sneeky peek, just off your own back?
> :-)
>
> I won't tell them that you had the sheer audacity to actually want
> to find something out about how Web Pages work, for yourself!"
> :-)
>
> Go on - be devil!
> :-)
>
> You never know, you might learn (or find out) something interesting
> & useful.
> :-)
>
> You can do all the "structured learning" bit in the College time,
> can't you?
>
> Besides, there's always more than one way that things work & can
> be done & the way they teach things may not necessarily be the best
> (or most appropriate) way, for what you want?
Last time I was a devil, I got my face slapped ;)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:371preF...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
>>> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:371ngmF...@individual.net...
>>>> pmj wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> I'd be very interested (purely for educational purposes!) to see
>>> the actual Web Page, if you could Post it up somewhere?
>>
>> Here it is, in all it's glory. All coding is by DW, except the
>> underline of the heading.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that?
> Surely yo uwould have told dreamweaver to make that buit Underlined?
> Or are you saying you edited the generated code to include the
> Underlined bit?
Underlining is something DW doesn't do. Prob. cos it's not a recommended
action is it?
>> The text was supplied to us, to format using all font styles,
>> colours, tables anchors..etc.....
>
> I have to say at this point, that I *haven't* yet looked at the HTML
> Source Code! - I just Clicked the Link & have the Page Open in a
> Window on my Screen, while I'm writing this (quick) Reply in another
> Window beside it...
>
> But from what you're saying it *sounds* like they are expecting you
> to use various HTML Tags to do the Font Styles & Colors?
>
>> ... to demonstrate we can use them.
>
> Surely they aren't actually teaching people (in the 21st Century
> & Version 4, 5, 6 & 7 Browsers) to use those Deprecated Tags for
> things like Fonts & Colors?
They are teaching us DW.........what ever it does.
Not really. The bulk of the text is in a table, so as to create just that
effect.
But..........it did print correctly when done in landscape.......so doesn't
that negate your comment above?
> Right - now let's look at the Code & see exactly which bit is causing
> that Margin/Border each side...
>
> BBL!
> :-)
Ta :)
ps. *please* keep it simple
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
news:2lPOd.11453$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<snip>
>> Here it is, in all it's glory. All coding is by DW, except the
>> underline of the heading.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that?
> Or are you saying you Edited the generated code to include the
> Underlined bit?
Ah - Now, having looked at the HTML Code, yes I can see that you
Edited it?
You added in the <U> & </U> Tags?
I assume that you did, cos they are in Capitals & the rest of the Tags
are in Lowercase?
HTML Tags should according to the latest Stndards) be in LowerCase.
So if you are writing Code that is expecting to Vlaidate OK, then it
should be in LowerCase.
& *yes* Valid Code is acatully a good idea (not the *only* thing that
matters - but it makes it a *lot* easier to suss out why things happen
the way they do & it's much easier to predict how it will show up & be
handled.
<snip>
>>... No giggling at the back! :)
>> http://www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/chs/chs.htm
>
> I'm not giggling, honestly.
> I'm just making comments & observations.
& now, having looked at the HTML Code (rather than just the way it
shows on Screen, in a Browser Window & on a Printer) can I make some
more Comments & Observations?
<snip>
> OK - before I even do a Print Preview, (or Print the Page), I (& you)
> can see why you get that Border (Margin?) round it when you Print
> it...
> & I *still* haven't (yet) looked at the HTML of it.
>
> There's a wacking great big huge Gap (Border/Margin) to the Left & the
> Right of the Text even in the ordinary *Browser* Window - so when it's
> Printed, the Browser Rendering Engine does its best to reproduce that.
> So, in fact, what is being Printed out would actually match (pretty
> closely) what is shown on the Screen.
>
> Does any of that make any sense?
>
> Right - now let's look at the Code & see exactly which bit is causing
> that Margin/Border each side...
>
> BBL!
> :-)
BTW - these are purely *my own* observations.
You can take them as "Criticism" if you want...
But they really are *meant* as *Constructive* Comments.
& I hope that's how you will take them - they really aren't meant to
denigrate what you have done, but to show how someone else may think
of things.
I'm just saying what I *hope* will make some sense, along with some
reasons *why* I think they are relevant...
& how it *may* Help you in your ultimate aim of making nice, Readable
Web Pages?
<h2 align="center"><strong><U>Computer Health and
Safety</U></strong></h2>
There's no point in using the <strong> Tag with an <hx> Tag
<hx> is *by definition* a "Heading", so the Browser should display it
in a Heavier (or Bolder) TypeFace than normal Text anyway.
& if you want it different from the way a Browser normally does it, then
that's what StyleSheets are for.
You can make Headings (& anything else) show up however you want, just
by applying a CSS definition to the Tag (or to a Class associated with
the Tag).
Also, (from a Semantic point of view), that should be <h1> (& not <h2>),
surely?
It's the *Main* Heading of the Page?
The idea is to *Mark Up* the Page with Tags such as <hx> & <p> etc -
& then that means that Styles (Fonts, Colors, Sizes etc,) can be
abpplied to them *Globally*, thus making it *much* easier to maintain
the Code & to make it all look how you want it to.
Also - On Web Pages, Underlined text, by convention usually signifies
a *Clickable* Link?
Using Underlining is a "hangover" from the days of Paper & print.
It can be confuzzling (for most people) to come across Text on a Web
Page that shows up Underlined, but that isn't Clickable?
<table width="30%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="8">
That Table is the bit with the "Eyes & Vision... stuff in it?
So it's going to be 30% of the *Available* Width (subject to the
"cellpadding")
<td bgcolor="#CCFFCC"><div align="center"><font size="+1"
face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><em>...
Hmmm...
That's what I mean about Underlines...
Those are Links, but the Underline in the Heading *isn't* a Link?
A Bit Confuzzling?
& yes, I can see they are teaching you about the various HTML Tags - but
they are teaching you about using Tags for Layout & Formatting!!!
:-(
They should be teaching you to use HTML Tags for doing the *MarkUp* of
the Text (& defining Links etc,), not for Layout & Appearance.
I think that that's going to make it *more* difficult to learn how to
*effectively* use the facilities for Style & layout that there are.
They are making life difficult.
<table width="80%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="5">
There!!!
That's what's causing the (perceived) Prob with the Printing!
That Table is specified as being 80% of the *Available* Width of
whatever the stuff is being Viewed in/on...
In a Browser Window, it shows up as a 10% (of the *Window) gap *each
Side*!!! of the Text.
& obviously, on a piece of Paper, it will show up as a 10% Gap each
side.
That's 10% of the *Available* Width of the Paper - after allowing for
the Margins Set in the Printer Driver & the Unprintable Area of the
Paper.
& again, that's 10% *each Side*!
& there's a "cellpadding" of "5" (Pixels?) which reduces the Print Width
a bit more.
HTH - That really does mean - I Hope This Helps!!!
:-)
Now, when you look at that HTML Code, it does look very complex, doesn't
it?
& I bet it looks difficult to maintain & to change it would be just as
difficult & result in even more (confuzzling) stuff?
That is *exactly* what CSS is designed to help you *Avoid*!!!
You could Mark Up the Text, vey simply, quickly & easily & then just
Apply various "Styles" to the various Areas, Sections & tags.
That way it's *much* easier to Wrtite - & yo ucan make it look however
you want & change it quickly & easily.
--
pmj
pmj
>>> Here it is, in all it's glory. All coding is by DW, except the
>>> underline of the heading.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by that?
>> Or are you saying you edited the generated code to include the
>> Underlined bit?
>
> Underlining is something DW doesn't do.
Well, it *can* do it, but it prolly wouldn't do it by using the <U> Tag
>... Prob. cos it's not a recommended action is it?
Exactly!!!
UnderLining (on Web Pages) is (usually) done Automatically by the
*Browser*, when it comes across a Clickable HyperLink (an <a> Tag)
>>> The text was supplied to us, to format using all font styles,
>>> colours, tables anchors..etc.....
>>
>> I have to say at this point, that I *haven't* yet looked at the HTML
>> Source Code! - I just Clicked the Link & have the Page Open in a
>> Window on my Screen, while I'm writing this (quick) Reply in another
>> Window beside it...
>>
>> But from what you're saying it *sounds* like they are expecting you
>> to use various HTML Tags to do the Font Styles & Colors?
>>
>>> ... to demonstrate we can use them.
>>
>> Surely they aren't actually teaching people (in the 21st Century
>> & Version 4, 5, 6 & 7 Browsers) to use those Deprecated Tags for
>> things like Fonts & Colors?
>
> They are teaching us DW.........what ever it does.
Well, I can see the point, but why don't they teach people the basic
principles of Web Design?
& then teach people how to use whatever Tools they choose (DreamWeaver
or whatever) to apply their Designs?
<snip a load>
>>> http://www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/chs/chs.htm
<snip some more>
>> OK - before I even do a Print Preview, (or Print the Page), I (& you)
>> can see why you get that Border (Margin?) round it when you Print
>> it... & I *still* haven't (yet) looked at the HTML of it.
>>
>> There's a wacking great big huge Gap (Border/Margin) to the Left &
>> the
>> Right of the Text even in the ordinary *Browser* Window - so when
>> it's
>> Printed, the Browser Rendering Engine does its best to reproduce
>> that.
>> So, in fact, what is being Printed out would actually match (pretty
>> closely) what is shown on the Screen.
>>
>> Does any of that make any sense?
>
> Not really.
Oh.
Pity I hoped it would!
But I've explained it (or tried to) Line by Line (of the Code) in
another Reply.
>... The bulk of the text is in a table, so as to create just that
> effect.
Exactly.
& your Browser (& the Printer) are doing their Best to honour that
design choice you made!!!
:-)
> But..........it did print correctly when done in landscape.......so
> doesn't that negate your comment above?
Nope.
The Table Width is specified as a Percentage?
I see a (fairly large) Margin/Border in my Print Preview (& on the
Paper) both in Portrait & in Landscape.
& that Border is Larger when in Landscape (as is to be expected, cos
it's specified as a Percentage.
& if you choose something like "Legal" Paper Size (which is relatively
Tall & Thin in Portrait & therefore Wide & Short in Landscape), the
Border is even more clearly demonstrated.
& on A3 paper (in Landscape Mode), the Border/Margin is several
Inches!!!
Conversely, on A5 Paper, (or a narrow Browser Window) the Border is
smaller, but still sufficiently Large (when expressed as a Percentage of
the available Width) to make the Text (which is in effect, Fixed Size),
only show up with a few Words per Line.
All of that is eexactly how it would be expected to show up (& Print),
given the design Parameters you have chosen.
>> Right - now let's look at the Code & see exactly which bit is causing
>> that Margin/Border each side...
>>
>> BBL!
>> :-)
>
> Ta :)
> ps. *please* keep it simple
See my other Reply!
:-)
The "prob", such as it is, is Crystal Clear!
:-)
But with your example, you are only just beginning to *touch* on the
wider ramifications of it!
:-)
With your (Paper & Print) oriented background, surely you can see how
complicated it can all be, if you try to *directly* transfer Paper type
Layout & ideas to Screen based stuff?
You have to think differently when doing stuff for the Web.
& you have to move away from the old ways of "Fixed size" Layout & you
have to be aware of all the various factors that come into Play, if you
want to have Pages that are to be Printed as well as Viewed on Screen.
Again, that's actually where CSS makes life much *easier* for you!!!
You can have a Layout for the Screen & then a *separate* Layout (using
exactly the same Text, but just a different Style) for Print.
--
pmj
Ali
> Underlining is something DW doesn't do. Prob. cos it's not a recommended
> action is it?
Your version doesn't have Text -> Style -> Underline ?
They must have taken it out.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ You really don't want to go there.
UPS/.talk January stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats
BoyPete
> "pmj" <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote in message
> news:2lPOd.11453$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:371preF...@individual.net...
> <snip>
Yes, I added them, but DW often puts in/alters tag case....don't ask me why.
> Ah - Now, having looked at the HTML Code, yes I can see that you
> Edited it?
> You added in the <U> & </U> Tags?
> I assume that you did, cos they are in Capitals & the rest of the Tags
> are in Lowercase?
> HTML Tags should according to the latest Stndards) be in LowerCase.
> So if you are writing Code that is expecting to Vlaidate OK, then it
> should be in LowerCase.
> & *yes* Valid Code is acatully a good idea (not the *only* thing that
> matters - but it makes it a *lot* easier to suss out why things happen
> the way they do & it's much easier to predict how it will show up & be
> handled.
> BTW - these are purely *my own* observations.
> You can take them as "Criticism" if you want...
> But they really are *meant* as *Constructive* Comments.
> & I hope that's how you will take them - they really aren't meant to
> denigrate what you have done, but to show how someone else may think
> of things.
fine, no prob.
> I'm just saying what I *hope* will make some sense, along with some
> reasons *why* I think they are relevant...
> & how it *may* Help you in your ultimate aim of making nice, Readable
> Web Pages?
>
> <h2 align="center"><strong><U>Computer Health and
> Safety</U></strong></h2>
>
> There's no point in using the <strong> Tag with an <hx> Tag
> <hx> is *by definition* a "Heading", so the Browser should display it
> in a Heavier (or Bolder) TypeFace than normal Text anyway.
> & if you want it different from the way a Browser normally does it,
> then that's what StyleSheets are for.
> You can make Headings (& anything else) show up however you want, just
> by applying a CSS definition to the Tag (or to a Class associated with
> the Tag).
>
> Also, (from a Semantic point of view), that should be <h1> (& not
> <h2>), surely?
> It's the *Main* Heading of the Page?
Right, that heading was typed in by me......the bulk of the other text was
copied and pasted.
It appeared very small, and obviously needed beefing up, so I did.
As part of the exercise, we had to us tha underline tag, so having been
'corrected' by you before, I thought this was the most harmless way to use
it.
> The idea is to *Mark Up* the Page with Tags such as <hx> & <p> etc -
> & then that means that Styles (Fonts, Colors, Sizes etc,) can be
> abpplied to them *Globally*, thus making it *much* easier to maintain
> the Code & to make it all look how you want it to.
>
> Also - On Web Pages, Underlined text, by convention usually signifies
> a *Clickable* Link?
> Using Underlining is a "hangover" from the days of Paper & print.
see explanation above
> It can be confuzzling (for most people) to come across Text on a Web
> Page that shows up Underlined, but that isn't Clickable?
>
> <table width="30%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="8">
>
> That Table is the bit with the "Eyes & Vision... stuff in it?
> So it's going to be 30% of the *Available* Width (subject to the
> "cellpadding")
>
> <td bgcolor="#CCFFCC"><div align="center"><font size="+1"
> face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><em>...
