Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Table cell width
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Dec 31, 2011, 7:48:01 PM12/31/11
to
In article
<timstreater-466E...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> Can anyone confirm that for Safari, the CSS width value for table cells
> includes content, padding, and border where as for Firefox it relates
> just to the content? That appears to be my empirical conculsion.
>
> (this is with a table with fixed layout and cells with overflow hidden
> and white-space nowrap)
I don't think this is a difference between the two (but which
versions exactly?). Perhaps you might show (text here or url) an
example of an html/css version you used in your empirical testing
where you see a difference. Include a doctype to avoid quirks
mode.
Try
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/timTable.html>
and vary things like dotted (the dotted in above, combined with
turning off nowrap *does* reveal a difference between FF and
Safari, btw, but probably not one relevant to your question),
border-collapse, whatever you like.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-466E...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> Can anyone confirm that for Safari, the CSS width value for table cells
> includes content, padding, and border where as for Firefox it relates
> just to the content? That appears to be my empirical conculsion.
>
> (this is with a table with fixed layout and cells with overflow hidden
> and white-space nowrap)
I don't think this is a difference between the two (but which
versions exactly?). Perhaps you might show (text here or url) an
example of an html/css version you used in your empirical testing
where you see a difference. Include a doctype to avoid quirks
mode.
Try
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/timTable.html>
and vary things like dotted (the dotted in above, combined with
turning off nowrap *does* reveal a difference between FF and
Safari, btw, but probably not one relevant to your question),
border-collapse, whatever you like.
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 1, 2012, 1:00:42 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<timstreater-EAE5...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-FF55AF...@news.albasani.net>,
> > I don't think this is a difference between the two ...
>
> I think I may change approach here. What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons. But I want them
> all the same width and to shrink if more are produced (they are created
> by JavaScript). The text label gets progressively chopped as they shrink.
>
> I used a table because I needed to attach some state to each button, and
> the easiest way was to have several hidden rows and to put the data
> there. Normally the user gets to use Safari with my app, as that is the
> browser my app's startup script launches. But I like to test the thing
> with other browsers also and from time to time this throws up either
> browser differences or errors which Safari appears to ignore.
>
> But now I'm thinking it's gonna be a lot easier to use <div>s and use
> some HTML5 element.dataset fields to store the data I need. One row of
> <divs> which will simplify the JavaScript a bit too.
OK. You might also consider a more semantic way, for example, a
horizontally styled list, a row of list items in a UL.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-EAE5...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-FF55AF...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <timstreater-466E...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone confirm that for Safari, the CSS width value for table cells
> > > includes content, padding, and border where as for Firefox it relates
> > > just to the content? That appears to be my empirical conculsion.
> > >
...
>
> > In article
> > <timstreater-466E...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone confirm that for Safari, the CSS width value for table cells
> > > includes content, padding, and border where as for Firefox it relates
> > > just to the content? That appears to be my empirical conculsion.
> > >
> > I don't think this is a difference between the two ...
>
> I think I may change approach here. What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons. But I want them
> all the same width and to shrink if more are produced (they are created
> by JavaScript). The text label gets progressively chopped as they shrink.
>
> I used a table because I needed to attach some state to each button, and
> the easiest way was to have several hidden rows and to put the data
> there. Normally the user gets to use Safari with my app, as that is the
> browser my app's startup script launches. But I like to test the thing
> with other browsers also and from time to time this throws up either
> browser differences or errors which Safari appears to ignore.
>
> But now I'm thinking it's gonna be a lot easier to use <div>s and use
> some HTML5 element.dataset fields to store the data I need. One row of
> <divs> which will simplify the JavaScript a bit too.
OK. You might also consider a more semantic way, for example, a
horizontally styled list, a row of list items in a UL.
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 1, 2012, 2:07:36 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<timstreater-F61D...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>?> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
...
> of border style using inset/outset so they look pressed (or not). As
> long as I can do that with a list it might even be easier than <div>s,
> which when floated tend to have minds of their own.
Horizontal lists are not too hard to style and they behave pretty
well. And you can get pressed looks and all sorts of things. Not
sure they are *easier* than floated DIVs but I would be inclined
to use them instead, it is something that is more regularly done
(in navigation bars) and so there would be a lot more examples.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-F61D...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>?> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
...
> > > But now I'm thinking it's gonna be a lot easier to use <div>s and use
> > > some HTML5 element.dataset fields to store the data I need. One row of
> > > <divs> which will simplify the JavaScript a bit too.
> >
> > OK. You might also consider a more semantic way, for example, a
> > horizontally styled list, a row of list items in a UL.
>
> Mmm. They need to be clickable and at present, when clicked, I do a bit
> > > some HTML5 element.dataset fields to store the data I need. One row of
> > > <divs> which will simplify the JavaScript a bit too.
> >
> > OK. You might also consider a more semantic way, for example, a
> > horizontally styled list, a row of list items in a UL.
>
> of border style using inset/outset so they look pressed (or not). As
> long as I can do that with a list it might even be easier than <div>s,
> which when floated tend to have minds of their own.
Horizontal lists are not too hard to style and they behave pretty
well. And you can get pressed looks and all sorts of things. Not
sure they are *easier* than floated DIVs but I would be inclined
to use them instead, it is something that is more regularly done
(in navigation bars) and so there would be a lot more examples.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 1, 2012, 2:24:33 PM1/1/12
to
2012-01-01 18:49, Tim Streater wrote:
> What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons.
This would be a lot easier if you described either the desired visual
> What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons.
appearance (as some drawing) or the current page URL or both.
> I used a table because I needed to attach some state to each button, and
> the easiest way was to have several hidden rows and to put the data
> there.
like it would be easiest to store the data in an array of JavaScript
objects.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 2, 2012, 4:10:15 AM1/2/12
to
In article
<timstreater-1D73...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Mmm. They need to be clickable and at present, when clicked, I do a bit
> > > of border style using inset/outset so they look pressed (or not). As
> > > long as I can do that with a list it might even be easier than <div>s,
> > > which when floated tend to have minds of their own.
> >
> dorayme
When you style the UL and you almost certainly don't want to be
bothered by bullet points or the space allotted to them by
default margins and/or paddings. Zero margin and padding on the
parent element to bypass these defaults.
If you do not specify a width on the LIs (which is perfectly fine
of course), they will have a width that is shrunk auto to just
fit the content and no more. If you do give a fixed width, you
need to watch any children of the LIs to be sure they are of a
size you want, you may want them to fill the full width, an
inline element like an A will not but you can sort this by
telling the A to be 100% wide of its LI parent.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-1D73...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Mmm. They need to be clickable and at present, when clicked, I do a bit
> > > of border style using inset/outset so they look pressed (or not). As
> > > long as I can do that with a list it might even be easier than <div>s,
> > > which when floated tend to have minds of their own.
> >
>
> > Horizontal lists are not too hard to style and they behave pretty
> > well. And you can get pressed looks and all sorts of things. Not
> > sure they are *easier* than floated DIVs but I would be inclined
> > to use them instead, it is something that is more regularly done
> > (in navigation bars) and so there would be a lot more examples.
>
> Righto - thanks - more research to do then.
> > Horizontal lists are not too hard to style and they behave pretty
> > well. And you can get pressed looks and all sorts of things. Not
> > sure they are *easier* than floated DIVs but I would be inclined
> > to use them instead, it is something that is more regularly done
> > (in navigation bars) and so there would be a lot more examples.
>
When you style the UL and you almost certainly don't want to be
bothered by bullet points or the space allotted to them by
default margins and/or paddings. Zero margin and padding on the
parent element to bypass these defaults.
If you do not specify a width on the LIs (which is perfectly fine
of course), they will have a width that is shrunk auto to just
fit the content and no more. If you do give a fixed width, you
need to watch any children of the LIs to be sure they are of a
size you want, you may want them to fill the full width, an
inline element like an A will not but you can sort this by
telling the A to be 100% wide of its LI parent.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Jan 2, 2012, 6:30:27 AM1/2/12
to
In article <dorayme-D15999...@news.albasani.net>,
the A as block, this also gets rid of the as/des/cender space.
--
dorayme
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> an
> inline element like an A will not but you can sort this by
> telling the A to be 100% wide of its LI parent.
I should really have said that the way to do this is to display
> an
> inline element like an A will not but you can sort this by
> telling the A to be 100% wide of its LI parent.
the A as block, this also gets rid of the as/des/cender space.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 2, 2012, 6:47:47 AM1/2/12
to
2012-01-01 18:49, Tim Streater wrote:
> What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons.
I don’t get the idea. What is the buttonhood of an element if it does
> What I actually want is a row of
> buttons - but I don't want them to look like buttons.
not look like a button? Do you mean that you want to use <button>
elements specifically.
> But I want them all the same width
ch units or mayge (gasp) in pixels or points? Not robust at all, and not
flexible. So maybe an equal share of some total width? It would then
look odd if the total width is large. Or maybe as wide as needed for the
item with the largest width requirement. This would really imply that
you need <table> or its much less reliable CSS cousin display: table and
relatives.
> and to shrink if more are produced (they are created
> by JavaScript). The text label gets progressively chopped as they shrink.
Supercalifragisticexpialidocious or Järjestelmällistymättömyysperiaate
and it cannot fit? Would you like to have just e.g. Supe or Järj to be
shown?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 2, 2012, 9:26:06 AM1/2/12
to
Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <dorayme-76060F...@news.albasani.net>,
remember doing a mockup without a table, it was vertical:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
width: 11em; float: left; font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
But you can make it horizontal easily:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* set a static width if you wish */
width: 11em;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
And maybe further refinements to make the buttons all the same height:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* set a static width and height if you wish */
width: 11em; height: 3em; vertical-align: bottom;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
> In article <dorayme-76060F...@news.albasani.net>,
> Righto - thanks - more research to do then.
