Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> If you have a different opinion or concrete criticism just post it, and
>>>> I will probably reply, but I'm not wasting my time answering silly
>>>> questions.
>>>
>>> I do not think that demanding a rationale for someone’s contention is
>>> silly, particularly if technical matters are concerned.
>>>
>>> However, I think that you are committing the fallacy of shifting the
>>> burden of proof, and that the evasion that apparently is to facilitate it
>>> could be characterized as being silly.
>>
>> I'm not playing this game with you.
>
> This is not a game. It is my attempt to have a *constructive* discussion
> which you that *you* are *rejecting*.
Sheesh, calm down. If it means so much to you, I'll play along.
>> You don't want to say what exactly it is you're disagreeing with,
>
> No, because *you* made the claim; *you* carry the burden of proof. This
> is a core principle of a *constructive* discussion, and I find it hard to
> understand why you find that so hard to understand.
This is how this thread presents itself to me (paraphrased):
JS: (A) Sometimes, an iFrame appears further down the document than
intended, when two are adjacent.
(B) iFrame has a minimum height
SW: (C) No minimum height for iframes.
(D) Use display:block.
TL: C is right, D is unnecessary.
SW: D actually refers to A and can fix it.
TL: Wrooong, but I'm not telling why.
SW: Not playing with you.
TL: Please?
SW: No.
TL: Pretty please?
SW: No.
TL: But this is really serious, you must provide proof!
If this is not how you wanted your posts to come across, you should work on
your communication skills.
I think it's ridiculous to try and transform a thread about a minor display
problem into a formal academic argument and demand rigorous logical proof.
But since you seem really invested in this, I'll indulge you in the hope
that you'll finally stop bugging me.
I only have to find one single situation where (D) solves (A). Neither of us
knows anything about the original markup involved, so here's something simple:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>PointyFrames</title>
<style>
* { box-sizing: border-box }
div {
border: 6px solid blue;
width: 150px;
}
iframe {
/*display: block;*/
border: 6px solid red;
width: 100%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<iframe src="about:blank"></iframe>
<iframe src="about:blank"></iframe>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Without display:block, there is vertical space between the iframes; with
display:block, the space disappears. QED.
This is not an uncommon situation in web design, which is why I suggested
display:block as a possible solution even without having seen the source
document. There are several other ways to solve it, but that's irrelevant.
>> fine by me. Go and find someone else to annoy.
>
> Ask yourself this: If you have a *valid* reason for making that suggestion,
> why are you not just laying it out? Why are you *annoyed* if you are asked
> about it?
The paraphrased summary above should make it clear to you why I'm getting a
little annoyed. You demand all kinds of "proofs" from people in this group,
but you rarely volunteer information on your own. You won't even say what
you're taking issue with, instead you post disparaging and cryptic comments
like "Nonsense" or "You don't know what you're talking about" or "How did
you get that idea". Then you swoop in and *demand* proofs and pretend that
you're interested in a constructive discussion, rather than showing off and
criticizing others. I have seen this from you so many times that I have to
assume it's your little game. If this is not a game, then it's probably a
symptom.
- stefan