>
> Hmmm...
> That's what I mean about Underlines...
> Those are Links, but the Underline in the Heading *isn't* a Link?
> A Bit Confuzzling?
> & yes, I can see they are teaching you about the various HTML Tags -
> but they are teaching you about using Tags for Layout & Formatting!!!
> :-(
>
> They should be teaching you to use HTML Tags for doing the *MarkUp* of
> the Text (& defining Links etc,), not for Layout & Appearance.
> I think that that's going to make it *more* difficult to learn how to
> *effectively* use the facilities for Style & layout that there are.
> They are making life difficult.
:(
> <table width="80%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="5">
>
> There!!!
> That's what's causing the (perceived) Prob with the Printing!
>
> That Table is specified as being 80% of the *Available* Width of
> whatever the stuff is being Viewed in/on...
> In a Browser Window, it shows up as a 10% (of the *Window) gap *each
> Side*!!! of the Text.
>
> & obviously, on a piece of Paper, it will show up as a 10% Gap each
> side.
> That's 10% of the *Available* Width of the Paper - after allowing for
> the Margins Set in the Printer Driver & the Unprintable Area of the
> Paper.
> & again, that's 10% *each Side*!
> & there's a "cellpadding" of "5" (Pixels?) which reduces the Print
> Width a bit more.
>
> HTH - That really does mean - I Hope This Helps!!!
> :-)
Well, it kinda explains it.....but I still don't understand why I can't
print it as the browser displays it?
It did in landscape, but the *whole* page is in fact portrait.
> Now, when you look at that HTML Code, it does look very complex,
> doesn't it?
*very*.........prints out as 3 pages
> & I bet it looks difficult to maintain & to change it would be just as
> difficult & result in even more (confuzzling) stuff?
>
> That is *exactly* what CSS is designed to help you *Avoid*!!!
> You could Mark Up the Text, vey simply, quickly & easily & then just
> Apply various "Styles" to the various Areas, Sections & tags.
> That way it's *much* easier to Wrtite - & yo ucan make it look however
> you want & change it quickly & easily.
Thanks.........much appreciated :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:35:33 GMT, BoyPete commented
>
>> Underlining is something DW doesn't do. Prob. cos it's not a
>> recommended action is it?
>
> Your version doesn't have Text -> Style -> Underline ?
>
> They must have taken it out.
No. At least, I can't find it, and tutor said It won't.
Version 7.0.1 :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
Tickettyboo
BoyPete whispered softly in my ear...:
> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and text. It
> looks fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting a
> 20mm border each side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print
> isn't a true copy of the page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all
> sorts of different settings to no avail. Any suggestions please?
> TIA
Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
--
Ticketty᧧
Dave Lear
>> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and
>> text. It looks fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting
>> a
>> 20mm border each side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print
>> isn't a true copy of the page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all
>> sorts of different settings to no avail. Any suggestions please?
>
> Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
Not if the page is longer than will fit on-screen, or if you don't want the
toolbars on your print, or if you don't want the Taskbar on your print, etc.
;-)
BoyPete
Oh, and I don't faff any more than I can help ;)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
Tried that, but, as it only gives a small part of the page, and also
includes the surrounding bars/borders, decided against, but thanks. :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
Tickettyboo
BoyPete whispered softly in my ear...:
> Tickettyboo wrote:
>> In news:37190iF...@individual.net,
>> BoyPete whispered softly in my ear...:
>>> I have created a web page, coloured background, a table and text. It
>>> looks fine in IE, but if I try to print it from IE, I'm getting a
>>> 20mm border each side, so it scrunches up the text, so the print
>>> isn't a true copy of the page. Printer is Pixma 3000. I've tried all
>>> sorts of different settings to no avail. Any suggestions please?
>>> TIA
>>
>> Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
>
> Tried that, but, as it only gives a small part of the page, and also
> includes the surrounding bars/borders, decided against, but thanks. :)
If you have PSP..or I should imagine, something similar, you can capture
as much or as little of the screen as you like. I use it a lot and can
specify exactly what I want included or excluded
--
Ticketty᧧
Tickettyboo
Dave Lear whispered softly in my ear...:
> Tickettyߺº wrote in message news:3722h0F...@individual.net
Sorry, I wasn't exact..I didn't mean a conventional print screen thing,
more using the facility within a graphics prog. Not tried capturing
something which is longer than the screen..but I can certainly exclude
toolbars/taskbars quite simply.
--
Tickettyߺº
BoyPete
Oh..........I stand corrected, (gettin' a habit) I just tried print screen.
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
news:3722h0F...@individual.net...
But the Screen Shot would still include that great big wide
Border/Margin, wouldn't it?
20% - That's 10% each side of the Text.
& it would also include all the Browser Window "Furniture", such as
the ToolBar & Buttons & the Addressbar & Scrollbars & TitleBar.
& it would include the Background Color of the Page (whereas when you
Print from a Web Browser it doesn't normally include the Background
Color).
All that unnecessary stuff would waste Ink & make the whole thing harder
to Read.
I would normally (in that situation, if I wanted a Print out of a Page
like that) just Copy & Paste it into Wordpad (if I wanted to retain the
basic Layout & Relative Sizes/Styles of the Fonts) or into Notepad,
if I only wanted the Text itself.
& sometimes into Notepad *first* (to get rid of the Formatting),
& *then* into Wordpad, so as to Format it to fit the Paper & Margins
that I want.
That's the good thing about Web Pages!
The *Viewer* can decide for themselves how to View it & Print it!!!
:-)
& that isn't under the Control of the Web Designer - though they should
obviously bear that in mind, so they can Write pages that don't fall
apart when viewed under other conditions (or Printed).
--
pmj
pmj
<snip>
>> Ticketty᧧ wrote in message news:3722h0F...@individual.net
<snip>
>>> Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
> Sorry, I wasn't exact..I didn't mean a conventional print screen
> thing, > more using the facility within a graphics prog. Not tried
> capturing something which is longer than the screen..but I can
> certainly exclude toolbars/taskbars quite simply.
LOL!
Now, there's just *got* to be some sort of Logic in that!!!
:-)
You want to "save all that faffing about"?
Yet you are prepared to go to all that trouble with things like
PaintShop Pro, just to Print a Picture of (some of) a Page of Text?
:-)
Actually, as it happens there *are* Print Screen Utilities that *can*
actually do a ScreenGrab of Web Pages longer than a ScreenFull!!!
(They Read the whole Buffer or something - or have their own Rendering
Engine?)
But then they are for really serious faffers!
:-)
Notepad &/or Wordpad is all anybody needs for printing out most Web
Pages. (regardless of how many ScreenFulls the Text Takes up).
*& it has the added Bonus that you can ReSize the Text &/or apply your
own Fonts & Colors etc to it.
& it uses the Proper (TrueType) Printer Fonts which are *much* Clearer,
when Printed (at whatever Size you choose), than a Picture of Text
on the Screen.
--
pmj
BoyPete
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:25:39 -0000, BoyPete wrote:
>
>> Thanks.........much appreciated :)
>
> If it's just an exercise in formatting a page then please ignore me.
> Most do. :-)
Well, yes it is just an exercise, but surely, we should be being taught
correctly.
Having said that, I've commented more than once to the tutor that something
he's said is contrary to what I've learnt elsewhere.
> Is there any chance of pointing your tutor to the validation page at
> http://validator.w3.org/ ?
TBH, I'm not sure he'd understand it!
> I see that you, or DW, have declared
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
Not me........DW
> Putting your URI in there gives the following
>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fc
hs%2Fchs.htm
>
> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
Good grief!!!! So......all I need to do now is.........understand it. :(
Thanks John.
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
news:p7uyrx27zl3x.y...@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:25:39 -0000, BoyPete wrote:
>
>> Thanks.........much appreciated :)
>
> If it's just an exercise in formatting a page then please ignore me.
> Most do. :-)
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fchs%2Fchs.htm
>
> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
I was wondering when someone would mention that!
:-)
Now, what we need is a simple, clear, concise explanation (reason)
as to *why* that does actually matter!
:-)
I touched on it in one of my earlier Replies.
BTW - most of those Validation Errors will actually disappear,
once the first few are Fixted.
--
pmj
BoyPete
Trouble is, I'm studying DW, cos I'm lead to believe it's the current state
of the art wisiwig prog.
I check my pages in IE, Mozzila and Netscape, and they appear ok.
So, how would I fixted them? :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
> John the R-T wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:25:39 -0000, BoyPete wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks.........much appreciated :)
>>
>> If it's just an exercise in formatting a page then please ignore me.
>> Most do. :-)
>
> Well, yes it is just an exercise, but surely, we should be being
> taught correctly.
Yes.
I would have thought so?
> Having said that, I've commented more than once to the tutor that
> something he's said is contrary to what I've learnt elsewhere.
It actually seems to be quite common with those sort of Courses.
:-(
>> Is there any chance of pointing your tutor to the validation page at
>> http://validator.w3.org/ ?
>
> TBH, I'm not sure he'd understand it!
Well, how can he (effectively) teach anybody how to use HTML
(or any HTMl Editor) then?
>> I see that you, or DW, have declared
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>
> Not me........DW
But then you Edited the Page, didn't you?
Did you Load it back into DreamWeaver before Uploading it?
That would prolly have (or *should8 have) Fixted it.
But that would depend on what Options you have Set...
Have you chosen the Correct Option(s) in DreamWeaver, to only include
the Doctype Declaration if the Code *is* actually Valid HTML?
& to not Include it if the Code isn't Valid HTML?
Anyway...
Doesn't DreamWeaver have it's own Built-in HTML Code Validation
Routines?
>> Putting your URI in there gives the following
>>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fchs%2Fchs.htm
>>
>> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
>
> Good grief!!!! So......all I need to do now is.........understand it.
> :(
> Thanks John.
Don't worry - fix the first few Errors & most of the rest will
disappear.
& the ones that don't will be self-explanatory.
Most Validators choke when faced with something basically &
fundamentally wrong with the Code & they then throw up all sorts of
"Errors" which are a direct result of the first few.
There are several Opening <p> Tags in that Code that don't have a
closing </font> Tag before them
& there are also some empty <p> Tags (though that isn't actually Invalid
HTML)
But there are some Closing </font> Tags directly following some Opening
<p> Tgags...
<quote from about line 30 ish?)>
<p></p>
</font>
</quote>
When you (or DreamWeaver) make those Fixted, then the rest will be easy.
--
pmj
BoyPete
Only the underlining of the heading.............that's all I've done.
> Did you Load it back into DreamWeaver before Uploading it?
> That would prolly have (or *should8 have) Fixted it.
> But that would depend on what Options you have Set...
eh?? lost you.
> Have you chosen the Correct Option(s) in DreamWeaver, to only include
> the Doctype Declaration if the Code *is* actually Valid HTML?
> & to not Include it if the Code isn't Valid HTML?
..and again...sorry.
> Anyway...
> Doesn't DreamWeaver have it's own Built-in HTML Code Validation
> Routines?
Yes........will look later..............gettin' late now.
>>> Putting your URI in there gives the following
>>>
>>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fc
hs%2Fchs.htm
>>>
>>> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
>>
>> Good grief!!!! So......all I need to do now is.........understand
>> it. :(
>> Thanks John.
>
> Don't worry - fix the first few Errors & most of the rest will
> disappear.
Can't fix what I don't understand. as above....late now.
> & the ones that don't will be self-explanatory.
> Most Validators choke when faced with something basically &
> fundamentally wrong with the Code & they then throw up all sorts of
> "Errors" which are a direct result of the first few.
>
> There are several Opening <p> Tags in that Code that don't have a
> closing </font> Tag before them
>
> & there are also some empty <p> Tags (though that isn't actually
> Invalid HTML)
> But there are some Closing </font> Tags directly following some
> Opening <p> Tgags...
>
> <quote from about line 30 ish?)>
> <p></p>
> </font>
> </quote>
>
> When you (or DreamWeaver) make those Fixted, then the rest will be
> easy.
Brain disfunctional at DW level now.............but thanks.
Will come back tomorrow. :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
> pmj wrote:
>> "John the R-T" <malap...@heypete.com> wrote in message
>> news:p7uyrx27zl3x.y...@40tude.net...
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fchs%2Fchs.htm
>>>
>>> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
>>
>> I was wondering when someone would mention that!
>> :-)
>>
>> Now, what we need is a simple, clear, concise explanation (reason)
>> as to *why* that does actually matter!
>> :-)
>> I touched on it in one of my earlier Replies.
>>
>> BTW - most of those Validation Errors will actually disappear,
>> once the first few are Fixted.
>
> Trouble is, I'm studying DW, cos I'm lead to believe it's the current
> state of the art wisiwig prog.
Yes, it is.
But then you have Manually edited the Code *outside* of DremWeaver?
If you want to Manually Edit the Code that it Generates, (& there's no
reason why you shouldn't & in fact many reasons why you should!), then
you should be doing that from within DreamWeavers *own* Code Editor.
That has Syntax Highlighting (so you can *see* any Errors such as
Missing Closing Tags) & missing Quotes in Attributes etc,).
& it has it's own Validator built in.
> I check my pages in IE, Mozzila and Netscape, and they appear ok.
Well, many Browsers try to ignore HTML Code that isn't Valid.
But the prob with that is that when they do so, there's really no
telling how it will show up - each Browswer handles Code Errors
differently.
At least when you start off with Valid HTML Code, then you can (more
easily) find out why something doesn't show up how you expect it to.
& any (minor, remaining) Probs are then down to someones Browser.
> So, how would I fixted them? :)
Use DreamWeaver's own Tools, Utilities & Facilities to do it for you!
:-)
--
pmj
BoyPete
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:05:10 -0000, BoyPete wrote:
>
>> Good grief!!!! So......all I need to do now is.........understand
>> it. :( Thanks John.
>
> better explanation of the errors.
> Looks like a couple of deprecated tags and a need to re-order some.
>
> Far to long to post here though. Would you like it emailed?
Yes please John. I won't pretend I'll understand it, but I'd like a look. My
reply too is valid. :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
snipped
I've quoted somewhere the version of DW I'm using. It has just occured to me
that I'm using a previous version at college, coming home, d/loading from a
mem. stick, and making changes in a later version. Could this be part of the
problem?
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
Ali
> I've quoted somewhere the version of DW I'm using. It has just occured
> to me that I'm using a previous version at college, coming home,
> d/loading from a mem. stick, and making changes in a later version.
> Could this be part of the problem?
Possible, but not likely. Taking it back to college, and making changes in an
earlier version OTOH...