>
Didn't we discuss "buttonized" links recently in another thread. I
>
remember doing a mockup without a table, it was vertical:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
width: 11em; float: left; font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
But you can make it horizontal easily:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* set a static width if you wish */
width: 11em;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
And maybe further refinements to make the buttons all the same height:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<title>Use CSS</title>
<style type="text/css">
div#nav {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
/* smaller subtext */
div#nav a span { font-size: .7em; }
div#nav a {
text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; margin: 5px;
padding: .5em; text-align: center;
/* set a static width and height if you wish */
width: 11em; height: 3em; vertical-align: bottom;
/* one liner added beveled borders! */
border: 3px outset #1c508c;
}
/* you can add a CSS3 rule non-supporting browsers will ignore */
div#nav a { text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #000; }
div#nav a:link, div#nav a:visited {
color: #ffffff; background: #1c508c;
}
div#nav a:hover, div#nav a:focus {
border-width: 2px 4px 4px 2px ;
color: #ffff00; background: #7c9ec4;
}
div#nav a:active {
border-width: 4px 2px 2px 4px;
border-style: inset;
color: #ff0000; background: #3c4e64;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nav">
<a href="#nav">Home</a>
<a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
<a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
<a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
<a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
<a href="#nav">About Us</a>
<a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
</div>
<p>The rest of your page....</p>
</body>
</html>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 2, 2012, 9:44:31 AM1/2/12
to
2012-01-02 16:22, Tim Streater wrote:
>> I don’t get the idea. What is the buttonhood of an element if it does
>> not look like a button? Do you mean that you want to use <button>
>> elements specifically.
>
> That's perhaps a better way of putting it. These are perhaps more like
>> I don’t get the idea. What is the buttonhood of an element if it does
>> not look like a button? Do you mean that you want to use <button>
>> elements specifically.
>
> radio buttons in that only one is active at once. Press one in and the
> other one pops out. Tabs, really.
If you haven’t decided what the markup for the elements will be, let’s
say they are <span> elements. Then you can wrap them inside a <div>
element, and you probably want to set display: inline-block on the
<span> elements in order to make it simple to set their width.
> No, equal width starting at some defined value. If the user generates
> more then when the space is filled up and the user wants more they
> clearly have to shrink in order to fit in. As the user closes them the
> process can be reversed.
So the width is set in JavaScript, I presume. Looks simple–I don’t see
why you would need markup other than <div> and <span>, with class at
least on the <div>, I suppose. It does not sound useful to make it a
table or a list—you would the browser’s default rendering for a table or
a list and would need to start with killing it.
>> You lost me here. What should happen if some label is
>> Supercalifragisticexpialidocious or Järjestelmällistymättömyysperiaate
>> and it cannot fit? Would you like to have just e.g. Supe or Järj to be
>> shown?
>
I don’t find Sup… or Jär… much more readable. It sounds like the
esthetic preference for equal-width buttons, or button-like things that
don’t look like buttons, makes you reduce usability for no good reason.
You may ultimately need to truncate the labels, but why create extra
problems by wasting width by making the the elements wider than needed?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 2, 2012, 10:00:09 PM1/2/12
to
In article <jdseq6$f9u$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
...
>
...
>
> And maybe further refinements to make the buttons all the same height:
>
...
> div#nav a {
> display: inline-block;
...
> <div id="nav">
> <a href="#nav">Home</a>
> <a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
> <a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
> <a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
> <a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
> <a href="#nav">About Us</a>
> <a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
> </div>
* The advantage of inline-block comes into its own when wrapping
comes into play and snagging needs to be avoided. But, perhaps
mildly interesting, if you give all the same height for nicer
looks as above, floating is more or less as easy and practical
(no need for vertical-aligning then). I am not saying it is
better than inline-block.
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
* When there are just very few items, it can be nice to have
fixed width, but it is almost always better when wrapping is a
very distinct possibility to save the space and let the items
find their own widths naturally imo.
* If using a list, using inline-block or floating, one strategy
for styling is to style the content of the list items in respect
to size and let this content act as a spring to set the list
item's size. See above URL.
* As I said to Tim, I don't think it is all that easier to use a
list for such things but it is often more correct than a bunch of
DIVS or a bunch of As in a DIV container. Your's, of course, can
be adapted.
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
...
> >
> > Righto - thanks - more research to do then.
> >
>
> Didn't we discuss "buttonized" links recently in another thread. I
> remember doing a mockup without a table, it was vertical:
>
...
> > Righto - thanks - more research to do then.
> >
>
> Didn't we discuss "buttonized" links recently in another thread. I
> remember doing a mockup without a table, it was vertical:
>
>
> But you can make it horizontal easily:
>
...
> But you can make it horizontal easily:
>
>
...
>
> And maybe further refinements to make the buttons all the same height:
>
> div#nav a {
> display: inline-block;
...
> <div id="nav">
> <a href="#nav">Home</a>
> <a href="#nav">Race Results <span>(presented by Runners Den)</span></a>
> <a href="#nav">Even Calendar/<br>Online Registration</a>
> <a href="#nav">Results Questions<br>Or Problems</a>
> <a href="#nav">Timing Services</a>
> <a href="#nav">About Us</a>
> <a href="#nav">Contact Us</a>
> </div>
comes into play and snagging needs to be avoided. But, perhaps
mildly interesting, if you give all the same height for nicer
looks as above, floating is more or less as easy and practical
(no need for vertical-aligning then). I am not saying it is
better than inline-block.
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
* When there are just very few items, it can be nice to have
fixed width, but it is almost always better when wrapping is a
very distinct possibility to save the space and let the items
find their own widths naturally imo.
* If using a list, using inline-block or floating, one strategy
for styling is to style the content of the list items in respect
to size and let this content act as a spring to set the list
item's size. See above URL.
* As I said to Tim, I don't think it is all that easier to use a
list for such things but it is often more correct than a bunch of
DIVS or a bunch of As in a DIV container. Your's, of course, can
be adapted.
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 2, 2012, 10:23:04 PM1/2/12
to
dorayme wrote:
"Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
works on MS Win 7"
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
Does OS really matter? Not sure what you mean, looks the same to me.
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/DoesOSMatter.jpg>
"Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
works on MS Win 7"
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
Does OS really matter? Not sure what you mean, looks the same to me.
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/DoesOSMatter.jpg>
dorayme
Jan 3, 2012, 5:39:53 AM1/3/12
to
In article <jdtsb1$nc7$1...@dont-email.me>,
effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
about inline-box vs floating.
I removed it within minutes in case I had your button effect
wrong and in case it confused the matter. But you got to it fast,
you are like greased lightning, you draw your weapon like Charles
Bronson did in the brilliant opening scene of Once Upon a Time in
the West when the train went, the mouth organ played and he was
there confronting three bad killer dudes in trench-coats. Wham,
Bam, Bang and they were gone.
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
--
dorayme
> dorayme wrote:
>
> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
> works on MS Win 7"
>
Merely a friendly mention of you since you posted the button
>
> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
> works on MS Win 7"
>
effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
about inline-box vs floating.
I removed it within minutes in case I had your button effect
wrong and in case it confused the matter. But you got to it fast,
you are like greased lightning, you draw your weapon like Charles
Bronson did in the brilliant opening scene of Once Upon a Time in
the West when the train went, the mouth organ played and he was
there confronting three bad killer dudes in trench-coats. Wham,
Bam, Bang and they were gone.
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 3, 2012, 9:43:38 AM1/3/12
to
dorayme wrote:
> In article<jdtsb1$nc7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
>> works on MS Win 7"
>>
>
> Merely a friendly mention of you since you posted the button
> effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
> about inline-box vs floating.
It was interesting how both methods produce the same result. So you
> In article<jdtsb1$nc7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
>> works on MS Win 7"
>>
>
> Merely a friendly mention of you since you posted the button
> effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
> about inline-box vs floating.
feared the buttonize styling wouldn't work on another OS? The only
failure was IE6, and it also as with the success of the inline-box vs
floating it failed the same way in IE6!
dorayme
Jan 3, 2012, 5:02:51 PM1/3/12
to
In article <jdv473$dl7$1...@dont-email.me>,
was simply assuming it needed browsers to support the CSS
properly.
> So you
> feared the buttonize styling wouldn't work on another OS?
No, I had no fears about this at all. The intention of the URL
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
had nothing to do with OSs. That older browsers on Win did not
support inline-box is quite another matter, there are older Mac
browsers that did not either; you should see what the formerly
quite good browser Mac IE5 makes of the above: both menus appear
like DIVs down the page, not even the floated one works
horizontally.
It would probably need me to enrol you in a course on my sense of
humour to explain my quickly withdrawn remark about you and PCs
and Macs. Let's face it, you are an American and I am from a
planet light years from earth, there are some difficult gulfs.
Just in case you are interested, if you want to take this course,
which is twice weekly for 6 months, Tues and Thurs evenings 6 to
8pm, I would want payment in advance. I would deliver the
lectures with an American accent, you can have New York, Mid
Western, Californian, or Texan drawl, no extra charges for this,
part of the deal. I would appear as any of your favourite
American actors or actresses, including Donald Duck and Jessica
Rabbit (my preferences are towards the latter to test your
concentration). O, and btw, I accept $US, they are about on
parity with $Aust and especially when in big wads in plain brown
envelopes.
> The only
> failure was IE6, and it also as with the success of the inline-box vs
> floating it failed the same way in IE6!
Actually, the inline-block does not work on IE7 either, at least
not in IE8 in compatibility mode.
I should add another way to skin the horizontal cat, just
display: inline... but this looks like a poor cousin and harder
work to adapt to my page (and keep the same look).