BoyPete
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:50:09 GMT, BoyPete commented
>
>> I've quoted somewhere the version of DW I'm using. It has just
>> occured to me that I'm using a previous version at college, coming
>> home, d/loading from a mem. stick, and making changes in a later
>> version. Could this be part of the problem?
>
> Possible, but not likely. Taking it back to college, and making
> changes in an earlier version OTOH...
No, not done that. Thanks :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
Tickettyboo
pmj whispered softly in my ear...:
> "Tickettyboo" <ticke...@mail2oops.com> wrote in message
> news:37236fF...@individual.net...
> <snip>
> <snip>
>>>> Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
> <snip>
>> Sorry, I wasn't exact..I didn't mean a conventional print screen
>> thing, > more using the facility within a graphics prog. Not tried
>> capturing something which is longer than the screen..but I can
>> certainly exclude toolbars/taskbars quite simply.
>
> LOL!
> Now, there's just *got* to be some sort of Logic in that!!!
> :-)
>
> You want to "save all that faffing about"?
> Yet you are prepared to go to all that trouble with things like
> PaintShop Pro, just to Print a Picture of (some of) a Page of Text?
> :-)
Takes about 3 clicks and a drag of the mouse :-)
--
Tickettyߺº
BoyPete
> In news:0UQOd.11532$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
> pmj whispered softly in my ear...:
>> "Tickettyboo" <ticke...@mail2oops.com> wrote in message
>> news:37236fF...@individual.net...
>> <snip>
>> <snip>
>>>>> Do a screen shot..saves all that faffing about :-)
>> <snip>
>>> Sorry, I wasn't exact..I didn't mean a conventional print screen
>>> thing, > more using the facility within a graphics prog. Not tried
>>> capturing something which is longer than the screen..but I can
>>> certainly exclude toolbars/taskbars quite simply.
>>
>> LOL!
>> Now, there's just *got* to be some sort of Logic in that!!!
>> :-)
>>
>> You want to "save all that faffing about"?
>> Yet you are prepared to go to all that trouble with things like
>> PaintShop Pro, just to Print a Picture of (some of) a Page of Text?
>> :-)
>
> Takes about 3 clicks and a drag of the mouse :-)
Tut........fancy dragging a mouse.
Email to RSPM in the morning.
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
<snip>
>... I've attempted to correct a copy of the code and most
> errors are caused by duplicating a <font> command
> <font face="Courier New, Courier, mono"> followed by another
> <font......>
Yep - that's what I was trying to say (& explain) when I said about each
opening <tag> needs to have its corresponding Closing </tag> *before* a
Closing Tag of another Tag - HTML Tags shouldn't "overlap"...
<Invalid HTML>
<p><font>Some Text, blah blah... any amount of stuff
</p></font>
</Invalid HTML>
<Valid (but Deprecated) HTML>
<p><font>Some Text, blah blah... any amount of stuff
</font></p>
</Valid (but deprecated) HTML>
& it can be tedious in the *extreme* trying to Read through Reams
of HTML Code, looking for those sort of Errors - which is why the
Computer Program should be Set to do it for you.
:-)
It's all mechanical, rigidly defined stuff.
& if you Manully Edit any HTML Code, you need to watch out for things
like that, when you Cut, Copy & Paste stuff.
& ReCheck it & validate it after the Editing.
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj wrote:
<snip>
>> But then you Edited the Page, didn't you?
>
> Only the underlining of the heading.............that's all I've done.
>
>> Did you Load it back into DreamWeaver before Uploading it?
>> That would prolly have (or *should8 have) Fixted it.
>> But that would depend on what Options you have Set...
>
> eh?? lost you.
Did you do the Manual Editing in something like Notepad then?
Or in DreamWeaver itself?
If you did it using DremWeaver, then you wouldjust need to make sure
that the relevant Options are set.
It can be Set so as to accept your Code "as is", or it can be Set to
check it for Syntax.
& it can also Validate it.
>> Have you chosen the Correct Option(s) in DreamWeaver, to only include
>> the Doctype Declaration if the Code *is* actually Valid HTML?
>> & to not Include it if the Code isn't Valid HTML?
>
> ..and again...sorry.
Well, have a look through the Help Files for the exact Menu Options 7
Dialog Boxes to look in to Find out where (& how) to Set those sort of
Options.
>> Anyway...
>> Doesn't DreamWeaver have it's own Built-in HTML Code Validation
>> Routines?
>
> Yes........will look later..............gettin' late now.
Well, yes, you can't do it all in one go!!!
That's why I was a bit surprised at them wasting your time with all
those weird, obsolete deprecated Tags, rather than showing you how to
use it Properly!
Those sort of things just get in the way & make it *harder* to see
what's really what with the code.
Besides, they should be teaching you how to Use the Options in
DreamWeaver to get what you want.
>>>> Putting your URI in there gives the following
>>>>
>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boypete.dsl.pipex.com%2Fchs%2Fchs.htm
>>>>
>>>> Sommat wrong somewhere. :-(
>>>
>>> Good grief!!!! So......all I need to do now is.........
>>> understand it. :(
>>> Thanks John.
>>
>> Don't worry - fix the first few Errors & most of the rest will
>> disappear.
>
> Can't fix what I don't understand. as above....late now.
Well, they are mainly caused by mis-placed (Overlapping) Tags...
(possibly due to Manual Editing?) with Syntax Highlighting/Validation
turned off?
>> & the ones that don't will be self-explanatory.
>> Most Validators choke when faced with something basically &
>> fundamentally wrong with the Code & they then throw up all sorts of
>> "Errors" which are a direct result of the first few.
>>
>> There are several Opening <p> Tags in that Code that don't have a
>> closing </font> Tag before them
>>
>> & there are also some empty <p> Tags (though that isn't actually
>> Invalid HTML)
>> But there are some Closing </font> Tags directly following some
>> Opening <p> Tags...
>>
>> <quote from about line 30 ish?)>
>> <p></p>
>> </font>
>> </quote>
>>
>> When you (or DreamWeaver) make those Fixted, then the rest will be
>> easy.
>
> Brain disfunctional at DW level now.............but thanks.
> Will come back tomorrow. :)
OK...
Basically, a Block Level Tag (such as <p> or <div>) can't appear
*within* an Inline Tag.
& Vice Versa - you can't have an "Inline" Tag (such as <font>)
outside a "Block Level" Tag.
& each Opening <Tag> needs to have it's corresponding closing </tag>
*before* a Closing Tag of a different sort.
But DreamWeaver should be able to sort all that mundane, boring,
"complicated" stuff out - that's what computers are for!
They *love* doing that sort Repetitive stuff -that's why all this sort
of thing has all the "Syntax" Rules - Computers can easily handle that!
:-)
--
pmj
pmj
> snipped
> I've quoted somewhere the version of DW I'm using.
> It has just occured to me that I'm using a previous version at
> college,
> coming home, d/loading from a mem. stick, and making changes in a
> later
> version. Could this be part of the problem?
It shouldn't be.
The later Version should be able to make Fixted any Syntax Errors
in the Code.
But that does depend on the various Settings & Options you have chosen
(or not chosen!) in all it's Myriad of Dialog Boxes & Tabs full of
Options.
--
pmj
pmj
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:23:56 +0000, John the R-T wrote:
>
>> On it's way
>
> Shorter version on it's way.
> Page can be seen at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.payne32/pages/bp.html
>
> Now validates
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.ntlworld.com%2Fjohn.payne32%2Fpages%2Fbp.html
>
> HTH
& I've Uploaded a (very slightly) Modified Version, which Prints out
the Text (in the Main Table) across the *whole* of the Available Width
of the Paper (between whatever Print Margins are Set in the Print
Settings Dialog Box), less the bit of "CellPadding" that you specified.
It just has a "Class" Attribute applied to the <table> Tag, so as to be
able to Define a different width (in the CSS on the Page) for the Table,
according to whether the Page is being Rendered for Display on Screen
Media or Print Media.
I've Annotated it & used the difference between Screen & Print as an
Example to show how stuff on Web Pages can be Designed to Print
Differently (or not at all!<g>) depending on the Output Media.
http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm
BTW - You'll notice when you Validate the Page that they show an
"Outline" of the Page, based on the <hx> Tags...
You've used the (Deprecated) <font> Tag with it's Attributes to change
the Size (& Color & Face) of the bits which are quite obviously
(Sub-)Headings - so they should be in <hx> Tags (x being a Numerical
Digit between one & 6 to denote the "Level" of the Heading).
& it uses <br> tags to separate the Headings from the rest of the Text.
The idea of Marking the stuff up with *what* it is (Heading, Paragraph
List, etc,) & thus letting the Browser Display it as such, is so that
the Browser can Display the various Headings (& other bits) in an
Appropriate Style (thus saving you the effort of Defining each
one individually - you just say, in effect "this is a Heading" (or a
List or whatever) & let the Browser show it as such - & also so as to
be able to make it *easy* for you to apply Styles (such as Different
Sizes, Font Families, Weights & Italics, Bold etc, if you want to) to
all the various Headings & Sections.
& the Code uses the <ul> (UnOrdered List) tag & the <li> (List Item)
Tags in one place, yet uses manually Numbered Paragraphs (or<br> tags in
another Place.
I can't help wondering (& hope that you will, too) why this Course
that you are doing is apparently teaching you such a Hard way of doing
it all.
You're only going to have to "Unlearn" all of that <font> type of stuff
when you come to do Web Pages that are easy & quick to write & maintain.
& also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching you to
Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used) <font> Tags
etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier" & "Courier New"
etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then don't have any Text in
them!
When you look at the Code it's *very* hard to Read, isn't it?
It's no wonder you find it difficult to understnd the Code that's being
produced & how to avoid the Errors
If they had explained why you shouldn't be using those old, deprecated
Tags, such as <font>, then you could be learning much quicker & also
would be able to *understand* the Code that DreamWeaver is generating.
Yes, I know people can say that they learn through their Mistakes
(& yes, in fact, that's a very *good* way of Learning!)...
Bbut surely, you should be making your own (perfectly reasonable!)
Mistakes (& thus being able to Learn from them?)
You shouldn't be being *taught* to make such fundamental, basic
Mistakes.
Is this a Free Course?
Or are you Paying out good money for it?
Even if it's Free, it's bad value (in my opinion) - you can prolly learn
better, (for Free) how to make easily make maintainable Web Pages, by
looking on some decent Tutorial type WebSites.
HTH
& again, while this prolly sounds very "Negative" - it's meant as
Comments & Suggestions (along with some explanations) to make you
(& others) think about *why* it's recommended that Web Pages are written
in a certain way...
It really is to make it *easier* for people to write them, not harder!
:-)
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj wrote:
>> "pmj" <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote in message
>> news:2lPOd.11453$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...>>> news:371preF...@individual.net...
>> <snip>
>
> Yes, I added them, but DW often puts in/alters tag case....
> don't ask me why.
Well, it *should* make sure that all HTML Tags are in Lower case.
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_whyusehtml4.asp
Ok, They don't actually *have* to be in Lower Case - all browsers can
handle either Upper or Lower case Tags &/or a mixture of both.
But the latest HTML Standard (4.01) *Recommends* that Lower case be used
for Tags & Attributes.
& XHTML (which is the next Standard that is being used more & more),
*does* Require that all Tags (& Attributes) be in Lower Case.
& incidentally that all Attribute *Values* must be in "Quotes" & all
Tags must have a corresponding "Closing" tag.
That's all intended so as to be able to get computers to more accurately
& predictably Read the HTML.
& BTW - it also makes it *much* easier for Humans to read it as well
& to spot any Errors in Syntax, such as a Missing Closing tag or a
Missing Quote.
Those sort of things can lead to all sorts of weird & wonderful probs,
with Web Pages not doing what you expect.
<snip>
>> <h2 align="center"><strong><U>Computer Health and
>> Safety</U></strong></h2>
>>
>> There's no point in using the <strong> Tag with an <hx> Tag
>> <hx> is *by definition* a "Heading", so the Browser should display
>> it in a Heavier (or Bolder) TypeFace than normal Text anyway.
>> & if you want it different from the way a Browser normally does it,
>> then that's what StyleSheets are for.
>> You can make Headings (& anything else) show up however you want,
>> just by applying a CSS definition to the Tag (or to a Class
>> associated with the Tag).
>>
>> Also, (from a Semantic point of view), that should be <h1>
>> (& not <h2>), surely?
>> It's the *Main* Heading of the Page?
>
> Right, that heading was typed in by me......the bulk of the other
> text was copied and pasted.
>
> It appeared very small, and obviously needed beefing up, so I did.
Yes, but <hx> tags aren't sposed to be used purely to increase the
*Size* of text.
They are s'posed to be used to markUp bits of the Text as being a
*Heading*.
Then the Browser Displays them accordingly.
If you want to just Alter the Size of Text, that can be done in various
ways, without changing the *meaning* of the HTML Text.
& if you want to alter the actual appearance of any (for instance) <hx>
(Heading) Tags, then that can also be done, by just applying
a Style to the Tag - which is Defined in the CSS part of the Document
(in <style> Tags (or in a Separate File
Any Style can be applied (via the CSS either *Directly* to Tags or by
using a "Class" Attribute with a Tag.
> As part of the exercise, we had to us tha underline tag,
I can't see why!!!
That's another thing that shouldn't be taught these days.
It's 2004, not the mid 90s!
>... so having been 'corrected' by you before,
LOL!
It's not me - these sort things are all defined (for good reason) by
various groups (& Ultimately by the W3C)
http://w3c.org/MarkUp/
http://w3c.org/Style/
Firms like micro$oft do tend to try to introduce their own variations,
but that often leads to probs.
It's almost always best to stick with the Published (& Open) Standards.
Unless you have very specific reasons for not using them & also
understand the Effects (& Limitations) of not using them.
>... I thought this was the most harmless way to use it.
Well, it just makes Pages harder to Read & to follow.
& to write & maintain, if you don't keep to the Standards.
The Standards have grown up (& been adapted) over many years of
*Practical* experience.
& they do take into account what *Users* expect as to how Web Pages
can be used.
Even simple things - such as having Underlines signifying Clickable
Links are there cos that's what people expect!
<snip>
>> <table width="80%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="5">
>>
>> There!!!
>> That's what's causing the (perceived) Prob with the Printing!
>>
>> That Table is specified as being 80% of the *Available* Width
>> of whatever the stuff is being Viewed in/on...
>> In a Browser Window, it shows up as a 10% (of the *Window) Gap
>> *each Side*!!! of the Text.
>>
>> & obviously, on a piece of Paper, it will show up as a 10% Gap
>> each side.
>> That's 10% of the *Available* Width of the Paper - after allowing for
>> the Margins Set in the Printer Driver & the Unprintable Area of the
>> Paper.
>> & again, that's 10% *each Side*!
>> & there's a "cellpadding" of "5" (Pixels?) which reduces the Print
>> Width a bit more.
>>
>> HTH - That really does mean - I Hope This Helps!!!
>> :-)
>
> Well, it kinda explains it.....but I still don't understand why
> I can't print it as the browser displays it?
It *does* actually Print pretty much as it's Displayed in a Browser!!!
There's a big (10%) Gap either Side of the text in a Browser Window...
& there's *also* the equivalent (10%) gap either Side of the Text (as
defined in the HTML) on the Printed Page!!!
Yes, the actual *Size* of the Text Characters themselves are deifferent
on a Screen, than they are on Paper - but that's down to you (as the
*Viewer's) own personal Preferences & Settings.
You could change the Size of the Text in your Browser Window & also the
Size of the Text on the Screen itself.
& if you do that, you can see that obviously, then the number of
Characters per Line will change, cos the *Percentage* Gap either Side
of the Text is a Percentage of the *Available* Space - the Window Width,
or the Paper Width (between the Margins Set by you, the User).
& not as a Percentage of the Size of the Characters.
> It did in landscape, but the *whole* page is in fact portrait.
Yes, of course, many (most?) Web pages are.
>> Now, when you look at that HTML Code, it does look very complex,
>> doesn't it?
>
> *very*.........prints out as 3 pages
Yep - it can be shortened (& clarified) *very* considerably, by simply
Removing all the Redundant (&/or Duplicated) Tags - such as the <font>
Tags & their Attributes.
Replace them all with a *simple*, StyleSheet Definition - either in the
Same HTML Code in a <style> Tag, or in a Separate .CSS File.
>> & I bet it looks difficult to maintain & to change it would be just
>> as difficult & result in even more (confuzzling) stuff?
>>
>> That is *exactly* what CSS is designed to help you *Avoid*!!!
>> You could Mark Up the Text, vey simply, quickly & easily & then just
>> Apply various "Styles" to the various Areas, Sections & tags.
>> That way it's *much* easier to Wrtite - & yo ucan make it look
>> however
>> you want & change it quickly & easily.
>
> Thanks.........much appreciated :)
No probs.
:-)
Did you see the Version that I knocked up that *does* actually Print
out using the Full (Available) Width of the Page?
http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm
I did that just by using a "class" Attribute in the <table> Tag
& defining the Width of it in a bit of CSS in the <style> Tag in
the<head> Section of the HTML.
Try that Page & see how it turns out - Try it using various different
Widths (& Sizes) of Paper.
& different Margins
& try it in both Landscape & Portrait.
& also try changing the Text Size (in the Browser) before Printing it.
Use Print Preview - you don't have to actually print it out Umpteen
times!
:-)
--
pmj
BoyPete
The numbered paras were already in the text we were given.
We had to insert the bullets. I couldn't work out how to do it, so asked the
tutor.
*He* had to fiddle for quite a while to do it!
> I can't help wondering (& hope that you will, too) why this Course
> that you are doing is apparently teaching you such a Hard way of
> doing it all.
> You're only going to have to "Unlearn" all of that <font> type of
> stuff when you come to do Web Pages that are easy & quick to write &
> maintain.
:(
> & also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching you to
> Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used) <font> Tags
> etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier" & "Courier New"
> etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then don't have any Text in
> them!
Possibly because they are using an out of date version of DW?
> When you look at the Code it's *very* hard to Read, isn't it?
> It's no wonder you find it difficult to understnd the Code that's
> being produced & how to avoid the Errors
> If they had explained why you shouldn't be using those old, deprecated
> Tags, such as <font>, then you could be learning much quicker & also
> would be able to *understand* the Code that DreamWeaver is generating.
>
> Yes, I know people can say that they learn through their Mistakes
> (& yes, in fact, that's a very *good* way of Learning!)...
> Bbut surely, you should be making your own (perfectly reasonable!)
> Mistakes (& thus being able to Learn from them?)
> You shouldn't be being *taught* to make such fundamental, basic
> Mistakes.
>
> Is this a Free Course?
> Or are you Paying out good money for it?
Only £25, and I am learning some 'ok' stuff.
> Even if it's Free, it's bad value (in my opinion) - you can prolly
> learn better, (for Free) how to make easily make maintainable Web
> Pages, by looking on some decent Tutorial type WebSites.
I find it hard to learn from tuts. Plus, it's harder when you don't know the
questions to ask......if you see what I mean.
> HTH
>
> & again, while this prolly sounds very "Negative" - it's meant as
> Comments & Suggestions (along with some explanations) to make you
> (& others) think about *why* it's recommended that Web Pages are
> written in a certain way...
> It really is to make it *easier* for people to write them, not harder!
> :-)
Thanks :)
--
ßôyþëtë
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:24:19 +0000, John the R-T wrote:
>
>> Page can be seen at
>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.payne32/pages/bp.html
>
> The same page 'beautified', all similar tags are in line vertically.
> IOW if you look at the code it looks like this
>
> <tr>
> <td>
> some text
> </td>
> <tr>
>
> Makes longer but easier to read code.
Yep - & that very clearly shows the Redundant/Duplicated <font> tags,
doesn't it?
<quote>
<li>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, mono">
<font face="Courier New, Courier, mono">
<font face="Courier New, Courier, mono">
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Static load placed on the body by sitting in the same position
for an extended period of time (i.e., turning head to the side
to view poorly placed document).
</font>
</font>
</font>
</font>
</li>
</quote>
You can easily check (just by eye) the Opening Tags & line them up with
the corresponding Closing Tags...
& you can see that those <font face="Courier New, Courier, mono"> tags
are actually *empty* - they conatin no Text.
So that can all be (Re-)Written as...
<quote>
<li>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Static load placed on the body by sitting in the same position
for an extended period of time (i.e., turning head to the side
to view poorly placed document).
</font>
</li>
</quote>
& then, it's only a very simple step to write that bundle of Lines
(& all the similar Lines) as just...
<quote>
<li>
<span class="whatever">
Static load placed on the body by sitting in the same position
for an extended period of time (i.e., turning head to the side
to view poorly placed document).
</span>
</li>
</quote>
& that enables you to just have a *single* reference to the "whatever"
Class in the <style> Tag in the Document...
Something like this...
<quote>
<style type="text/css">
li .whatever {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}
</style>
</quote>
Then, if you decide you'd like the Text (in those List Items)
in something like, say a Serif Font, such as "Times New Roman",
then all you (or your WYSIWYG Web Page Editor) would have to do is
to change the "font-family: ;" bit...
font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif, proportional;
& if you wanted all those bits in Italic, then add a bit...
font-style: italic;
Or for bold Text...
font-weight: bold;
& to change the *Size* of the Text (again, all in one go), without
having to Edit any of the loads of Tags or their Attributes...
font-size: small; (or you can specify the Size as an Absolute Size
or as a percentage)
& you can obviously combine those various different bits.
& you can do that for all the Various different Sections of Text -
Headings (of various Levels), Paragraphs, Lists etc.
& if you have a particular Section (say a List) that you want Styled
differently from other Lists, then just give it - the List Tag - <ul>
a different "Class" & define the Style for the Class.
Neat, huh?
:-)
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj wrote:
<snip>
>> & the Code uses the <ul> (UnOrdered List) tag & the <li> (List Item)
>> Tags in one place, yet uses manually Numbered Paragraphs (or<br> tags
>> in another Place.
>
> The numbered paras were already in the text we were given.
> We had to insert the bullets. I couldn't work out how to do it,
> so asked the tutor.
> *He* had to fiddle for quite a while to do it!
Mark it up as an "Ordered List - <ol>
with Individual List Items in it - <li>
A quick way of doing that would be to Edit out the Numbers in the Text
(either by hand, or by a Search & Replace for Digit(s) followed by a Dot
& a Space)
Then Select (Highlight) the Text of the List.
& choose "Ordered List" from the various MarkUp Options in the Menus.
That marks the whole List up as something like...
<quote>
<ol>
<li>First List Item</li>
<li>Second List Item</li>
<li>Third List Item</li>
...
<li>Umpteenth List Item</li>
</ol>
</quote>
& that way its *really* dead easy to Add in any New Items (even in the
middle of the List) & you don't have to renumber them all!
The Browser handles that all for you!
& you can specify the Style (using CSS) for the whole List & for the
Items in the List - however you want.
You can even (if you wanted) make the Items into a *Horizontal* List
(like they use for List of Navigation Links across a Page)
& you can change how it looks, just by changing the CSS - not having to
Edit tall the List(s)
>> I can't help wondering (& hope that you will, too) why this Course
>> that you are doing is apparently teaching you such a Hard way of
>> doing it all.
>> You're only going to have to "Unlearn" all of that <font> type of
>> stuff when you come to do Web Pages that are easy & quick to write &
>> maintain.
> :(
>> & also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching you to
>> Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used) <font> Tags
>> etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier" & "Courier New"
>> etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then don't have any Text in
>> them!
> Possibly because they are using an out of date version of DW?
Maybe? - The very earlier Versions of DreamWeaver didn't handle CSS as
well as DreamWeaver MX does.
More likely, though, they are just using out of Date Teaching methods.
& teaching out of Date stuff.
That's how they learned it, so that's how they pass it on.
But things have changed - a *lot* in the world of the Web in the last
10 years (& even in the last 5 years).
<snip>
>> Is this a Free Course?
>> Or are you Paying out good money for it?
>
> Only £25, and I am learning some 'ok' stuff.
>
>> Even if it's Free, it's bad value (in my opinion) - you can prolly
>> learn better, (for Free) how to make easily make maintainable Web
>> Pages, by looking on some decent Tutorial type WebSites.
>
> I find it hard to learn from tuts.
I know what you mean!
>... Plus, it's harder when you don't know the
> questions to ask......if you see what I mean.
Yep!
I think I do.
But now you can see the sort of things that are involved?
& how much it differs from the "Paper" & "Print" way of Layout & Design?
>> & again, while this prolly sounds very "Negative" - it's meant as
>> Comments & Suggestions (along with some explanations) to make you
>> (& others) think about *why* it's recommended that Web Pages are
>> written in a certain way...
>> It really is to make it *easier* for people to write them, not
>> harder!
>> :-)
>
> Thanks :)
I've been learning about a lot of stuff at the same time as trying to
explain some of it.
I find that finding out *why* something happens (or why it doesn't!)
& why things are usually done in a certain why & for what reasons
& what effect they have, all Helps me to understand *how* to do it.
& to avoid similar probs that I see.
--
pmj
pmj
>> Well, it kinda explains it.....but I still don't understand why
>> I can't print it as the browser displays it?
>
> It *does* actually Print pretty much as it's Displayed in a Browser!!!
>
> There's a big (10%) Gap either Side of the text in a Browser Window...
> & there's *also* the equivalent (10%) gap either Side of the Text
> (as defined in the HTML) on the Printed Page!!!
> on a Screen, than they are on Paper - but that's down to you (as the
> *Viewer's) own personal Preferences & Settings.
> You could change the Size of the Text in your Browser Window & also
> the
> Size of the Text on the Screen itself.
>
> & if you do that, you can see that obviously, then the number of
> Characters per Line will change, cos the *Percentage* Gap either Side
> of the Text is a Percentage of the *Available* Space - the Window
> Width, > or the Paper Width (between the Margins Set by you, the
> User).
> & not as a Percentage of the Size of the Characters.
>
>> It did in landscape, but the *whole* page is in fact portrait.
>
> Yes, of course, many (most?) Web pages are.
> Did you see the Version that I knocked up that *does* actually Print
> out using the Full (Available) Width of the Page?
> http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm
>
> I did that just by using a "class" Attribute in the <table> Tag
> & defining the Width of it in a bit of CSS in the <style> Tag in
> the<head> Section of the HTML.
>
> Try that Page & see how it turns out - Try it using various different
> Widths (& Sizes) of Paper.
> & different Margins
> & try it in both Landscape & Portrait.
> & also try changing the Text Size (in the Browser) before Printing it.
> Use Print Preview - you don't have to actually print it out Umpteen
> times!
> :-)
How does that Page now look on your System - Browser & Printer, in Print
Preview (or when Printed out)?
& how does that compare with how it looks in your Browser Window,
on your Screen?
--
pmj
r@y
> Ali wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:35:33 GMT, BoyPete commented
> >
> >> Underlining is something DW doesn't do. Prob. cos it's not a
> >> recommended action is it?
> >
> > Your version doesn't have Text -> Style -> Underline ?
> >
> > They must have taken it out.
>
> No. At least, I can't find it, and tutor said It won't.
> Version 7.0.1 :)
Tutor is wrong, go out and buy another one.
DW MX 2004 still has underline as Ali said.
--
to email me please go here
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.html
iChat AV datasmog7
Ali
> & also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching you to
> Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used) <font> Tags
> etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier" & "Courier New"
> etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then don't have any Text in
> them!
I found that DW often does that: drag select some text and change an
attribute eg font, and it leaves the former attribute in place, but
redundant.
I've gone back to using a text editor, but one that understands and colours
HTML syntax (or any other syntax for which it has a definition file)
BoyPete
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:56:07 GMT, pmj commented
>
>
>> & also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching you to
>> Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used) <font> Tags
>> etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier" & "Courier New"
>> etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then don't have any Text in
>> them!
>
> I found that DW often does that: drag select some text and change an
> attribute eg font, and it leaves the former attribute in place, but
> redundant.
>
> I've gone back to using a text editor, but one that understands and
> colours HTML syntax (or any other syntax for which it has a
> definition file)
Thanks for that.........not *entirely* my fault then :)
I think if I'd typed the text in, formatting it as I went, the code might
have been a lot cleaner. As it was, I copy/pasted it, then changed stuff in
somewhat haphazard fashion. Ho hum :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
r@y
Sometimes Dreamweaver can be a little too clever for it's own good. You
can drag and drop a block of text from another application onto the
layout view, and if that block of text has a 2 line break in it or a
paragraph break, Dreamweaver will insert <p> tag for you. Depending on
how you have the prefs set it will also insert <font> tags including the
default font face(s).
If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a paragraph
break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many <font>
tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>. A whole page of text can be enclosed
in a single <font> tag that way.
It seems that your course is starting at basic html, and despite what
has been said elsewhere here, I see nothing wrong with that. It may for
the most part be deprecated but there is nothing wrong in having that
knowledge. So I'm assuming you have the Dreamweaver prefs set for html
tags and not css.
"They" haven't been teaching you to put redundant tags into your
documents, they just haven't told you yet how to avoid it.