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article<jdtsb1$nc7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
> >> works on MS Win 7"
> >>
> >
> > Merely a friendly mention of you since you posted the button
> > effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
> > about inline-box vs floating.
>
> It was interesting how both methods produce the same result.
Yes, my point was that both methods produce similar results, I
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article<jdtsb1$nc7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >> "Button effect by the one and only Jonathan Little who has a PC and
> >> works on MS Win 7"
> >>
> >
> > Merely a friendly mention of you since you posted the button
> > effect, my post having nothing really to do with that effect but
> > about inline-box vs floating.
>
> It was interesting how both methods produce the same result.
was simply assuming it needed browsers to support the CSS
properly.
> So you
> feared the buttonize styling wouldn't work on another OS?
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/buttonizedHorizList.html>
had nothing to do with OSs. That older browsers on Win did not
support inline-box is quite another matter, there are older Mac
browsers that did not either; you should see what the formerly
quite good browser Mac IE5 makes of the above: both menus appear
like DIVs down the page, not even the floated one works
horizontally.
It would probably need me to enrol you in a course on my sense of
humour to explain my quickly withdrawn remark about you and PCs
and Macs. Let's face it, you are an American and I am from a
planet light years from earth, there are some difficult gulfs.
Just in case you are interested, if you want to take this course,
which is twice weekly for 6 months, Tues and Thurs evenings 6 to
8pm, I would want payment in advance. I would deliver the
lectures with an American accent, you can have New York, Mid
Western, Californian, or Texan drawl, no extra charges for this,
part of the deal. I would appear as any of your favourite
American actors or actresses, including Donald Duck and Jessica
Rabbit (my preferences are towards the latter to test your
concentration). O, and btw, I accept $US, they are about on
parity with $Aust and especially when in big wads in plain brown
envelopes.
> The only
> failure was IE6, and it also as with the success of the inline-box vs
> floating it failed the same way in IE6!
not in IE8 in compatibility mode.
I should add another way to skin the horizontal cat, just
display: inline... but this looks like a poor cousin and harder
work to adapt to my page (and keep the same look).
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 8, 2012, 4:23:09 AM1/8/12
to
In article
<timstreater-96B1...@news.individual.net>,
> Here's what I ended up with:
>
> <http://clothears.org.uk/temp/tabs-new.html>
>
> which works quite satisfactorily. I've implemented this in my app and
> saved more than 100 lines of JavaScript. Closed a few other loopholes at
> the same time.
>
> One thing I noticed while testing is that only Firefox seems to bother
> giving the tabs fractional pixel widths. So as more tabs are added and
> they shrink, the right-most edge of the right-most tab moves about
> unless Firefox is used. Which is OK for testing but Safari is used in
> production.
>
> And don't imagine that, if this app ever got widespread use, there
> wouldn't be *someone* with large numbers of tabs. Before I retired, I'd
> get people coming to me and complaining that it took forever for their
> Eudora to start when they rebooted their PC. Turned out they had 400 or
> so emails open in tabs. Of course, each tab was by then a few pixels
> wide and so it wasn't obvious that this was what they'd done. Much
> clicking of the Close Tab button sorted them out.
Well, I have not got a full picture of what you are doing (it's
ok, it is probably not useful to explain) but I am a bit puzzled
as to why you want the tabs to shrink on a line rather than do
what floated list items usually do and that is wrap. Not even
sure of quite why you want to cut off the text so mu=ch, I could
understand allowing for a max em width to the list items but this
would get a few meaningful words in.
Anyway, I have really only come on to say to take note that
people using Zoom Text Only (see the Safari View menu for
example) might be seeing things you are not expecting at
different text size settings.
Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
and enclose their children).
--
dorayme
<timstreater-96B1...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-76060F...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> In article <dorayme-76060F...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> <http://clothears.org.uk/temp/tabs-new.html>
>
> which works quite satisfactorily. I've implemented this in my app and
> saved more than 100 lines of JavaScript. Closed a few other loopholes at
> the same time.
>
> One thing I noticed while testing is that only Firefox seems to bother
> giving the tabs fractional pixel widths. So as more tabs are added and
> they shrink, the right-most edge of the right-most tab moves about
> unless Firefox is used. Which is OK for testing but Safari is used in
> production.
>
> And don't imagine that, if this app ever got widespread use, there
> wouldn't be *someone* with large numbers of tabs. Before I retired, I'd
> get people coming to me and complaining that it took forever for their
> Eudora to start when they rebooted their PC. Turned out they had 400 or
> so emails open in tabs. Of course, each tab was by then a few pixels
> wide and so it wasn't obvious that this was what they'd done. Much
> clicking of the Close Tab button sorted them out.
Well, I have not got a full picture of what you are doing (it's
ok, it is probably not useful to explain) but I am a bit puzzled
as to why you want the tabs to shrink on a line rather than do
what floated list items usually do and that is wrap. Not even
sure of quite why you want to cut off the text so mu=ch, I could
understand allowing for a max em width to the list items but this
would get a few meaningful words in.
Anyway, I have really only come on to say to take note that
people using Zoom Text Only (see the Safari View menu for
example) might be seeing things you are not expecting at
different text size settings.
Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
and enclose their children).
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 8, 2012, 4:40:52 PM1/8/12
to
In article
<timstreater-0A07...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-EC6F33...@news.albasani.net>,
>
! <g>
> > Anyway, I have really only come on to say to take note that
> > people using Zoom Text Only (see the Safari View menu for
> > example) might be seeing things you are not expecting at
> > different text size settings.
>
> On my to do list is to allow users to choose a font and point size,
> amongst other things.
>
Well, maybe but should you bother, there are already many browser
controls and prefs for a user. Best to be able to accommodate
whatever a user throws at it by natural means, one such is
avoiding heights or at least using em units.
Not sure you are quite aware of what can be presented at the
moment to some viewers. Here is a screenshot (and it has nothing
to do with any particular browser though it happens to be Safari)
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/disappearingText.png>
In your case, your heights are causing trouble. In the case of
the LI height you set, getting rid of it altogether would be my
instinct but you are a height-lover, I can tell, I can see
height-lovers from afar and I have nothing against them, they are
part of the human fabric, bless you. But if you specified in ems,
say
li {
...
height: 1.4em;
...
}
this would solve a problem. There would be other probs to solve
but this is a start. You might also set the same for the UL.
> > Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
> > hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
> > and enclose their children).
>
> I did try setting that on the <ul> only to find it vanished the <li> if
> there wasn't room.
That presumably would have been because of other constraints you
have.
If you remove heights on the UL and LI and just put the overflow
on the UL that starts to get things to fall into place. The
usefulness of overflow is often in respect to a secondary effect,
creating Block Formatting Context (BFC), it causes the container
whose children are floats to see them and enclose them, without
some mechanism like this, a container will be blind to what is
not in the flow. Anyway, I had a go at explaining this stuff at:
http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/
and esp.
http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.php
If Ben C ever talks about this sort of thing, listen carefully,
he loves BFCs and knows all about them. I like them too and often
take them for little walks in the park. They are well behaved and
require no leads.
I see you are a bit fond of overflow: hidden; yourself, you have
it on BODY?
--
dorayme
<timstreater-0A07...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-EC6F33...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Well, I have not got a full picture of what you are doing (it's
> > ok, it is probably not useful to explain) but I am a bit puzzled
> > as to why you want the tabs to shrink on a line rather than do
> > what floated list items usually do and that is wrap. Not even
> > sure of quite why you want to cut off the text so mu=ch, I could
> > understand allowing for a max em width to the list items but this
> > would get a few meaningful words in.
>
> It's an incentive not to have too many tabs open.
>
> > Well, I have not got a full picture of what you are doing (it's
> > ok, it is probably not useful to explain) but I am a bit puzzled
> > as to why you want the tabs to shrink on a line rather than do
> > what floated list items usually do and that is wrap. Not even
> > sure of quite why you want to cut off the text so mu=ch, I could
> > understand allowing for a max em width to the list items but this
> > would get a few meaningful words in.
>
>
! <g>
> > Anyway, I have really only come on to say to take note that
> > people using Zoom Text Only (see the Safari View menu for
> > example) might be seeing things you are not expecting at
> > different text size settings.
>
> amongst other things.
>
Well, maybe but should you bother, there are already many browser
controls and prefs for a user. Best to be able to accommodate
whatever a user throws at it by natural means, one such is
avoiding heights or at least using em units.
Not sure you are quite aware of what can be presented at the
moment to some viewers. Here is a screenshot (and it has nothing
to do with any particular browser though it happens to be Safari)
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/disappearingText.png>
In your case, your heights are causing trouble. In the case of
the LI height you set, getting rid of it altogether would be my
instinct but you are a height-lover, I can tell, I can see
height-lovers from afar and I have nothing against them, they are
part of the human fabric, bless you. But if you specified in ems,
say
li {
...
height: 1.4em;
...
}
this would solve a problem. There would be other probs to solve
but this is a start. You might also set the same for the UL.
> > Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
> > hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
> > and enclose their children).
>
> there wasn't room.
That presumably would have been because of other constraints you
have.
If you remove heights on the UL and LI and just put the overflow
on the UL that starts to get things to fall into place. The
usefulness of overflow is often in respect to a secondary effect,
creating Block Formatting Context (BFC), it causes the container
whose children are floats to see them and enclose them, without
some mechanism like this, a container will be blind to what is
not in the flow. Anyway, I had a go at explaining this stuff at:
http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/
and esp.
http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.php
If Ben C ever talks about this sort of thing, listen carefully,
he loves BFCs and knows all about them. I like them too and often
take them for little walks in the park. They are well behaved and
require no leads.
I see you are a bit fond of overflow: hidden; yourself, you have
it on BODY?
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 8, 2012, 9:01:32 PM1/8/12
to
In article
<timstreater-8AF3...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-04014F...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
...
> Only browser that did that to me was Opera (not that this invalidates
> the point you are trying to make).
>
Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
that is JK's department really. + would do me fine. Even
typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
not your ➕
> > In your case, your heights are causing trouble. In the case of
> > the LI height you set, getting rid of it altogether would be my
> > instinct but you are a height-lover, I can tell, I can see
> > height-lovers from afar and I have nothing against them, they are
> > part of the human fabric, bless you. But if you specified in ems,
> > say
> >
> > li {
> > ...
> > height: 1.4em;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > this would solve a problem. There would be other probs to solve
> > but this is a start. You might also set the same for the UL.
>
> It might solve *that* problem, but could create others. Does the window
> resize event go off when users change the text size themselves? Without
> that, not sure how I could adjust the sizes of other items.
>
All I know is that the viewport generally does not change and
should not change when a user changes his or her text size in the
View menu, that should be left to the manual control of the user.
But, just a thought, are you aware of the difference between Zoom
Text Only and Zoom in some of these modern browsers like FF and
Safari?
Sorry to keep mentioning my writings but I did them to save
future typing (I am on a court order to help on usenet for the
rest of my natural life for crimes committed in my youth but I am
allowed to make it as easy as possible for myself - at least, so
the the judge said) I have an unfinished thing on this stuff at:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/differentEyesights/textSpill.html
> to). Nasty inappropriate scrollbars appeared.
>
Well, that's another thing, setting widths on elements can be
fraught. You set 100% on UL and LI. Now this is the width of the
content area. Where are poor margins, paddings, borders to go? In
the modern non-quirks box model they are outside the content area
and often outside the viewport, hence the scrollbars.
Scrollbars are the sentinels of respect for individual citizens
of the HTML world. They look out for margins and paddings and
borders and give them a way to participate in the life of the
page. It is a foundational kindness towards them and I, at least,
get a lump in my throat thinking about it.
Many elements are by default (not counting borders, margins,
paddings) 100% of their container's *content* area (your BODY has
no borders or margins and likely no paddings). It is often not
necessary to give widths to elements that will stretch the whole
way anyway, auto widthwise.
Try removing all your overflows, except the one needed to let the
UL see its floated list items; so one on UL is needed. Remove the
widths of 100% from your UL and LI.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-8AF3...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-04014F...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
...
> >
> > Not sure you are quite aware of what can be presented at the
> > moment to some viewers. Here is a screenshot (and it has nothing
> > to do with any particular browser though it happens to be Safari)
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/disappearingText.png>
>
> Really? Why are the big + and - not appearing in those buttons then?
> > Not sure you are quite aware of what can be presented at the
> > moment to some viewers. Here is a screenshot (and it has nothing
> > to do with any particular browser though it happens to be Safari)
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/disappearingText.png>
>
> Only browser that did that to me was Opera (not that this invalidates
> the point you are trying to make).
>
Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
that is JK's department really. + would do me fine. Even
typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
not your ➕
> > In your case, your heights are causing trouble. In the case of
> > the LI height you set, getting rid of it altogether would be my
> > instinct but you are a height-lover, I can tell, I can see
> > height-lovers from afar and I have nothing against them, they are
> > part of the human fabric, bless you. But if you specified in ems,
> > say
> >
> > li {
> > ...
> > height: 1.4em;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > this would solve a problem. There would be other probs to solve
> > but this is a start. You might also set the same for the UL.
>
> resize event go off when users change the text size themselves? Without
> that, not sure how I could adjust the sizes of other items.
>
All I know is that the viewport generally does not change and
should not change when a user changes his or her text size in the
View menu, that should be left to the manual control of the user.
But, just a thought, are you aware of the difference between Zoom
Text Only and Zoom in some of these modern browsers like FF and
Safari?
Sorry to keep mentioning my writings but I did them to save
future typing (I am on a court order to help on usenet for the
rest of my natural life for crimes committed in my youth but I am
allowed to make it as easy as possible for myself - at least, so
the the judge said) I have an unfinished thing on this stuff at:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/differentEyesights/textSpill.html
>
> > > > Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
> > > > hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
> > > > and enclose their children).
> > >
> > > I did try setting that on the <ul> only to find it vanished the <li> if
> > > there wasn't room.
> >
> > That presumably would have been because of other constraints you
> > have.
>
> Oh doubtless.
> > > > Me, I tend to avoid setting heights, in favour of overflow:
> > > > hidden on the immediate containers of the floats (so they 'see'
> > > > and enclose their children).
> > >
> > > I did try setting that on the <ul> only to find it vanished the <li> if
> > > there wasn't room.
> >
> > That presumably would have been because of other constraints you
> > have.
>
>
> > I see you are a bit fond of overflow: hidden; yourself, you have
> > it on BODY?
>
> I just tried taking this off in my app (not the testbed I posted a link
> > I see you are a bit fond of overflow: hidden; yourself, you have
> > it on BODY?
>
> to). Nasty inappropriate scrollbars appeared.
>
Well, that's another thing, setting widths on elements can be
fraught. You set 100% on UL and LI. Now this is the width of the
content area. Where are poor margins, paddings, borders to go? In
the modern non-quirks box model they are outside the content area
and often outside the viewport, hence the scrollbars.
Scrollbars are the sentinels of respect for individual citizens
of the HTML world. They look out for margins and paddings and
borders and give them a way to participate in the life of the
page. It is a foundational kindness towards them and I, at least,
get a lump in my throat thinking about it.
Many elements are by default (not counting borders, margins,
paddings) 100% of their container's *content* area (your BODY has
no borders or margins and likely no paddings). It is often not
necessary to give widths to elements that will stretch the whole
way anyway, auto widthwise.
Try removing all your overflows, except the one needed to let the
UL see its floated list items; so one on UL is needed. Remove the
widths of 100% from your UL and LI.
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 10, 2012, 8:00:43 PM1/10/12
to
In article
<timstreater-DFD5...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-81AE9E...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> <http://www.utf8-chartable.de/unicode-utf8-table.pl>
>
> for a nice fat plus and minus signs, found them, and copied in the
> values. Worked for me in iCab, Safari, Firefox, Chrome - but not Opera.
>
Well, nothing seems to induce it to appear on my machine using
your ➕. Here are the things that work for me:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/charTest.html>
You better get feedback from others on this in case there is a
problem at my end, mysterious or otherwise. btw, yours does not
work on my Windows XP in VirtualBox either but my url lloks very
similar in IE8 to my Safari.
> > All I know is that the viewport generally does not change and
> > should not change when a user changes his or her text size in the
> > View menu, that should be left to the manual control of the user.
> > But, just a thought, are you aware of the difference between Zoom
> > Text Only and Zoom in some of these modern browsers like FF and
> > Safari?
> >
> > Sorry to keep mentioning my writings but I did them to save
> > future typing (I am on a court order to help on usenet for the
> > rest of my natural life for crimes committed in my youth but I am
> > allowed to make it as easy as possible for myself - at least, so
> > the the judge said) I have an unfinished thing on this stuff at:
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/differentEyesights/textSpill.html>
>
> Yes, that's quite nice. Still, I'm not going to fiddle too much just yet
> as I only have myself to please. There are still some height-related
> bodges that I have to fix yet before it'll be be possible for Mr Hiram Q
> Walrustitty to be let loose on it.
>
OK, all I can tell you about this is that I generally use heights
only *as a last resort* (when I have not figured a way to not use
height at all) in order to build my confidence that Wallrustitty
will have a pleasant enough experience. And then, usually in ems!
--
dorayme
<timstreater-DFD5...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-81AE9E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <timstreater-8AF3...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
> > > Really? Why are the big + and - not appearing in those buttons then?
> > > Only browser that did that to me was Opera (not that this invalidates
> > > the point you are trying to make).
>
> > Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> > that is JK's department really. + would do me fine. Even
> > typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
> > not your ➕
>
> Odd that. I looked here:
>
> > In article
> > <timstreater-8AF3...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
> > > Really? Why are the big + and - not appearing in those buttons then?
> > > Only browser that did that to me was Opera (not that this invalidates
> > > the point you are trying to make).
>
> > Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> > that is JK's department really. + would do me fine. Even
> > typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
> > not your ➕
>
>
> <http://www.utf8-chartable.de/unicode-utf8-table.pl>
>
> for a nice fat plus and minus signs, found them, and copied in the
> values. Worked for me in iCab, Safari, Firefox, Chrome - but not Opera.
>
Well, nothing seems to induce it to appear on my machine using
your ➕. Here are the things that work for me:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/charTest.html>
You better get feedback from others on this in case there is a
problem at my end, mysterious or otherwise. btw, yours does not
work on my Windows XP in VirtualBox either but my url lloks very
similar in IE8 to my Safari.
> > All I know is that the viewport generally does not change and
> > should not change when a user changes his or her text size in the
> > View menu, that should be left to the manual control of the user.
> > But, just a thought, are you aware of the difference between Zoom
> > Text Only and Zoom in some of these modern browsers like FF and
> > Safari?
> >
> > Sorry to keep mentioning my writings but I did them to save
> > future typing (I am on a court order to help on usenet for the
> > rest of my natural life for crimes committed in my youth but I am
> > allowed to make it as easy as possible for myself - at least, so
> > the the judge said) I have an unfinished thing on this stuff at:
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/differentEyesights/textSpill.html>
>
> as I only have myself to please. There are still some height-related
> bodges that I have to fix yet before it'll be be possible for Mr Hiram Q
> Walrustitty to be let loose on it.
>
OK, all I can tell you about this is that I generally use heights
only *as a last resort* (when I have not figured a way to not use
height at all) in order to build my confidence that Wallrustitty
will have a pleasant enough experience. And then, usually in ems!