It's all part of the learning curve, which with Dreamweaver can be
rather steep.
BoyPete
> BoyPete <pet...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Ali wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:56:07 GMT, pmj commented
>> Thanks for that.........not *entirely* my fault then :)
>> I think if I'd typed the text in, formatting it as I went, the code
>> might have been a lot cleaner. As it was, I copy/pasted it, then
>> changed stuff in somewhat haphazard fashion. Ho hum :)
>> --
>
> Sometimes Dreamweaver can be a little too clever for it's own good.
> You can drag and drop a block of text from another application onto
> the layout view, and if that block of text has a 2 line break in it
> or a paragraph break, Dreamweaver will insert <p> tag for you.
> Depending on how you have the prefs set it will also insert <font>
> tags including the default font face(s).
> If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a paragraph
> break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many
> <font> tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>. A whole page of text can be
> enclosed in a single <font> tag that way.
>
> It seems that your course is starting at basic html, and despite what
> has been said elsewhere here, I see nothing wrong with that. It may
> for the most part be deprecated but there is nothing wrong in having
> that knowledge. So I'm assuming you have the Dreamweaver prefs set
> for html tags and not css.
> "They" haven't been teaching you to put redundant tags into your
> documents, they just haven't told you yet how to avoid it.
> It's all part of the learning curve, which with Dreamweaver can be
> rather steep.
It was originally meant to be a more 'serious' course @ £80, but a lack of
take-up meant it was changed to a basic course @ £25. Not found the
prefs...till now :) was css, now changed.
Learn a little every day. Ta :)
--
ßôyþëtë
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
they were longish, so thought'I'll answer them tonight'. Trouble is, now I
can't find which they were! So, I apologise, I'm not ingoring....just not
organised!
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
BoyPete
You're tellin me!! :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
news:1grtzab.64wl1c1229mc2N%data...@hotmail.com...
> BoyPete <pet...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Ali wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:56:07 GMT, pmj commented
>>>
>>>> & also, for some reason, the Code that they have been teaching
>>>> you to Create is *full* of Redundant (Duplicated &/or not used)
>>>> <font> Tags etc, specifying things like the Font Face - "Courier"
>>>> & "Courier New" etc, & Color which are Opened & closed & then
>>>> don't have any Text in them!
>>>
>>> I found that DW often does that: drag select some text and change
>>> an attribute eg font, and it leaves the former attribute in place,
>>> but redundant.
Yep - similar things happen with other WYSIWYG Editors, such as
M$ FrontPage.
>>> I've gone back to using a text editor, but one that understands
>>> and colours HTML syntax (or any other syntax for which it has a
>>> definition file)
>>
>> Thanks for that.........not *entirely* my fault then :)
Don't get me wrong, please!!!
I wasn't in any way suggesting that those "Redundant &/or Duplicated
Tags were "your fault"!!!
I was just pointing out that they were there & had been put in there
by the Editor...
You yourself said that you were having difficulty Reading the HTMl that
it had Generated?
Well - I was trying to lead you through it, pointing out what was
clouding the issue.
>> I think if I'd typed the text in, formatting it as I went, the code
>> might have been a lot cleaner.
Yep, possibly, but...
>>... As it was, I copy/pasted it, then changed stuff in somewhat
> haphazard fashion. Ho hum :)
But that shouldn't have really mattered.
Copying & Pasting stuff in from other Sources & files is a perfectly
acceptable (in fact recommended !) way of doing things.
Web Page Editors aren't the best things for actually Writing the Text
Content in - it's usually best to do that in a proper Text Editor
(or WEord Processor), or get the Text from another File & then Paste
it into the Web Page thing & Format it.
So it's the WYSIWYG Web Page Editing thing (as Ali says) that was at
fault, in this case.
> Sometimes Dreamweaver can be a little too clever for it's own good.
> You can drag and drop a block of text from another application onto
> the layout view, and if that block of text has a 2 line break in it
> or a paragraph break, Dreamweaver will insert <p> tag for you.
Which would normally make sense?
Cos a Blank Line (in normal Text) Signifies a Paragraph Break?
> Depending on how you have the prefs set it will also insert <font>
> tags including the default font face(s).
& that is what we were talking about - apparently this course that he is
on is teaching them to use the Deprecated <font> Tag for all the Styling
& Formatting?
I couldn't understand why they were doing that.
Yes, obviously, people do need to know the basic stuff about what HTML
Tags (in general) are & how they work & how to use them - but there are
plenty of *other* Tags they can learn with, rather than the <font> Tag.
They shouldn't be taught to use all those old methods such as the
<font> Tag.
> If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a paragraph
> break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many
> <font>
> tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>.
BUT...
That then goes againsty the whole point of HTML being a *MarkUp*
Language!!!
Paragraphs of Text should be Marked Up as being Paragraphs, surely?
& LineBreaks (<br> Tags) should just be use for forcing a Line Break?
If you use <br> tags to signify Paragraphs, then the whole point of the
Text being divided up into (Marked up as) Logical, Symantic) Sections
is lost?
& also, that would mean that Styles couldn't be applied to Pargraphs -
cos if the Pargraphs aren't marked as such, then how can the Style be
applied to them?
>... A whole page of text can be enclosed in a single <font> tag that
>way.
& if you want a whole Page to be enclosed (i.e use) a Single Font, then
why not just specify that in the CSS Style?
> It seems that your course is starting at basic html, and despite what
> has been said elsewhere here, I see nothing wrong with that.
Of course not!!!
But what I have been trying to point out is that there's *plenty* of
basic HTML that they could (& should?) be teaching & would be more
useful, rather than teaching them about the old, deprecated tags?
>... It may for the most part be deprecated but there is nothing wrong
> in having that knowledge.
No - But it should be explicitly pointed out, when being taught, that
it isn't to be generally used.
& again, I was trying to say that they are seeming to make far too much
of the Deprecated things, when there's plenty of *other* basic HTMl that
would be more useful.
>... So I'm assuming you have the Dreamweaver prefs set for html
> tags and not css.
> "They" haven't been teaching you to put redundant tags into your
> documents, they just haven't told you yet how to avoid it.
Well - in many ways, that could be seen as being the same thing?
They have been *explicitly* teaching them to use the very things which
are causing all the probs!"!!
> It's all part of the learning curve, which with Dreamweaver can be
> rather steep.
Yep - Which is why I wondered why they were being taught all about
the stuff that prolly won't be much use, if they intend to do very much
in the way of Web Page creation with it?
It sounded to me as if they (the course) were just trying to come up
with something that *looked* (superficially) to be "quite nice", but
that would end up causing all sorts of probs for the people doing the
course later on.
--
pmj
pmj
> r@y wrote:
>snip>
>> Depending on how you have the prefs set it will also insert <font>
>> tags including the default font face(s).
>> If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a paragraph
>> break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many
>> <font> tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>. A whole page of text can be
>> enclosed in a single <font> tag that way.
See my other reply for an alternative Opinion as to why that isn't
usually considered a very good thing to get in the habit of doing.
<snip>
>>... So I'm assuming you have the Dreamweaver prefs set for html tags
>> and not css.
<snip>
>... Not found the prefs...till now :) was css, now changed.
> Learn a little every day. Ta :)
Have you got that round the right way?
Surely, the idea is to have it Set to use CSS, rather than the
<font> Tags, cos it was the <font> tags which were being duplicated
& stopping you from being able to read the actual HTML Code & so you
couldn't "see the Wood for the Trees"?
--
pmj
pmj
>
> PMJ, I've been in and out today.......read at least 2 replies from
> you,
Yes, I know I Posted several Replies about all this.
>... but they were longish,
LOL!
Yep - these sort of interesting Threads always end up with more & more
interesting things to find out, don't they?
:-)
>... so thought 'I'll answer them tonight'. Trouble is, now I can't
> find which they were!
LOL!
I know the prob...
I often don't have time to do a Reply when I first come across
an interesting Post or Thread.
What I usually do is to just Mark any of those sort of Posts with
that "Flag" thingy & then continue Reading the rest of them.
Then, when I get a chance, I look back at the ones that I've Flagged
& Reply to them.
You can also use the "Watch Conversation" thingy to do a similar thing.
>... So, I apologise, I'm not ingoring....just not organised!
Well - If you've "lost the Thread" (& it started a few Days ago now),
you could try a quick "Find Message"?
Or use "Find Message in this Folder"?
Make sure that the View you are using has Messages that are Marked
as Read showing, if you have the "Automatically Mark Messages as Read
after <x> Seconds" Option Ticked - so you can Find the Thread when you
come back to it.
& another thing I find useful is to use the Option (in the View Menu)
to "Show Replies to my Messages".
I always check for that, when I come back to the Newsgroup, so I can
see if anybody has Replied to any of the Threads I've been involved in.
One thing I asked in an earlier Reply, was whether you had yet seen
that Version of the Page that I knocked up quickly the other night?
I just Added a "Class" Attribute to the Table containing the Main Text
& then Defined 2 Styles for it - one for when it's being Printed & one
for when it's being Viewed OnScreen.
http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm
Have a look at it & see if it shows up when Printed (or in Print
Preview) how you would expect.
It worked OK here.
HTH
--
pmj
BoyPete
Still prints the same as when I started :(
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
r@y
>
> > If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a paragraph
> > break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many
> > <font>
> > tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>.
>
> BUT...
> That then goes againsty the whole point of HTML being a *MarkUp*
> Language!!!
> Paragraphs of Text should be Marked Up as being Paragraphs, surely?
Why?
It's the source code you're talking about. Not visible on the page. If
nothing about the displayed text changes from paragraph to paragraph,
what's the problem?
> & LineBreaks (<br> Tags) should just be use for forcing a Line Break?
Correctamundo, and 2 <br> tags force 2 line breaks which equals a
paragraph break in browser real estate.
>
> If you use <br> tags to signify Paragraphs, then the whole point of the
> Text being divided up into (Marked up as) Logical, Symantic) Sections
> is lost?
Is it? Should I be worried about that if I achieve the look I want on
the page?
>
> & also, that would mean that Styles couldn't be applied to Pargraphs -
> cos if the Pargraphs aren't marked as such, then how can the Style be
> applied to them?
It can't, I didn't say it could. It's a page of text, all the same face,
colour and size. Why complicate it by using tags that aren't necessary?
I would assume the purpose of the course is to show the students how to
construct a web page or pages that will display satisfactorily in any
browser on any computer using Dreamweaver's basic editing functions.
If you want to do that simply and quickly then you don't use css. You
use basic HTML. Works every time. Deprecated tags or not.
Once that's mastered, move on.
r@y
No he's got it right.
Dreamweaver's prefs are very complex. It can be set to insert css into
documents, in this state it creates styles for you, or basic html tags.
The course is basic html.
BoyPete
> pmj <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote:
Mucho snipo
>
> I would assume the purpose of the course is to show the students how
> to construct a web page or pages that will display satisfactorily in
> any browser on any computer using Dreamweaver's basic editing
> functions.
> If you want to do that simply and quickly then you don't use css. You
> use basic HTML. Works every time. Deprecated tags or not.
>
> Once that's mastered, move on.
Correct. :)
Case of walk before you run, or KISS. However, I do hope to get beyond this
stage.......one day :)
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
Ali
> BUT...
> That then goes againsty the whole point of HTML being a *MarkUp*
> Language!!!
> Paragraphs of Text should be Marked Up as being Paragraphs, surely?
> & LineBreaks (<br> Tags) should just be use for forcing a Line Break?
>
> If you use <br> tags to signify Paragraphs, then the whole point of the
> Text being divided up into (Marked up as) Logical, Symantic) Sections
> is lost?
>
Does *anything* (other than a validator) actually differentiate between
semantic mark-up of paragraphs, and layout in HTML?
That is, does anything produce a different result when rendering between
<p>paragraph one</p>
<p>paragraph two</p>
and
<p>paragraph one<br><br>paragraph two</p>
?
Yes, I know something could, and undoubtedly in other SGML implementations,
does, but in HTML?
r@y
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:16:17 GMT, Ali wrote:
>
> > Does *anything* (other than a validator) actually differentiate between
> > semantic mark-up of paragraphs, and layout in HTML?
>
> The validator doesn't.
Neither does the person or persons viewing the page. That being my
point.
Ali
> Another example, was that original Text that BoyPete was working with.
> If it had been marked Up (by the original Supplier of the Text)
> Correctly, into the right *Semantic* Blocks, Sections & Divisions (such
> as the Headings, Paragraphs & Lists in it), then the Look of it could
> have been *very* easily changed, just by Defining the relevant CSS for
> each bit.
If it had been marked Up by the original Supplier of the Text
it would have negated the point of the exercise, which AIUI was for the
students to add the markup using Dreamweaver
Ali
> One of the prime reasons for Marking Up a Paragraph of Text as a
> *Paragraph*, rather than as just Text with a <br><br> at the End,
> is so that the Style of it can be specified to be whatever is wanted.
So, since the exercise which generated this very interesting thread was
specifically *NOT* using style sheets, there is little reason for using
semantic markup *in this exercise*.
Yes, in general, use of stylesheets produces much cleaner HTML, and allows
simple global changes, but BoyPete was doing an exercise, and if his tutor
wants him to use font tags, then he should use font tags.
I just hope that next week the tutor is going to say "Well that was how
layout used to be done, now we'll move on to a much easier way."
pmj
>>> ... so thought 'I'll answer them tonight'. Trouble is, now I can't
>>> find which they were!
>>
>> LOL!
>> I know the prob...
>> I often don't have time to do a Reply when I first come across
>> an interesting Post or Thread.
>> What I usually do is to just Mark any of those sort of Posts with
>> that "Flag" thingy & then continue Reading the rest of them.
>> Then, when I get a chance, I look back at the ones that I've Flagged
>> & Reply to them.
>> You can also use the "Watch Conversation" thingy to do a similar
>> thing.
>>
>>> ... So, I apologise, I'm not ingoring....just not organised!
& I meant to add in here, that you don't *have* to be organised!
:-)
You can just let your Newsreader do all that sort of thing for you...
:-)
<snip more examples of getting the *Newsreader* to do the keeping track
of stuff.>
>> One thing I asked in an earlier Reply, was whether you had yet seen
>> that Version of the Page that I knocked up quickly the other night?
>> I just Added a "Class" Attribute to the Table containing the Main
>> Text
>> & then Defined 2 Styles for it - one for when it's being Printed &
>> one
>> for when it's being Viewed OnScreen.
>>
>> http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm
>>
>> Have a look at it & see if it shows up when Printed (or in Print
>> Preview) how you would expect.
>> It worked OK here.