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 11, 2012, 4:15:06 PM1/11/12
to
2012-01-09 4:01, dorayme wrote:
> Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> that is JK's department really.+ would do me fine. Even
> Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
> not your➕
Sorry, I've spent too much time in my virtual life outside Usenet lately
> not your➕
and had missed this part of the thread.
This discussion seems to be about
http://clothears.org.uk/temp/tabs-new.html
and specifically about the characters in the two buttons. I have no
difficulty in seeing them on Firefox. On IE, they appear as small
rectangles, which is the usual symptom of lack of a glyph for a
character. This isn't primarily a browser problem, though. IE is just
less capable of going thru all the fonts installed in the system.
The characters used are U+2795 and U+2796, HEAVY PLUS SIGN and HEAVY
MINUS SIGN. They are Dingbat characters, which means that they don't
have much semantics - in particular, their Unicode properties say that
they are "other symbols", not mathematical symbols. But that's not the
point; it's sometimes OK to use Dingbats.
The problem is that the characters are very new, introduced in Unicode
version 6.0. According to
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2795/fontsupport.htm
the Symbola font is the only font that contains them. But that's
slightly outdated information: Quivira has got them, too. But this means
that the characters exist only in fairly exotic fonts that one has to
find, download, and install separately (I don't think any sofware has
them bundled in, but there might be some specialized software with such
special fonts). Moreover, if you wanted IE to display them, you would
need to set font-family: Symbola, Quivira in CSS for the elements
containing them (such as the button elements and <span> elements where
you'd wrap them into in text).
A much more reasonable approach is to use the normal PLUS SIGN "+" and
the MINUS SIGN U+2212 (which you can write as − if you need to).
The minus sign works in almost all browsing situations these days. You
can use CSS to set their font face, font size, and font weight. This is
somewhat problematic in practice, since these characters don't bold well
(their bold versions aren't much more bold than normal versions), and
increasing font size has various side effects (on line height and on the
meaning of the em unit). But these are still more manageable than the
problems with special characters.
P.S. It is never necessary or useful to use + for "+" in HTML,
unless your "+" key is broken or something.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 11, 2012, 4:37:14 PM1/11/12
to
In article <jeku4o$au2$1...@dont-email.me>,
...
>
> The problem is that the characters are very new, introduced in Unicode
> version 6.0. According to
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2795/fontsupport.htm
> the Symbola font is the only font that contains them. But that's
> slightly outdated information: Quivira has got them, too. But this means
> that the characters exist only in fairly exotic fonts that one has to
> find, download, and install separately (I don't think any sofware has
> them bundled in, but there might be some specialized software with such
> special fonts).
So, there it is, the nub of the problem. Thanks. Tim will send
the cigar.
>
> A much more reasonable approach is to use the normal PLUS SIGN "+" and
> the MINUS SIGN U+2212 (which you can write as − if you need to).
> The minus sign works in almost all browsing situations these days. You
> can use CSS to set their font face, font size, and font weight. This is
> somewhat problematic in practice, since these characters don't bold well
> (their bold versions aren't much more bold than normal versions), and
> increasing font size has various side effects (on line height and on the
> meaning of the em unit). But these are still more manageable than the
> problems with special characters.
>
> P.S. It is never necessary or useful to use + for "+" in HTML,
> unless your "+" key is broken or something.
I made a table yesterday for Tim to show what I was seeing and
some of the different possible ways for a heavier looking plus:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/charTest.html>
I mention because I am reminded that the bolding - you mention
about this above -in WinIE (on my VirtualBox) is not as prominent
as on my Mac browsers; I recall having to actually compare the
bolded and unbolded on the same page to notice that IE was in
fact applying bold.
--
dorayme
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> 2012-01-09 4:01, dorayme wrote:
>
> > Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> > that is JK's department really.+ would do me fine. Even
> > typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
> > not your➕
>
> Sorry, I've spent too much time in my virtual life outside Usenet lately
> and had missed this part of the thread.
>
Life away computers generally can be surprisingly distracting.
> 2012-01-09 4:01, dorayme wrote:
>
> > Screenshot *was* from Safari, it looks like a character problem,
> > that is JK's department really.+ would do me fine. Even
> > typing + on my pages using my server would get it. Either. But
> > not your➕
>
> Sorry, I've spent too much time in my virtual life outside Usenet lately
> and had missed this part of the thread.
>
...
>
> The problem is that the characters are very new, introduced in Unicode
> version 6.0. According to
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2795/fontsupport.htm
> the Symbola font is the only font that contains them. But that's
> slightly outdated information: Quivira has got them, too. But this means
> that the characters exist only in fairly exotic fonts that one has to
> find, download, and install separately (I don't think any sofware has
> them bundled in, but there might be some specialized software with such
> special fonts).
the cigar.
>
> A much more reasonable approach is to use the normal PLUS SIGN "+" and
> the MINUS SIGN U+2212 (which you can write as − if you need to).
> The minus sign works in almost all browsing situations these days. You
> can use CSS to set their font face, font size, and font weight. This is
> somewhat problematic in practice, since these characters don't bold well
> (their bold versions aren't much more bold than normal versions), and
> increasing font size has various side effects (on line height and on the
> meaning of the em unit). But these are still more manageable than the
> problems with special characters.
>
> P.S. It is never necessary or useful to use + for "+" in HTML,
> unless your "+" key is broken or something.
some of the different possible ways for a heavier looking plus:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/charTest.html>
I mention because I am reminded that the bolding - you mention
about this above -in WinIE (on my VirtualBox) is not as prominent
as on my Mac browsers; I recall having to actually compare the
bolded and unbolded on the same page to notice that IE was in
fact applying bold.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 11, 2012, 5:15:30 PM1/11/12
to
2012-01-11 23:37, dorayme wrote:
> I am reminded that the bolding - you mention
> about this above -in WinIE (on my VirtualBox) is not as prominent
> as on my Mac browsers; I recall having to actually compare the
> bolded and unbolded on the same page to notice that IE was in
> fact applying bold.
Testing MINUS SIGN in Times New Roman in 16px size on Win 7 with
> I am reminded that the bolding - you mention
> about this above -in WinIE (on my VirtualBox) is not as prominent
> as on my Mac browsers; I recall having to actually compare the
> bolded and unbolded on the same page to notice that IE was in
> fact applying bold.
ClearType enabled, I was unable to see any difference between normal and
bold. But this was just my old yes. When I grabbed it and studied the
pixels I found out that they are both 1px high, 10px wide, but the first
and last pixels slightly differ in color. This might result in different
visual impression to a person with a very good eyesight or a good
imagination.
The PLUS SIGN is clearly different, since its vertical part is 2px as
normal, 3px as bold. But the horizontal parts are identical.
This wouldn't have surprised me if I had remembered that bolding, as a
typographic device, was designed for serif fonts and to increase
contrasts in addition to making some lines thicker. Vertical lines get
thicker, horizontal lines don't, or they get thicker to a lesser degree.
When one needs operators like these as prominent symbols, it might be
best to use images. It's not an ideal solution, but characters have
their limitations.
Another approach is to use the characters but declare, in CSS, a list of
fonts that contain them as rather bold, such as Arial Black. It might be
difficult, though, to construct a list that produces sufficiently bold
glyphs across environments.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Jan 11, 2012, 6:44:59 PM1/11/12
to
In article
<timstreater-A22B...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <jel1m0$he$1...@dont-email.me>,
To you, yes, I hope Hiram Q Walrustitty has images on in his
browser.
Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
surely be sufficient and reliable.
--
dorayme
<timstreater-A22B...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <jel1m0$he$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > When one needs operators like these as prominent symbols, it might be
> > best to use images. It's not an ideal solution, but characters have
> > their limitations.
>
> True. Then I can get them to look exactly as I desire.
> > best to use images. It's not an ideal solution, but characters have
> > their limitations.
>
To you, yes, I hope Hiram Q Walrustitty has images on in his
browser.
Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
surely be sufficient and reliable.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 11, 2012, 7:21:53 PM1/11/12
to
2012-01-12 1:44, dorayme wrote:
> Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
> natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
> ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
> surely be sufficient and reliable.
Except for their visual appearance, and this might be rather relevant. I
> Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
> natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
> ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
> surely be sufficient and reliable.
don't see anything particularly wrong with using
<img alt="+" src="plus.png" class="pm">
together with a CSS rule that tries to make the "+" character (when
used) bold via font selection.
The possibility that the image is not rendered for some reason is not
serious in this case, provided that an appropriate alt attribute is used
- the rendering just falls back to using the "+" character.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 12, 2012, 7:08:05 AM1/12/12
to
In article <jel92v$ehr$1...@dont-email.me>,
I agree, nothing *really* wrong. I was just thinking that for
something so simple, the + on the keyboard, with some bold
styling looks fine for Tim's purpose.
> together with a CSS rule that tries to make the "+" character (when
> used) bold via font selection.
>
> The possibility that the image is not rendered for some reason is not
> serious in this case, provided that an appropriate alt attribute is used
> - the rendering just falls back to using the "+" character.
In the case of some browsers, like my Safari, it does not render
the alt in lieu of the image when the image is unavailable. You
get a question mark in a small blue rectangle. FF does it
sensibly imo, it simply shows the + or whatever alt text is
there. If I recall, what FF does is beyond the call of duty, it
not being insisted up on in any of the specifications. Perhaps
some browsers have options as to how to handle alt text, I can't
see any on Safari. Hopefully all the browsers cater for screen
readers and let them read the alt text, but that is a different
matter.
--
dorayme
> 2012-01-12 1:44, dorayme wrote:
>
> > Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
> > natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
> > ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
> > surely be sufficient and reliable.