>>
>> HTH
>
> Still prints the same as when I started :(
Now, that's *really* weird!!!
Cos it very clearly shows up *completely* differently, in Print PreView
& when Printed, than when Viewed OnScreen here.
OnScreen, you (well, I) can clearly see the Gap at either side of the
Text, but when Printed, then there's no such Gap - only whatever is
specified in the (Paper/Printer) Margin Settings.
& the added (Explanation) bits show up in Blue OnScreen, but in Red
(& Bold, Italic) when Printed.
OK - I've added in to that Page (still the same URL) another couple
of Lines (just in the CSS Definitions), so as to put an Outline (Border)
round the Table (& the Table Cells).
That will show exactly where the edge of the Table is - & it shows the
"CellPadding" that you specified as well (the Text isn't hard up against
the edge of the Table - it's 5 Pixels in from it).
Look at it OnScreen & look where the Border comes - as expected it
is 10% in from the edge of the Browser *Window*...
Now do a Print PreView & you can see that the Border is right up hard
against whatever you have set as the Left & Right Margin for the Page in
the *Printer* Settings.
Try changing the Left (or Right, or both) Margins in the Print Settings
& you can see how that affects the way it Prints.
But the Table that contains the Text is always filling the whole of the
Available Width.
HTH
--
pmj
pmj
news:Xns95FB9B8F15D...@62.253.162.205...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:10:02 GMT, pmj commented
>
>> BUT...
>> That then goes againsty the whole point of HTML being a *MarkUp*
>> Language!!!
>> Paragraphs of Text should be Marked Up as being Paragraphs, surely?
>> & LineBreaks (<br> Tags) should just be use for forcing a Line Break?
>>
>> If you use <br> tags to signify Paragraphs, then the whole point of
>> the Text being divided up into (Marked up as) Logical, Symantic)
>> Sections is lost?
Of course - that should Read *Semantic* (with an "i", not a "y")! -
Sorry.
> Does *anything* (other than a validator) actually differentiate
> between semantic mark-up of paragraphs, and layout in HTML?
Yes.
In fact you could say that a Validator *doesn't* actually distinguish
between the 2? - So long as it's Syntactically Correct, it Validates.
But the point is that if a Paragraph of Text is marked Up as being
a Paragraph, then it (the Validator or anything else Parsing (Reading)
the Text) can Render (Show/Display) it accordingly.
> That is, does anything produce a different result when rendering
> between
>
> <p>paragraph one</p>
> <p>paragraph two</p>
>
> and
> <p>paragraph one<br><br>paragraph two</p>
> ?
>
> Yes, I know something could, and undoubtedly in other SGML
> implementations, does, but in HTML?
Yes, most *definitely*!!!
One of the prime reasons for Marking Up a Paragraph of Text as a
*Paragraph*, rather than as just Text with a <br><br> at the End,
is so that the Style of it can be specified to be whatever is wanted.
For instance most Browsers will Display a Paragraph with a Blank Line
(of usually about 1 & 1/2 Times the Line Height) between Paragraphs.
But that can easily be altered (using CSS) so that the Gap between the
Paragraphs is whatever you want.
Another way that Browsers can show Paragrphs is with a Different Indent
(or Outdent) for the First Line, or with the First Letter (or Word
or Line) of the Paragraph in a Larger Font, or different Color etc.
That's the point of Marking it Up in that way - it means that it can be
*Displayed* however it's wanted.
& the way it is Diplayed can be changed at will, just by changing the
Definition in the Style in the CSS.
There are plenty of WebSites which use that approach.
Most of the Syndicated type News Sites & also many of the Tutorial type
ones do it.
The all start off with the same, basic Text, supplied to them, but they
then *show* it differently.
For instance - have a quick look at this Link (which just happens to be
about using CSS! - but there are loads of similar type things around)...
http://www.webreference.com/programming/easy_css/
& now look at this Link...
http://channels.lockergnome.com/web/archives/20050208_css_made_easy.phtml
It's the *same* Text (taken from the same Feed), but it is Displayed
completely differently, just cos the CSS Definitions of the Styles that
are applied to it are different.
& another *very* good, well known Example is the CSS "ZenGarden" Site...
http://csszengarden.com/
That was set up to demonstrate how you can make a Page look however you
want, just by changing the CSS Style Definitions.
All that sort of thing can *only* be done (easily) though, if the Text
is Marked Up properly, in the first place.
Another example, was that original Text that BoyPete was working with.
If it had been marked Up (by the original Supplier of the Text)
Correctly, into the right *Semantic* Blocks, Sections & Divisions (such
as the Headings, Paragraphs & Lists in it), then the Look of it could
have been *very* easily changed, just by Defining the relevant CSS for
each bit.
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote:
>> R@y posted...
>> >
>> > If you are using <font> tags then a new one is used after a
>> > paragraph
>> > break. But not a single line break. A good way to avoid too many
>> > <font>
>> > tags. Don't use <p>, use <br><br>.
>>
>> BUT...
>> Language!!!
>> Paragraphs of Text should be Marked Up as being Paragraphs, surely?
>
> Why?
> It's the source code you're talking about. Not visible on the page.
The *effects* of whatever is defined in the HTML (& CSS) Source Code are
*clearly* Visible on a Web Page though, aren't they?
>... If nothing about the displayed text changes from paragraph to
> paragraph, what's the problem?
The only problem would come if he wanted to change the Style of the
Paragrpahs of text - for instance, say he wanted it in Red, or if he
wanted it in a different Font &/or Size?
If the Paragrphs of Text are Marked up as Paragraphs, then any of the
Style Characteristics for the Paragraphs of Text caan be very quickly
& easily Defined & therefore changed to whatever he wants.
& that would mean that the *Paragraphs* could be chnaged without
altering the Lists of Items, or the Headings?
Or they could be changed *as well as* those things?
& it wouldn't involve loads of altering (or Searching & replacing) of
all the various <font> Tags.
>> & LineBreaks (<br> Tags) should just be use for forcing a Line Break?
>
> Correctamundo, and 2 <br> tags force 2 line breaks which equals a
> paragraph break in browser real estate.
Noep.
Actually. most Browsers (I tyhink) usually display (by Default)
Paragraphs with a Line Spacing of 1 & 1/2 Lines?
& that can be Set (Defined) in the CSS to be whatever the Designer
of the Page wants.
& various other Styles (such as First Lines & Characters etc) could be
defined as well.
But that sort of thing can only be done, if the Text is M<arked up
Semantically to divide it up into *what* the Text is - headings,
Paragraphs, Lists etc.
>> If you use <br> tags to signify Paragraphs, then the whole point of
>> the
>> Text being divided up into (Marked up as) Logical, Symantic) Sections
>> is lost?
>
> Is it? Should I be worried about that if I achieve the look I want on
> the page?
Yes.
You should.
Cos if you want a slightly different look, then surely, you would want
the Look to apply to all the similar Pages?
>> & also, that would mean that Styles couldn't be applied to
>> Pargraphs -
>> cos if the Pargraphs aren't marked as such, then how can the Style be
>> applied to them?
>
> It can't, I didn't say it could. It's a page of text, all the same
> face,
> colour and size. Why complicate it by using tags that aren't
> necessary?
Exactly!!!
that's where this all started!!!
The Example provided, had *loads* of extra, added, duplicated &/or
redundant Tags in it!
If the Text had just had the plain & simple <p> Tags, denoting where the
Paragraphs were (along with the <ol) List Tags, which were used in some
places), then the Font/Style/Color Size etc could be specified with *no*
extra Tags at all.
Just with a couple of Lines (or even a *single* Line) in the CSS <style>
Section.
> I would assume the purpose of the course is to show the students how
> to
> construct a web page or pages that will display satisfactorily in any
> browser on any computer using Dreamweaver's basic editing functions.
Yep, sounds like it.
> If you want to do that simply and quickly then you don't use css.
Hmmm.
What's wrong with them explaining that if you want to do it simply,
quickly & easily, then actually CSS is *far* better?
For things such as Font Styling - Size, Color etc, it's *much* easier
than faffing around with <font> tags.
& it makes much cleaner, easier to Read (& understand & maintain)
HTML Code.
OK - Yes, trying to get Pixel Perfect *Layout*, using CSS, that looks
the same in all Browsers is another matter, but for just Size, Style
& Color of Text it's the obvious thing to use?
>... You use basic HTML. Works every time. Deprecated tags or not.
Maybe it "works", but why shouldf people get all bogged down
(& confuzzled) with that stuff, when they could be learning some really
useful stuff, that will end up being much more use to them, when they
want to write more Web Pages?
> Once that's mastered, move on.
& don't get bogged down & confuzzled by stuff (such as deprecated <font>
Tags & all the probs they cause) that isn't needed, surely?
--
pmj
r@y
> > Once that's mastered, move on.
>
> & don't get bogged down & confuzzled by stuff (such as deprecated <font>
> Tags & all the probs they cause) that isn't needed, surely?
It's you that's getting bogged down and confuzzled by your own
knowledge. If you want to be helpful here don't confuse matters by
flooding the thread with unnecessary information.
The OP isn't learning CSS he's learning basic html as applied by
Dreamweaver. He's already told you that.
That includes font tags whether you like it or not.
I'm quite happy for people to have a proper knowledge of html, old
fashioned or not. Doing so will hopefully stop them making fundamental
and stupid errors in future.
Don't knock it.
Have a nice day :-)
BoyPete
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:375qg7F...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
>>> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:374lmlF...@individual.net...
> <snip>
> Cos it very clearly shows up *completely* differently, in Print
> PreView & when Printed, than when Viewed OnScreen here.
>
> OnScreen, you (well, I) can clearly see the Gap at either side of the
> Text, but when Printed, then there's no such Gap - only whatever is
> specified in the (Paper/Printer) Margin Settings.
>
> & the added (Explanation) bits show up in Blue OnScreen, but in Red
> (& Bold, Italic) when Printed.
>
> OK - I've added in to that Page (still the same URL) another couple
> of Lines (just in the CSS Definitions), so as to put an Outline
> (Border) round the Table (& the Table Cells).
> That will show exactly where the edge of the Table is - & it shows the
> "CellPadding" that you specified as well (the Text isn't hard up
> against the edge of the Table - it's 5 Pixels in from it).
>
> Look at it OnScreen & look where the Border comes - as expected it
> is 10% in from the edge of the Browser *Window*...
> Now do a Print PreView & you can see that the Border is right up hard
> against whatever you have set as the Left & Right Margin for the Page
> in the *Printer* Settings.
> Try changing the Left (or Right, or both) Margins in the Print
> Settings & you can see how that affects the way it Prints.
> But the Table that contains the Text is always filling the whole of
> the Available Width.
>
> HTH
It is still wrong in preview. 'Musculoskeletal Problems' is showing as two
lines, instead of one.
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:01:23 GMT, pmj commented
> >
>> One of the prime reasons for Marking Up a Paragraph of Text as a
>> *Paragraph*, rather than as just Text with a <br><br> at the End,
>> is so that the Style of it can be specified to be whatever is wanted.
>
> So, since the exercise which generated this very interesting thread
> was
> specifically *NOT* using style sheets, there is little reason for
> using
> semantic markup *in this exercise*.
Ah, yes...
You have a very good point there!!!
As usual, the *original* things that triggered off the Thread have also
caused (as you say) some very interesting (& also, still relavent in the
wider scheme of things?) other points...
> Yes, in general, use of stylesheets produces much cleaner HTML,
> and allows simple global changes, but BoyPete was doing an exercise,
> and if his tutor wants him to use font tags, then he should use font
> tags.
Yep - I s.pose so?
But I *hope* BoyPete can realise why it's generally recognised (these
days) by many Web Designers that usingh those sort of things is not
a good idea?
& if BoyPete himself wants to progress to making easily maintainable Web
Pages, rather than spending yonks trying to decipher outmoded types of
stuff, he could prolly invest his time better in learning about the
stuff that will be really, practiacally useful, in the long term?
& even if not, then this sort of Thread always raises some interesting
(& well worth while) discussions.
> I just hope that next week the tutor is going to say "Well that was
> how
> layout used to be done, now we'll move on to a much easier way."
Yep!!!
:-)
BTW - Boy Pete's *original* Q (as I recall it), was basically along
the lines of...
"Why does this Page Print out in the way it does (which isn't the way
I was expecting?"
Let's not forget that that Q *was* actually explicitly answered, (along
with an explanation as to why & how) right at the very beginning.
If any of that wasn't clear, then it can be expanded on, if needs be.
& further examples might Help.
BBTW - *If* the HTML Code (that DreamWeaver put in, cos they are being
taught to use deprecated Tags) hadn't been so full of all the extra
stuff, then the whole lot would have been *much* easier to read &
therefore much easier to Debug!!!
:-)
& BoyPete would have stood more of a chance of understanding *why* it
was Printing out the way it was Printing & then sussing out how to make
it Print out how he wanted it to.
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote:
>
>> > Once that's mastered, move on.
>>
>> & don't get bogged down & confuzzled by stuff (such as deprecated
>> <font> Tags & all the probs they cause) that isn't needed, surely?
>
> It's you that's getting bogged down and confuzzled by your own
> knowledge.
Nope - I'm just enjoying an interesting discussion about various things
to do with Designing Web Pages - *triggered* by an interesting prob that
someone had!!!
We sorted out the Original Q (about why it didn't Perint how he expected
or wanted) right at the beginning.
The rest of the Thread has been (mainly) about how to Read Code that is
generated & how to generate Code that is Readable.
All with the (ultimate) aim of learning how to make Web Pages that are
easy & clear to read & maintain.
>... If you want to be helpful here don't confuse matters by
> flooding the thread with unnecessary information.
Well, "flooding" is a subjective thing, isn't it?
These sort of Threads serve more purpose than just solving *one*
person's original query, surely?
& anyway, when it comes to writing Web Pages, there *is* actually
a fair amount of other stuff that *is* relevant - everything depends on
(& interacts with) everything else, doesn't it?
& yes - like you say (& BoyPete has found out), you *can* use things
like <font> Tags, to change the Color, Size & Style of stuff on Web
Pages...
But just cos you *can* , doesn't mean you should, or that it's a good
idea?
> The OP isn't learning CSS he's learning basic html as applied by
> Dreamweaver. He's already told you that.
> That includes font tags whether you like it or not.
Yep, but all it needs, surely is a very superficial reference to them.
> I'm quite happy for people to have a proper knowledge of html, old
> fashioned or not.
Yes, definitely!!!
But it seems far to easy for people to spend ages sussing out how to get
round probs caused by things like that & then not wanting to (or having
the time or the inclination - or money!) to learn the other stuff!
>... Doing so will hopefully stop them making fundamental and stupid
> errors in future.
Yes, again.
But wouldn't their time be better spent more on the *other*
(Fundamental)
Basic HTML stuff, which *is* relevant?
> Don't knock it.
Well, I was only "knocking" it (if that's the word), cos it seemd like
this course was *majoring* on how to use things like <font> tags to
alter the *appearance* of Text on Web Pages?
& I thought the whole idea these days was for Web Pages to be designed
(from the outset), with the idea of keeping the *Content* (i.e the
actual words & stuff) *separate* (i.e. separated) from the *Presentation
(& appearance).?
> Have a nice day :-)
I am, thanks!
:-)
--
pmj
pmj
> pmj wrote:
>> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:375qg7F...@individual.net...
>>> pmj wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>>> Still prints the same as when I started :(
>>>
ROFL!
Well, you never mentioned that before!!!
I thought the prob that you were complaining about was the *gap* at each
side of the Main Text?
Can you see that OnScreen, the Gap is (about) 10% (of the Window Width)
each side of the text, but when Printed (or Viewed in Print Preview)
there is now no gap at the Side?
OK...
The reason for that "Musculoskeletal Problems" bit showing up spread
over 2 Lines (in your Browser) is *very* simple...
I'm assuming you are referring to the Link with those words in it?
& not the (what should be a Heading, but is actually normal Text, with
the Font changed), further down the Page?
BTW, in my Browser, on my Screen, Itshows up all on one Line, but then
if I shrink the Window (or enlarghe the Text Size, it Splits (Wraps)
round onto 2 Lines - which, again, is *exactly* how one would expect it
to...
OK, this is the HTML that generates that Link (in the Cell in the Table)
(with the rest of the Table Cells & Links snipped out)...
<quote>
<table class="navbox" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="8">
<snip>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#CCFFCC"><div align="center"><strong><font size="+1"
face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><a
href="#musculo">Musculoskeletal
Problems</a></em></font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
</quote>
First of all, you must remember to ignore (& not be put off by) the
fact that *in the HTML Source* the 2 words do happen to be Split over
2 Lines...
HTML *ignores* LineBreaks in the Source Code, when it's being Rendered
for Display in a Browser - so that *isn't* the prob...
What is causing the Line Break there, is the fact that the Table (when
Viewed on your Screen in your Web browser, at the Font Size you use in
your Browser & Desktop Settings) isn't Wide enough to contain the whole
of both words, all on one Line.
You have specified the Width of the Table to be 30%, which is (in this
case) 30% of the Window Width.
So, if you view it in a smaller Text Size (settable in your Browser),
or a larger Window) then it will stay all on one Line.
Try using a Larger Text Size (in the Browser) & also try Shrinking the
Size of the Window - then you can see what I mean.
& likewise, when Printed out, it depends on the Size (Width) of the
Paper (& the Margins that are Set), *in addition* to the Size of the
Text
chosen in the Browser.
That's just the way HTML works!
& it's *designed* to work that way!
Stuff is *supposed* to fit within whatever Space is available for it.
& Tables are *supposed* to dynamically adjust to cope with what's in
them...
A Table won't expand (Widthways) if it can expand *Downwards* to
accomodate the stuff, within the Set Width.
[*1]
You *can* force 2 words to stay on one Line, just by using " "
(Non-Breaking Space) between them instead of an "Ordinary" Space...
Or by using the "nowrap" Attribute for the Table Cell.
BUT...
That will then (often) introduce *other* probs, which will confuzzle
& annoy you - such as causing (Horizontal) ScrollBars to appear on the
Browser Window, or chopped off Text when Printed.
So, the *simple* way to get those Words to stay on one Line is to just
allow more room for them - set the Table Width to be wider.
But even then, in a smaller Window, (or smaller Paper Size (or with
larger Margins) then it will *still* Wrap.
Try it - adjust the Size of your Browser window & adjust the Size of
Text that you use, in the Browser &/or the Desktop Settings.
You can then see how futile it is to try to Design Pages for any given
assumed Size of Window/Text.
& *all* of those things can be done (& controlled) using CSS - & it's
actually *easier* to do it using CSS, cos you woulodn't have to Edit all
the Tables, that it happened in - just change the CSS Definition.
[*1]
Now, *that's* the sort of thing (Basic principles of HTML & how Browsers
render it) that those sort of Courses *ought* to be teaching!
Before all that fannying around with <font> Tags!
:-)
HTML *isn't* (& never was) designed as a *Layout* Language...
& whenever anybody first starts to use it as if it is a Layout language,
then they *always* end up with unrealistic expectations.
--
pmj
pmj
news:0zKPd.13541$8B3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<snip>
>>>>> http://p-m-j.net/upss/chsbpjrtpmj.htm>>
> <snip>
>>>> Still prints the same as when I started :(
>> It is still wrong in preview. 'Musculoskeletal Problems' is showing
>> as two lines, instead of one.
>
> ROFL!
> Well, you never mentioned that before!!!
> I thought the prob that you were complaining about was the *gap*
> at each side of the Main Text?
>
> Can you see that OnScreen, the Gap is (about) 10% (of the Window
> Width)
> each side of the text, but when Printed (or Viewed in Print Preview)
> there is now no gap at the Side?
>
> OK...
> The reason for that "Musculoskeletal Problems" bit showing up spread
> over 2 Lines (in your Browser) is *very* simple...
> HTML *ignores* LineBreaks in the Source Code, when it's being Rendered
> for Display in a Browser - so that *isn't* the prob...
> That's just the way HTML works!
> & it's *designed* to work that way!
> Stuff is *supposed* to fit within whatever Space is available for it.
> & Tables are *supposed* to dynamically adjust to cope with what's
> in them...
> A Table won't expand (Widthways) if it can expand *Downwards* to
> accomodate the stuff, within the Set Width.
> [*1]
>
> You *can* force 2 words to stay on one Line, just by using " "
> (Non-Breaking Space) between them instead of an "Ordinary" Space...
>
> Or by using the "nowrap" Attribute for the Table Cell.
[*2] (see below...)
> BUT...
> That will then (often) introduce *other* probs, which will confuzzle
> & annoy you - such as causing (Horizontal) ScrollBars to appear on the
> Browser Window, or chopped off Text when Printed.
>
> So, the *simple* way to get those Words to stay on one Line is to just
> allow more room for them - set the Table Width to be wider.
>
> But even then, in a smaller Window, (or smaller Paper Size (or with
> larger Margins) then it will *still* Wrap.
>
> Try it - adjust the Size of your Browser window & adjust the Size of
> Text that you use, in the Browser &/or the Desktop Settings.
>
> You can then see how futile it is to try to Design Pages for any given
> assumed Size of Window/Text.
>
> & *all* of those things can be done (& controlled) using CSS - & it's
> actually *easier* to do it using CSS, cos you woulodn't have to Edit
> all the Tables, that it happened in - just change the CSS Definition.
>
> [*1]
> Now, *that's* the sort of thing (Basic principles of HTML & how
> Browsers
> render it) that those sort of Courses *ought* to be teaching!
> Before all that fannying around with <font> Tags!
> :-)
> HTML *isn't* (& never was) designed as a *Layout* Language...
> & whenever anybody first starts to use it as if it is a Layout
> language, then they *always* end up with unrealistic expectations.
[*2]
& of course, there are various other ways (using Plain HTML Tags),
to (attempt to) force the Browser to Lay stuff out in ceratin ways,
but ultimately, you're on a hiding to nothing, if you try to constrain
the Layout like that using just HTML.
There'll always be *some* combinations of Text &/or Pictures on a Page
that show up differently - according to (& due to & because of) the
various different Settings *in the Browser* (& the Screen/Display
Properties) of the Machine that it's being Viewed on - which the Web
Page Designer has no Control over.
Again - CSS (Cascading StyleSheets) can be actually be used to set
a lot of those sort of things.
:-)
There are various different CSS Attributes Definitions, Rules
& Attributes which can determine & to a large (though not complete)
Degree, Control the appearance.
You can Set things so that they don't (or do) Wrap round in the
Available Space - or you can Set them so that ScrollBars will
Automatically appear, when needed, etc.
But again, you would then have to be aware of how all of those sort
of things interact with each other.
& the Settings needed for Screen Viewing are different from what's
needed for Printing, which is why CSS has the ability to specify
different "Media" - you can set stuff to allow for the differences
between Print & Screen.
That means you can have just *one* page, that is laid out appropriately
for the Screen & *also* for a Printer, rather than having to have
2 different actual Pages, which is what some people end up doing.
There's just *no* way that *any* Page can ever Print out *exactly* [*3]
the same as it appears on Screen.
Cos Screen Fonts are differenty from Paper Fonts.
[*3]
The Operative word there, is *exactly*.
The best you can hope for is something that looks "OK" & of course,
what's OK in some circumstances isn't in others.
So, that's why there are so many different ways of doing it!
You said that (in this case) you wanted the Printout to have the 2 Words
both on the same Line.
On another Web Page, you might not mind.
The Web Page (&/or Browser) can't know that.
So it just bumngs them wherever they will fit (within the Space that
you have allocated for them).
& the Space that you Allocated (30% of the Width of your Browser Window)
May well look fine on your Screen, but your Screen isn't the same Width
as your Paper, is it?
I think, once again, that a lot of this sort of confuzzlement is down
to your coming from a Paper (Print) Background?
Don'ty forget, that when you Wrote that Web Page, you were prolly
looking at it in your normal Web Browser Window, prolly Opened up to
fill the Screen?
You won't necessarily look at *all* Web Pages like that?
Or even if you do,. you can't be sure that other People will do - I
hardly *ever* look at a Web Page in a Window Full Screen - cos my Screen
is 1600 Pixels across - Your Page fits into that no probs at all - but
it looks "lost" in it - the *whole* of the First Paragraph - "More than
10 million people worldwide... ...wrist injuries" - fits completely on
one Line!!!
Yet in my normal Size Window (about 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768), then the
"Musculoskeletal Problems" bit Splits (Wraps) across 2 Lines - I thought
nothing of it.
I *expected* it to - cos the Space allocated for it (30% of the Window
Width) clearly isn't wide enough for both words to fit into it on one
Line.
All the time that people try to write Web Pages trying to constrain the
Text on them to fit into certain rigid, fixed layouts, they are causing
not only themselves probs, but also the people who are trying
to Read the Web Pages!
--
pmj
BoyPete
Well, thats what we were told to do.
> [*3] the same as it appears on Screen.
> Cos Screen Fonts are differenty from Paper Fonts.
Pardon?? A named font is just that. Verdana is a recognised font.
>
> [*3]
> The Operative word there, is *exactly*.
>
> The best you can hope for is something that looks "OK" & of course,
> what's OK in some circumstances isn't in others.
> So, that's why there are so many different ways of doing it!
>
> You said that (in this case) you wanted the Printout to have the 2
> Words both on the same Line.
> On another Web Page, you might not mind.
> The Web Page (&/or Browser) can't know that.
> So it just bumngs them wherever they will fit (within the Space that
> you have allocated for them).
>
> & the Space that you Allocated (30% of the Width of your Browser
> Window) May well look fine on your Screen, but your Screen isn't the
> same Width as your Paper, is it?
>
> I think, once again, that a lot of this sort of confuzzlement is down
> to your coming from a Paper (Print) Background?
Not relanvant. I was trying to do as instructed.
> Don'ty forget, that when you Wrote that Web Page, you were prolly
> looking at it in your normal Web Browser Window, prolly Opened up to
> fill the Screen?
Naturally......what else?
> You won't necessarily look at *all* Web Pages like that?
Yes...............what else??
> Or even if you do,. you can't be sure that other People will do
Why on earth not?
- I
> hardly *ever* look at a Web Page in a Window Full Screen - cos my
> Screen is 1600 Pixels across - Your Page fits into that no probs at
> all - but it looks "lost" in it - the *whole* of the First Paragraph
> - "More than 10 million people worldwide... ...wrist injuries" - fits
> completely on one Line!!!
>
> Yet in my normal Size Window (about 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768), then the
> "Musculoskeletal Problems" bit Splits (Wraps) across 2 Lines - I
> thought nothing of it.
> I *expected* it to - cos the Space allocated for it (30% of the Window
> Width) clearly isn't wide enough for both words to fit into it on one
> Line.
> All the time that people try to write Web Pages trying to constrain
> the Text on them to fit into certain rigid, fixed layouts, they are
> causing not only themselves probs, but also the people who are trying
> to Read the Web Pages!
My original question concerned printing the page.........
However, the page views well on the web as far as I can tell, which, would
normally be the requirement. Even before validation, it viewed fine in IE,
Netscape, and Mozilla.
Thats suits me.
--
ßōyžėtė
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/cgarden.htm
www.boypete.dsl.pipex.com/meet2004/meet2004.htm
pmj
> pmj wrote:
<snip>
>> There's just *no* way that *any* Page can ever Print out *exactly*
>
> Well, thats what we were told to do.
I don't see how you (or anybody) can do that.
HTML *isn't* PostScript (or anything like it)
& even with PostScript (or similar things, which are *designed* for
Cross-Platform use) there are *some* (minor) differences between Screen
Layout & Print Layout.
>> Cos Screen Fonts are different from Paper Fonts.
>
> Pardon?? A named font is just that. Verdana is a recognised font.
Yes.
BUT - You try measuring (accurately) any given Rendition of a Font,
such as Verdana or whatever *on Screen* & then measure it on a piece
of Paper.
There is *always* a (small) difference.
For a start, on Screen, it's made up of only about 72 or 96
(or sometimes 125) Dots Per Inch (but can actually be Set to anything
else) - that's a *lot* less than the typical Resolution available on
a Printer.
& that doesn't even take into account the different *Physical* Size
of the different Characters on different Output Media
In the (Paper) print Industry, there are 72 Points to the Inch, Yes?
Well, On Screen, 72 Points don't take up an Inch, do they?
& anyway, how can *any* Tutor know what Size of Paper (or rather
Margins) your particular Printer is going to have?
Each Printer is different in that Respect.
& how can they know how big the *Available* Window Size is on your
System?
& it's not just the *Window* Size that determines how much Text will fit
within the Width - it Depends on what Size Text yo uhave Set in the
Browser & what Size Text (Font Scaling) you have Set on your Desktop
Display Settings.
& then also it depends on how Wide you have your ScrollBars Set - all of
those are *individually* Adjustable on every differen System.
>> [*3]
>> The Operative word there, is *exactly*.
Please note that bit.
From which follows this next bit...
>> The best you can hope for is something that looks "OK" & of course,
>> what's OK in some circumstances isn't in others.
>> So, that's why there are so many different ways of doing it!