>
> Except for their visual appearance, and this might be rather relevant. I
> don't see anything particularly wrong with using
>
> <img alt="+" src="plus.png" class="pm">
>
Or alt="add a tab" ...
>
> > Seriously, in your case, the pluses and minuses have a bit of
> > natural meaning (plus to add a tab and minus to take it off) and
> > ordinary keyboard pluses and the one JK mentions for minus should
> > surely be sufficient and reliable.
>
> Except for their visual appearance, and this might be rather relevant. I
> don't see anything particularly wrong with using
>
> <img alt="+" src="plus.png" class="pm">
>
I agree, nothing *really* wrong. I was just thinking that for
something so simple, the + on the keyboard, with some bold
styling looks fine for Tim's purpose.
> together with a CSS rule that tries to make the "+" character (when
> used) bold via font selection.
>
> The possibility that the image is not rendered for some reason is not
> serious in this case, provided that an appropriate alt attribute is used
> - the rendering just falls back to using the "+" character.
the alt in lieu of the image when the image is unavailable. You
get a question mark in a small blue rectangle. FF does it
sensibly imo, it simply shows the + or whatever alt text is
there. If I recall, what FF does is beyond the call of duty, it
not being insisted up on in any of the specifications. Perhaps
some browsers have options as to how to handle alt text, I can't
see any on Safari. Hopefully all the browsers cater for screen
readers and let them read the alt text, but that is a different
matter.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 12, 2012, 7:57:21 AM1/12/12
to
2012-01-12 14:08, dorayme wrote:
>> <img alt="+" src="plus.png" class="pm">
>>
>
> Or alt="add a tab" ...
Or alt="+" title="add a tab", because assistive software may give the
>> <img alt="+" src="plus.png" class="pm">
>>
>
> Or alt="add a tab" ...
user optional access to information in title attributes. Besides, they
typically appear on mouseover and may act as useful explanations to
people using common graphic browsers.
> I agree, nothing *really* wrong. I was just thinking that for
> something so simple, the + on the keyboard, with some bold
> styling looks fine for Tim's purpose.
sign, is not simple at all!
> In the case of some browsers, like my Safari, it does not render
> the alt in lieu of the image when the image is unavailable. You
> get a question mark in a small blue rectangle.
worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
> FF does it
> sensibly imo, it simply shows the + or whatever alt text is
> there. If I recall, what FF does is beyond the call of duty, it
> not being insisted up on in any of the specifications.
rendering, but they do say:
"Several non-textual elements (IMG, AREA, APPLET, and INPUT) let authors
specify alternate text to serve as content when the element cannot be
rendered normally."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
Authors of Safari may have (mis)read the somewhat obscure text before
that: "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets,
this [alt] attribute specifies alternate text." Despite the poor
wording, the idea has always been that the alt attribute text is treated
as the content (hence, rendered) whenever the image is not displayed,
for whatever reason.
So should we get back the money we paid for Safari? Seriously, this is a
browser bug (or misbehavior) and not something authors can reasonably
cater for, any more than we can prepare for some browsers suddenly
starting to stop displaying the letter "z" for some unknown reason.
But in fact, Safari shows the title attribute value on mouseover, so
there's an additional reason to use alt="+" title="add a tab" in this case.
> Perhaps
> some browsers have options as to how to handle alt text,
> I can't see any on Safari.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 12, 2012, 4:14:29 PM1/12/12
to
In article <jemlbe$bii$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > ... just thinking that for
used to having maintained an old Ford XY for decades and making
do with whatever and this has cured me of many previously
youthful hopes of perfection in earthly matters.
> > In the case of some browsers, like my Safari, it does not render
> > the alt in lieu of the image when the image is unavailable. You
> > get a question mark in a small blue rectangle.
>
> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
>
My iCab and Chrome as well as Safari just show a broken icon.
Adding a title attribute, as you mention, is a good idea to
compensate for broken or poorly designed browsers. Between the
alt and the title, something should get through.
...
dorayme
> 2012-01-12 14:08, dorayme wrote:
>
...
>
> > ... just thinking that for
> > something so simple, the + on the keyboard, with some bold
> > styling looks fine for Tim's purpose.
>
> Yes, but bolding something as simple as "+", not to mention the minus
> sign, is not simple at all!
>
Obviously it depends on the level of perfection wanted. But I am
> > styling looks fine for Tim's purpose.
>
> Yes, but bolding something as simple as "+", not to mention the minus
> sign, is not simple at all!
>
used to having maintained an old Ford XY for decades and making
do with whatever and this has cured me of many previously
youthful hopes of perfection in earthly matters.
> > In the case of some browsers, like my Safari, it does not render
> > the alt in lieu of the image when the image is unavailable. You
> > get a question mark in a small blue rectangle.
>
> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
>
Adding a title attribute, as you mention, is a good idea to
compensate for broken or poorly designed browsers. Between the
alt and the title, something should get through.
...
>
> But in fact, Safari shows the title attribute value on mouseover, so
> there's an additional reason to use alt="+" title="add a tab" in this case.
>
--
> But in fact, Safari shows the title attribute value on mouseover, so
> there's an additional reason to use alt="+" title="add a tab" in this case.
>
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 13, 2012, 3:45:08 AM1/13/12
to
2012-01-12 23:14, dorayme wrote:
>> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
>> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
>> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
>
> My iCab and Chrome as well as Safari just show a broken icon.
Oh my. So Chrome is seriously broken, too. And if I change its settings
>> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
>> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
>> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
>
> My iCab and Chrome as well as Safari just show a broken icon.
by telling it not to show any images, it draws an empty bordered
rectangle corresponding to each image, without any alt text.
Please tell me this is a bad dream.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 26, 2012, 12:34:45 AM1/26/12
to
Under Subject Re: Horizontal tabs (was Re: Table cell width)
Sorry, myself, it isn't. Instead, it is a longstanding bug in
WebKit-based browsers, see e.g.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=773
It was reported in 2008, and still no fix.
Those bas...browsers show the alt text (in case of a missing image) only
if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
1) The dimensions of the image have been specified in HTML attributes or
in CSS.
2) The alt text fits on one line within those dimensions.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
WebKit-based browsers, see e.g.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=773
It was reported in 2008, and still no fix.
Those bas...browsers show the alt text (in case of a missing image) only
if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
1) The dimensions of the image have been specified in HTML attributes or
in CSS.
2) The alt text fits on one line within those dimensions.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 27, 2012, 4:38:37 AM1/27/12
to
In article <jfqolj$fd6$1...@dont-email.me>,
me for years! And years ago I did offer a URL test page ( I think on
alt.html) here for these or similar matters. I think it was more than
anyone really wanted to know about at the time.
But I will update it a little now to include factors you have
discovered that affect matters (below). And move it to a more
convenient server.
> Sorry, myself, it isn't. Instead, it is a longstanding bug in
> WebKit-based browsers, see e.g.
> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=773
> It was reported in 2008, and still no fix.
>
> Those bas...browsers show the alt text (in case of a missing image) only
> if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
> 1) The dimensions of the image have been specified in HTML attributes or
> in CSS.
> 2) The alt text fits on one line within those dimensions.
--
dorayme
> Under Subject Re: Horizontal tabs (was Re: Table cell width)
> 2012-01-13 10:45, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> > 2012-01-12 23:14, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
> >>> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
> >>> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
> >>
> >> My iCab and Chrome as well as Safari just show a broken icon.
> >
> > Oh my. So Chrome is seriously broken, too. And if I change its settings
> > by telling it not to show any images, it draws an empty bordered
> > rectangle corresponding to each image, without any alt text.
> >
> > Please tell me this is a bad dream.
>
I thought your above was a rhetorical question, the issue has annoyed
> 2012-01-13 10:45, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> > 2012-01-12 23:14, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm shocked. Yes, I can see that on my Safari (on Win 7), too. That's
> >>> worse than what early IE versions did: they showed an icon of a broken
> >>> image _and_ the alt text (in a tiny font).
> >>
> >> My iCab and Chrome as well as Safari just show a broken icon.
> >
> > Oh my. So Chrome is seriously broken, too. And if I change its settings
> > by telling it not to show any images, it draws an empty bordered
> > rectangle corresponding to each image, without any alt text.
> >
> > Please tell me this is a bad dream.
>
me for years! And years ago I did offer a URL test page ( I think on
alt.html) here for these or similar matters. I think it was more than
anyone really wanted to know about at the time.
But I will update it a little now to include factors you have
discovered that affect matters (below). And move it to a more
convenient server.
> Sorry, myself, it isn't. Instead, it is a longstanding bug in
> WebKit-based browsers, see e.g.
> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=773
> It was reported in 2008, and still no fix.
>
> Those bas...browsers show the alt text (in case of a missing image) only
> if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
> 1) The dimensions of the image have been specified in HTML attributes or
> in CSS.
> 2) The alt text fits on one line within those dimensions.
--
dorayme
Jan 27, 2012, 9:06:16 PM1/27/12
to
In article <dorayme-71194A...@news.albasani.net>,
If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
> > ... longstanding bug in
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <jfqolj$fd6$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
...
> In article <jfqolj$fd6$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh my. So Chrome is seriously broken, too. And if I change its settings
> > > by telling it not to show any images, it draws an empty bordered
> > > rectangle corresponding to each image, without any alt text.
> > >
> >
>
> ... years ago I did offer a URL test page ...
> > > Oh my. So Chrome is seriously broken, too. And if I change its settings
> > > by telling it not to show any images, it draws an empty bordered
> > > rectangle corresponding to each image, without any alt text.
> > >
> >
>
>
> But I will update it a little now to include factors you have
> discovered that affect matters (below). And move it to a more
> convenient server.