>>
>> You said that (in this case) you wanted the Printout to have the
>> 2 Words both on the same Line.
>> On another Web Page, you might not mind.
>> The Web Page (&/or Browser) can't know that.
>> So it just bumngs them wherever they will fit (within the Space
>> that you have allocated for them).
>>
>> & the Space that you Allocated (30% of the Width of your Browser
>> Window) May well look fine on your Screen, but your Screen isn't
>> the same Width as your Paper, is it?
>>
>> I think, once again, that a lot of this sort of confuzzlement is down
>> to your coming from a Paper (Print) Background?
>
> Not relanvant. I was trying to do as instructed.
Have you actually *tried* looking at that Page in a Smaller Browser
Window?
Or with the Browser Text Size Larger?
Or with your Screen/Display Font Scaling Set differently?
Please try it, then you will see that those 2 Words will *always* Wrap
round ont 2 Lines, in a smaller window (or with a Larger Text Size.
& there's just *no* way that you can Duplicate the exact appearance
of that Page on Paper.
>> Don't forget, that when you Wrote that Web Page, you were prolly
>> looking at it in your normal Web Browser Window, prolly Opened up to
>> fill the Screen?
>
> Naturally......what else?
I can't believe you said that!!!
Not everybody uses their Browser maximised to Full Screen.
& anyway, (even if you *are* using your Browser aMaximised to Full
Screen, now try Setting the Width of the ScrollBars (in the Desktop
Display Properties), to a larger Figure.
That will then *Shrink* the *Available* Width of the Browser Window.
If you do that, then the 30% Width of the Table with the Links in will
also Shrink (proportionately).
>> You won't necessarily look at *all* Web Pages like that?
>
> Yes...............what else??
See above.
You *have* to understand that different Browsers (on different Systems)
will *always* be (slightly, if not hugely) differently Sized.
>> Or even if you do,. you can't be sure that other People will do
>
> Why on earth not?
Because there is just *no* way that any Web Designer can *ever* no what
*exact* width is available to fit their stuff in on some one else's
Browser Window (or Printer)
>> - I hardly *ever* look at a Web Page in a Window Full Screen - cos
>> my Screen is 1600 Pixels across - Your Page fits into that no probs
>> at all - but it looks "lost" in it - the *whole* of the First
>> Paragraph
>> - "More than 10 million people worldwide... ...wrist injuries" - fits
>> completely on one Line!!!
>>
>> Yet in my normal Size Window (about 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768), then
>> the "Musculoskeletal Problems" bit Splits (Wraps) across 2 Lines - I
>> thought nothing of it.
>>
>> I *expected* it to - cos the Space allocated for it (30% of the
>> Window
>> Width) clearly isn't wide enough for both words to fit into it on one
>> Line.
>> All the time that people try to write Web Pages trying to constrain
>> the Text on them to fit into certain rigid, fixed layouts, they are
>> causing not only themselves probs, but also the people who are trying
>> to Read the Web Pages!
>
> My original question concerned printing the page.........
Yes & that was answered.
& explained.
The Width of the Table with the main Text in it was specified to be 80%
of the available Width.
& (obviously) the *Available* Width will vary, between Screen & Printer.
& between different Printers.
So...
If you Set a Font Size of "whatever", then that doesn't alter, with the
Available Width of the Page (or Browser Window), does it?
So therefore, you just *can't* predict where the Lines will Wrap (or
even *if*they will Wrap.
> However, the page views well on the web as far as I can tell, which,
> would normally be the requirement.
Yes - it does.
& that includes with the "Musculoskeletal Problems"£ bit being Wrapped
across 2 Lines...
>... Even before validation, it viewed fine in IE, Netscape, and
>Mozilla.
> Thats suits me.
Validation has nothing to do with how it looks!!!
Validation is about making it *predictable*.
& making it easy (or easier) to locate Errors.
& to find out *why* a Page might look (subtly) different in different
Browsers.
When you start doing more complex Layoutts, then you'll appreciate that
Validation isn't *necessary* to make a Page Render in a Browser, but it
certainly Helps pinpoint probs & helps with maintaining the Code.
Most Browsers will still display & render very nearly *any* HTML Code,
whether it's Valid HTML or not, in one way or another.
It's the *in one way or another* that is the prob.
Cos different Browsers handle different Errors in different ways.
--
pmj
pmj
> "BoyPete" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:379ph8F...@individual.net...
>> pmj wrote:
<snip>
OK - lets assume that you have a (fairly Typical Monitor, with a Screen
Resolution Set to (again, fairly typical) 1024 x 768?
What would happen if you were to get one of these popular TFT (LCD)
Monitors? - Say a 17" one?
They (usually) have a resolution of 1280 x 1024 (which is actually not
only a Wider Screen (more Pixels acrosss) but also a *different* "Aspect
Ratio - 1.25 times as Wide as it is High, compared to 1.33 times for
a 1024 x 768 (or 800 x 600 Screen) - 5:4, compared to 4:3
That means that (assuming you *still* want to use your Browser Window
Maximised to the Full Screen) that the 30% Width that the Table with the
Links in is now going to be 1.25 times wider than it is on a 1024 x 768
Screen...
But the *Height* of the Browser is going to be 1.33 times Taller than
your old Screen!!!
And, what about if you were to View the BPage with your Browser set
to the F11 (Full Screen "Kiosk" Mode?
That alters the relative Sizes (both Width & height, weven further...
& also...
Many people (as a matter of course) have their Favorites (or History)
thingy (always) Open in their Browser Window.
That Runs down the Left hand Side of the Browser Window (in Internet
Explorer) & the *Width* of that bit can be Set (by the User) to whatever
Width *they* decide.
& the Width of that bit is *subtracted* from the Available Width of the
Browser Window.
So taht would instantly make the 30% Width of the Table containing the
Links even Narrower!
That would almost certainly cause the 2 Words "Musculoskeletal Problems"
to Wrap around.
Try it.
& therefore, that means that the Printed Page (which *doesn't* show
things such as the Favorites/History stuff (& also doesn't have
ScrollBars(!), can *never be predicted to be the same Width (either in
Inches or in Pixels (Dots) as the Browser Window OnScreen.
Can you see the prob?
That's why there's just *no* way that any Web Designer can *force*
a Web Page to look *exactly* the same when Printed out, as it does on
Screen.
I'm really *not* trying to be awkward!!!
:-)
I'm just pointing out some things that need to be borne in mind.
There's not really a lot of point *trying* to make the Printout look
*Exactly* the same as the Screen Version of a Web Page.
Cos you can't.
Full Stop.
What you do need to do, though is to bear in mind those sort of
differences & write your Pages so that the stuff Flows nicely between
the Width that is available...
& that's where the idea of Marking the stuff Up as *what* it is -
Headings, Lists, Paragraphs etc, comes in.
When stuff is Marked Up like that, then it can be Displayed (& Printed)
by a Browser so as to best convey the *meaning* of the stuff on the
Page.
& also, (as mentioned before) you can then use CSS StyleSheets (either
in the Page itself, or as external Files), to specify (more fully &
accurately) how stuff should be Rendered for OnScreen Viewing & for
Printing.
& bear in mind that while you *can* force 2 adjacent words *not* to Wrap
(by using the " " Caharacter, instead of a normal Space (or the
"nowrap" HTML Attribute, or the various "text-wrap" things in CSS), they
all introduce *other* probs that need to be taken into account.
For instance, *forcing* Text not to Wrap will (usually) cause Horizontal
ScrollBars to Automatically appear, in most Browsers, where needed to
accomodate the (now Wider) Text, but what about when you Print that same
Text?
Printouts on Paper can't have ScrollBars, can they?
:-)
So what happens then, to Text that is too Wide to fit within the Margins
(& Paper Size)?
Should it Wrap over 2 (or more) Lines?
Or should it just be Chopped off?
HTH
--
pmj
r@y
<Mucho snipperoony>
> So what happens then, to Text that is too Wide to fit within the Margins
> (& Paper Size)?
>
> Should it Wrap over 2 (or more) Lines?
> Or should it just be Chopped off?
This getting stupid. To return to the subject of this thread.
There is only one way to satisfactorily print a web page to paper, and
it ain't perfect by any means.
Take a screen grab, paste into Photoshop, Paint shop pro or even Windows
Paint if you're really poor, and print it from there. Crop as desired if
you want to lose the browser frame.
You'll probably have to do it more than once to get the whole page,
depending on what the page looks like and how big it is, but at least it
will print as you see it on screen.
That's it. Quick and dirty. Works every time. :-)
Ali
>> Don'ty forget, that when you Wrote that Web Page, you were prolly
>> looking at it in your normal Web Browser Window, prolly Opened up to
>> fill the Screen?
>
> Naturally......what else?
>
>> You won't necessarily look at *all* Web Pages like that?
>
> Yes...............what else??
>
>> Or even if you do,. you can't be sure that other People will do
>
> Why on earth not?
Even if everyone always viewed everything full screen (and they don't - I
frequently want to view two windows alongside each other), what size is full
screen?
On this machine it can be 640 x 480 or 1600x1200 or another 4 sizes in
between.
I usually have the text displaying at 150% or 200% of normal, which naturally
messes up the layouts. Some layouts adjust gracefully, some don't.
pmj
> pmj <po...@newsgroup.for.details> wrote:
>
> <Mucho snipperoony>
>
>> So what happens then, to Text that is too Wide to fit within the
>> Margins (& Paper Size)?
>>
>> Should it Wrap over 2 (or more) Lines?
>> Or should it just be Chopped off?
>
> This getting stupid.
No it isn't.
Everything that has been mentioned (& discussed) is very relevant
to the original points raised.
>... To return to the subject of this thread.
The last Reply was *directly* Answering a specific Point raised - the
bit about what happens to 2 words that are next to each other, separated
by a Space (or by a non-Breaking Space - " "
How they will Display (whether on Print or OnScreen0 will depend on lots
of things that are *outside* the Control of the person who writes the
Page.
> There is only one way to satisfactorily print a web page to paper, and
> it ain't perfect by any means.
There are *lots* of ways - & yes, none of them are perfect...
> Take a screen grab,
Nope.
That is actually one of the *least* satisfactory ways!!!
It's *full* of Probs for most Pages - especially Long Pages & pages
with Text on them.
When Printed out, most *Screen* Fonts look pretty ropey (compared to
Print Fonts) & also, most Backgrounds on Web Pages just get in the way
on a Printout - which is why the Default for Printing Pages from a Web
Browser is to *not* Include the Background.
>... paste into Photoshop, Paint shop pro or even Windows
> Paint if you're really poor, and print it from there.
That was actually one of the first (alternative) suggestions that was
made in this Thread...
& the Comments above (& that were made in Reply to that suggestion when
it was first made earlier then) apply stil equally now.
>... Crop as desired if you want to lose the browser frame.
> You'll probably have to do it more than once to get the whole page,
> depending on what the page looks like and how big it is, but at least
> it will print as you see it on screen.
*Possibly* - but like I said, Screen Fonts don't look very good when
Printed (& trying to get the whole Page can be difficult).
Besides, who's to Say that the *Screen* Display of the Page is what's
wanted?
Don't forget that that original Test Page can often show up *OnScreen*
with the 2 Words "Musculoskeletal Problems" Split (Wrapped) across 2
Lines & that is (part of) what BoyPete was complaining about.
> That's it. Quick
Nope - hardly "Quick"!
Most Printers don't Print Pictures/Graphics very quickly (& not as
quickly as they Print Text) & what you are Printing there *is* actually
just a *picture* of some Text.
>... and dirty.
Yes, very "dirty" - A wasteful of Ink (& time & effort).
>... Works every time. :-)
Possibly, for some Pages it might be just about adequate.
But for the vast majority of Web Pages - Especially Web Pages with any
reasonable amount of *Text* on them, which that Sample Page has - Using
the Browser's Print Functions to Print the Page as *Text* will be *much*
better.
I mention all of this, in case anybody might think that normally
it's a good idea to try to Print Web Pager by doing a ScreenGrab.
There are lots of reasons why it's *not* a good idea & should only
be resorted to on rare occasions.
--
pmj
pmj
<snip>
> Even if everyone always viewed everything full screen (and they
> don't -
> I frequently want to view two windows alongside each other), what size
> is full screen?
I think this is a fairly common scenario?
Many people seem to assume that whatever *they* happen to use is going
to be the same thing that other people use?
It often comes as quite a surprise to find out tjust how different other
peoples Systems & Setups are?
It's not until they start thinking about how stuff is laid out that it
really matters.
> On this machine it can be 640 x 480 or 1600x1200 or another 4 sizes
> in between.
& with many Graphics C ards, you can Set an *infinite* variety of Sizes
inbetween - you don't have to stick with rigidly defined steps.
But another thing which people forget is the *Ratio* of Width to height
(the Aspect Ratio) of a Display.
That always used to be 4:3 (where the Width is 1.333 times the Height)
640x480 800x600 1024x768 1280x960 1600x1200 etc.
But now, with LCD Flat Panel Displays (as used on Laptops & many
Monitors) there are Plenty of *Wide* Screen Displays (14:9 Aspect
ratio).
But in fact most of the MLCD Flat Panel Monitors which many people now
use have a relatively *narrow* Aspect Ratio - which is much *Taller*
than the normal 4:3.
They use 1280x1024 which is a 5:4 Aspect Ratio (Width is only 1.25 times
the Height).
That makes Web Pages (when viewed in a Maximised Window) look
completely* different!
> I usually have the text displaying at 150% or 200% of normal,
Which, again many people overlook.
> which naturally messes up the layouts.
But it needn't!
> Some layouts adjust gracefully, some don't.
Yep - & it was actually the "Graceful adjusting" that I think was what
caused the confuzzlement for BoyPete when that Page was Printed out?
A4 Paper ratio is (Aprroximately) 1.414:1 (Square root of 2) which is
different *again* from any Screen Aspect ratio.
& when the Margins are taken into account on a pice of Paper, then the
ratio is actually no longer the 1.414:1 ratio of A4/A5!
& also, there's the question of whether a Browser is used Maximised
(or FullScreen, which is actually different!) or in a *Window*, the
*actual*, available Space (Width & height) will depend on how wide the
ScrollBars are Set to be, what (if any Menus & ToolBars are used
& where they are Positioned & also whether the "Favorites/History
Explorer Bar is Open & if so, how Wide it is.
So it really is pointless to ever expect anything to show up the same
on different Browsers/Systems & Screens & also when it's Printed out.
(& Printing a *Picture* of the Screen Representation of Text on a Web
Page is just a huge great big Bodge, which brings up it's own
(different) probs)
--
pmj