>
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt_text/>
> But I will update it a little now to include factors you have
> discovered that affect matters (below). And move it to a more
> convenient server.
>
If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
> > ... longstanding bug in
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 28, 2012, 2:41:03 AM1/28/12
to
2012-01-28 4:06, dorayme wrote:
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt_text/>
>
> If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
<img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt_text/>
>
> If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
It would demonstrate that Chrome et al. fail to show the alt text even
if it would fit into the allocated dimensions just fine, if divided into
two lines.
<img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two
kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
This illustrates that they don’t divide the text even when there is a
line break in the alt attribute value. (I won’t argue about the question
whether they should do so by the specs; just that they actually don’t.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Jan 28, 2012, 7:13:14 AM1/28/12
to
In article <jg08qa$piu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> line break in the alt attribute value. (I wonšt argue about the question
> whether they should do so by the specs; just that they actually donšt.)
I added these two as best I could. Firefox seems the most
accommodating, it shows real respect for alternative text, not even
trying to squeeze it into the image dimensions but taking more
liberty. But, I am pleased to say, IE 7 and 8 and probably 9 do it
very nicely within the confines of the image dimensions, at least for
those with not unusually large text size and at least for shortish alt
text.
--
dorayme
> 2012-01-28 4:06, dorayme wrote:
>
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt_text/>
> >
> > If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
>
> <img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
>
> It would demonstrate that Chrome et al. fail to show the alt text even
> if it would fit into the allocated dimensions just fine, if divided into
> two lines.
>
> <img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two
> kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
>
> This illustrates that they donšt divide the text even when there is a
>
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt_text/>
> >
> > If anyone wants to add any other relevant test, please advise.
>
> <img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
>
> It would demonstrate that Chrome et al. fail to show the alt text even
> if it would fit into the allocated dimensions just fine, if divided into
> two lines.
>
> <img src="noSuchPic.jpg" alt="two
> kookaburras" width="100" height="82">
>
> line break in the alt attribute value. (I wonšt argue about the question
> whether they should do so by the specs; just that they actually donšt.)
I added these two as best I could. Firefox seems the most
accommodating, it shows real respect for alternative text, not even
trying to squeeze it into the image dimensions but taking more
liberty. But, I am pleased to say, IE 7 and 8 and probably 9 do it
very nicely within the confines of the image dimensions, at least for
those with not unusually large text size and at least for shortish alt
text.
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
Jan 28, 2012, 7:35:53 AM1/28/12
to
2012-01-28 14:13, dorayme wrote:
> But, I am pleased to say, IE 7 and 8 and probably 9 do it
> very nicely within the confines of the image dimensions,
Moreover, there is a setting (in the Advanced pane) in IE that tells it
> But, I am pleased to say, IE 7 and 8 and probably 9 do it
> very nicely within the confines of the image dimensions,
to "expand" alt texts, i.e. to show them in full even when they do not
fit inside the dimensions.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Neil Gould
Jan 28, 2012, 7:56:15 AM1/28/12
to
--
Neil
Hot-Text
Feb 2, 2012, 12:39:14 PM2/2/12
to
Jukka K. Korpela
You do know the Error is you,
not the Browsers...
For Chrome, Safari is a HTML..
if your Image is broken is look for title=,
not ALT=...
For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
is why we put them is the code for.
so that the Text Browser be able the know it a Image,
if your Image name is p135.gif, do not put that in your ALT,
But if it's a Dog, Put [Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog].
Add this Browser to you tool Box.......
< http://lynx.browser.org/ >
And always remember that Chrome,
Safari are not Fox and IE,
Who add the ALT to the browser,
So when you Run FF and IE in Text Mode,
you be able to know it's a Image...
Text Mode IE and FF ???
yes it have a auto Text mode build in...
Chrome and Safari do not have that why it can not read ALT,
Out only look for HTML tags like:
<img title="Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog (7K) GIF">"
It see no Text Mode tags like:
<img alt="Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog (7K) GIF">
You do I need alt for?
You need it for Text Browsers,
like User-agent Googol Robot, Bing Robot, or
some one like me,
who go to you website with a Text Browsers first,
to keep my XP save from micros.....
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
You do know the Error is you,
not the Browsers...
For Chrome, Safari is a HTML..
if your Image is broken is look for title=,
not ALT=...
For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
is why we put them is the code for.
so that the Text Browser be able the know it a Image,
if your Image name is p135.gif, do not put that in your ALT,
But if it's a Dog, Put [Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog].
Add this Browser to you tool Box.......
< http://lynx.browser.org/ >
And always remember that Chrome,
Safari are not Fox and IE,
Who add the ALT to the browser,
So when you Run FF and IE in Text Mode,
you be able to know it's a Image...
Text Mode IE and FF ???
yes it have a auto Text mode build in...
Chrome and Safari do not have that why it can not read ALT,
Out only look for HTML tags like:
<img title="Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog (7K) GIF">"
It see no Text Mode tags like:
<img alt="Image of a Red 2 year old Minpin Dog (7K) GIF">
You do I need alt for?
You need it for Text Browsers,
like User-agent Googol Robot, Bing Robot, or
some one like me,
who go to you website with a Text Browsers first,
to keep my XP save from micros.....
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Jukka K. Korpela
Feb 2, 2012, 1:31:45 PM2/2/12
to
2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting
> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Feb 2, 2012, 4:14:12 PM2/2/12
to
In article <jgekqf$aob$1...@dont-email.me>,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
If someone just reads the first sentence
"alt = text [CS]
For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets..."
they might get the wrong impression from the "cannot".
However it is made clearer in the following text that this includes
where the browser does not in fact display an image. It mentions
"those who have configured their graphical user agents not to display
images, etc." In the etc. I guess we can think of mistakes in
transmission, mistakes in typing or naming correctly the path or img
or img src.
In browser preferences or options, the existence of alt text could in
principle be controlled a bit. I think it can be a little in some
browsers. In FF, there is a setting in about: config.
browser. display. force_inline_alttext
to do with how text and icons are to be displayed:
Boolean
True: Force broken images'
alt text to be displayed inline
False (default): Show an icon
if rendering in Quirks Mode
and there is no alt text,
or if rendering in Quirks
Mode and the image has a
size specified.
JK, remember how you mentioned recently, this thread or one that it
replaced, about some browsers needing width and heights as a condition
for display of alt text? I note that in the above, FF touches on such
matters. Perhaps 'Chrome, Safari et al' have made fixed and
unfortunate decisions on this matter and there is no choice?
--
dorayme
> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>
> > For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say.
...
>
> > For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
If someone just reads the first sentence
"alt = text [CS]
For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets..."
they might get the wrong impression from the "cannot".
However it is made clearer in the following text that this includes
where the browser does not in fact display an image. It mentions
"those who have configured their graphical user agents not to display
images, etc." In the etc. I guess we can think of mistakes in
transmission, mistakes in typing or naming correctly the path or img
or img src.
In browser preferences or options, the existence of alt text could in
principle be controlled a bit. I think it can be a little in some
browsers. In FF, there is a setting in about: config.
browser. display. force_inline_alttext
to do with how text and icons are to be displayed:
Boolean
True: Force broken images'
alt text to be displayed inline
False (default): Show an icon
if rendering in Quirks Mode
and there is no alt text,
or if rendering in Quirks
Mode and the image has a
size specified.
JK, remember how you mentioned recently, this thread or one that it
replaced, about some browsers needing width and heights as a condition
for display of alt text? I note that in the above, FF touches on such
matters. Perhaps 'Chrome, Safari et al' have made fixed and
unfortunate decisions on this matter and there is no choice?
--
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Feb 2, 2012, 4:37:15 PM2/2/12
to
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>
>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting
> embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
Jukka, the person posting today as "Hot-Text" (though he has several
> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>
>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting
> embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
other nyms as well) uses a random word generator for creating posts.
Nearly all of what he says can be safely ignored.
Though it probably is a good idea to sometimes reply so newbies don't get
confused and think he wrote something worthwhile.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
Hot-Text
Feb 2, 2012, 11:23:55 PM2/2/12
to
\"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:jgevmb$b17$2...@dont-email.me...
For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
For HTML= Hypertext Markup Language,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Hypertext...
it tell a Text Browsers, not to look at <between>,
for it HTML and you can not read it....
For if some one would take a little more time in read my post,
they would have seen I said the same thing as:
< http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt >
<Title="13.8 How to specify alternate text">
And add a Title= to your Hypertext Markup Language Image,
so that it Show up the Image name in all Browsers,
When running Mouse over it........
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
uses a random word generator for creating posts..
Show us how all I know is HTML,
this is ALT.HTML= Alternate Language Text & Hypertext Markup Language
it to let you know you at a Texts Server, at a Group knows HTML
you need to Know that you maybe lost.......
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
For HTML= Hypertext Markup Language,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Hypertext...
it tell a Text Browsers, not to look at <between>,
for it HTML and you can not read it....
For if some one would take a little more time in read my post,
they would have seen I said the same thing as:
< http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt >
<Title="13.8 How to specify alternate text">
And add a Title= to your Hypertext Markup Language Image,
so that it Show up the Image name in all Browsers,
When running Mouse over it........
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
uses a random word generator for creating posts..
Show us how all I know is HTML,
this is ALT.HTML= Alternate Language Text & Hypertext Markup Language
it to let you know you at a Texts Server, at a Group knows HTML
you need to Know that you maybe lost.......
Hot-Text
Feb 3, 2012, 12:09:29 AM2/3/12
to
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:jgekqf$aob$1...@dont-email.me...
For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
For HTML= Hypertext Markup Language,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Hypertext...
It tell a Text Browsers, not to look at <or <between> or at>,
for it's HTML and that Browsers is unable to read it....
But if <ALT< is inside the HTML it's to read Between ="Open "Close>Only>...
Text Browsers not to show the <> just the Texts in Between "" or '' only..
For if some one would take a little more time in read my post,
they would have seen I said the same thing as:
< http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt >
<Title="13.8 How to specify alternate text">
And add a Title= to your Hypertext Markup Language Image,
so that it Show up the Image name in all Browsers,
When running Mouse over it........
Now for www.w3.org is a joke..
if I am able to make Codes that work in all Browsers,
and when check with w3.org said it not W3C Recommendation,
I tell you it my code and my ©,....
Houston #1 Minpins
I always #1 at Bing.com
I always #1 at Yahoo.com
I always on the First Page At #8 Google
it Not W3C Recommendation......
Nor is Google, Yahoo and Bing..
> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>
>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>
You do know that you Error agene,
>
>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>
> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>
For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
For HTML= Hypertext Markup Language,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Hypertext...
for it's HTML and that Browsers is unable to read it....
But if <ALT< is inside the HTML it's to read Between ="Open "Close>Only>...
Text Browsers not to show the <> just the Texts in Between "" or '' only..
For if some one would take a little more time in read my post,
they would have seen I said the same thing as:
< http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt >
<Title="13.8 How to specify alternate text">
And add a Title= to your Hypertext Markup Language Image,
so that it Show up the Image name in all Browsers,
When running Mouse over it........
if I am able to make Codes that work in all Browsers,
and when check with w3.org said it not W3C Recommendation,
I tell you it my code and my ©,....
Houston #1 Minpins
I always #1 at Bing.com
I always #1 at Yahoo.com
I always on the First Page At #8 Google
it Not W3C Recommendation......
Nor is Google, Yahoo and Bing..
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Feb 3, 2012, 9:01:07 AM2/3/12
to
Hot-Text generated:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>>>
>>>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>>>
>>> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting
>>> embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>
>> Jukka, the person posting today as "Hot-Text" (though he has several
>> other nyms as well) uses a random word generator for creating posts.
>> Nearly all of what he says can be safely ignored.
>>
>> Though it probably is a good idea to sometimes reply so newbies don't
>> get confused and think he wrote something worthwhile.
>
> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
> reading Texts,
Well, there is no point in going any further trying to translate your
randomly-generated words. Please come back when you decide to write in
plain English.
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2012-02-02 19:39, Hot-Text wrote:
>>>
>>>> For ALT is for Text Browsers only,
>>>
>>> Try checking what the specifications say. Stay tuned to getting
>>> embarrassed. For your convenience, here's a deep link:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>
>> Jukka, the person posting today as "Hot-Text" (though he has several
>> other nyms as well) uses a random word generator for creating posts.
>> Nearly all of what he says can be safely ignored.
>>
>> Though it probably is a good idea to sometimes reply so newbies don't
>> get confused and think he wrote something worthwhile.
>
> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
> reading Texts,
randomly-generated words. Please come back when you decide to write in
plain English.
Hot-Text
Feb 3, 2012, 11:57:28 AM2/3/12
to
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:jggpb3$r56$3...@dont-email.me...
If you unable to translate Plain H T M L,
it not the English Words, you are unable to translate,
But the Code that is in between the English Words,
For I write with code and English,
your need to get a translate code like:
For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
Not your translate..........
it not the English Words, you are unable to translate,
But the Code that is in between the English Words,
For I write with code and English,
your need to get a translate code like:
For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text,
is for Browsers to know that it reading Texts,
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Feb 3, 2012, 12:17:58 PM2/3/12
to
Hot-Text wrote:
> For I write with code and English,
No, you write with gibberish.
> For I write with code and English,
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 3, 2012, 1:38:30 PM2/3/12
to
Hot-Text wrote:
>
>
> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
> reading Texts,
No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>
>
> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
> reading Texts,
See:
13.8 How to specify alternate text
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
>
> Not your translate..........
"Not your translate"?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Hot-Text
Feb 3, 2012, 3:31:39 PM2/3/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgh9is$8hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>
Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
For there is Language Code marker,
in HTML to tell the Browsers to Alternate Code Language,
Browsers Alternate Code Language to
<?PHP ?>
Browsers Alternate Code Language back to Text
For <> is Start and End,
^^^^
Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
But this it is: < > or < >
>
>>
>> Not your translate..........
>
> "Not your translate"?
>
>
Here same CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
BBS: Be back soon
BBT: Be back tomorrow
BIB: Boss is back
CM: Call me
CYE: Check your email
DIKU: Do I know you?
F2F: Face to face
HB: Hurry back
JFF: Just for fun
KOTC: Kiss on the cheek
OMG: Oh my God!
OOTO: Out of the office
PSOS: Parents standing over shoulder
PU: That stinks!
SLAP: Sounds like a plan
TMB: Text me back
UGTBK: You’ve got to be kidding
NYTL: Not your translator
CYTLT: Can you translate that
But CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
DO you know the Common Text Abbreviations for HTML?
I done the first one for you
ALT: Alternate Language Text
TD:
TR:
IMG:
A:
BR:
A your translator look for words not Abbreviations.....
> Hot-Text wrote:
>>
>>
>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>> reading Texts,
>
> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>
> See:
>
> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>
> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
for alt is a CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
>>
>>
>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>> reading Texts,
>
> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>
> See:
>
> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>
> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
>
Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
For there is Language Code marker,
in HTML to tell the Browsers to Alternate Code Language,
Browsers Alternate Code Language to
<?PHP ?>
Browsers Alternate Code Language back to Text
For <> is Start and End,
^^^^
Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
But this it is: < > or < >
>
>>
>> Not your translate..........
>
> "Not your translate"?
>
>
BBS: Be back soon
BBT: Be back tomorrow
BIB: Boss is back
CM: Call me
CYE: Check your email
DIKU: Do I know you?
F2F: Face to face
HB: Hurry back
JFF: Just for fun
KOTC: Kiss on the cheek
OMG: Oh my God!
OOTO: Out of the office
PSOS: Parents standing over shoulder
PU: That stinks!
SLAP: Sounds like a plan
TMB: Text me back
UGTBK: You’ve got to be kidding
NYTL: Not your translator
CYTLT: Can you translate that
But CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
DO you know the Common Text Abbreviations for HTML?
I done the first one for you
ALT: Alternate Language Text
TD:
TR:
IMG:
A:
BR:
A your translator look for words not Abbreviations.....
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 3, 2012, 4:08:31 PM2/3/12
to
Hot-Text wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgh9is$8hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>>> reading Texts,
>>
>> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>>
>> See:
>>
>> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>>
>> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
> for alt is a CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
>>
>
> Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
> Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
> and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
Huh? not it is just an attribute name, like SRC, WIDTH, HEIGHT, ID....
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgh9is$8hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>>> reading Texts,
>>
>> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>>
>> See:
>>
>> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>>
>> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
> for alt is a CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
>>
>
> Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
> Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
> and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
>
> For there is Language Code marker,
> in HTML to tell the Browsers to Alternate Code Language,
>
> Browsers Alternate Code Language to
> <?PHP ?>
> Browsers Alternate Code Language back to Text
not configured properly
>
> For <> is Start and End,
> ^^^^
> Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
> But this it is: < > or < >
>
>>
>>>
>>> Not your translate..........
>>
>> "Not your translate"?
Not a coherent sentence make
initialism for "Alternate Language Text" just a attribute name to assign
the IMG's alternate text value. Just as SRC attribute is not some
bizarre initialism such as "Sounds Really Crazy" but the name of the
attribute to assign the source for the image data.
dorayme
Feb 3, 2012, 5:26:28 PM2/3/12
to
In article <jghic1$u1i$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hot-Text wrote:
...
> Huh?
Why on earth are you bothering? I know, I know, it is probably raining
over there like it has been here for days on end. <g>
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hot-Text wrote:
...
> Huh?
Why on earth are you bothering? I know, I know, it is probably raining
over there like it has been here for days on end. <g>
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 3, 2012, 6:22:38 PM2/3/12
to
Hot-Text
Feb 3, 2012, 6:49:45 PM2/3/12
to
"dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:dorayme-AD4481...@news.albasani.net...
All you need to Know it this:
< http://www.vordweb.co.uk/standards/lynx_text_browser.htm >
And dorayme
We all Know it's the First 3 letter of the word ALTernate Language Text,
it the last 2 words is all that you all see..
and miss the ALT= in Alternate....
< http://www.vordweb.co.uk/standards/lynx_text_browser.htm >
And dorayme
We all Know it's the First 3 letter of the word ALTernate Language Text,
it the last 2 words is all that you all see..
and miss the ALT= in Alternate....
Hot-Text
Feb 4, 2012, 2:57:26 AM2/4/12
to
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:jgh4s6$a4p$1...@dont-email.me...
I write in Plain American English,
And see that your translator do not have
entiendo nor have comprensión of the American English..
nada nada nada your translator do not translate American English..
you would thank there would be some one here that can help you out!
< http://hot-text.ath.cx:81/gibberish.png >
you see this True?
Now you seen Plain American English,
For the American people do not spoken
or written language perceived as unintelligible or devoid of sense
As you call nonsense...
a Potato is a American English word,
we American Rubbish thou a Potato Patch,
Look forward to eating them every summer..
see the world know and had learn a Native American word call Potato..
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker >
> Hot-Text wrote:
>
>> For I write with code and English,
>
> No, you write with gibberish.
>
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
>
>> For I write with code and English,
>
> No, you write with gibberish.
>
I write in Plain American English,
And see that your translator do not have
entiendo nor have comprensión of the American English..
nada nada nada your translator do not translate American English..
you would thank there would be some one here that can help you out!
< http://hot-text.ath.cx:81/gibberish.png >
you see this True?
Now you seen Plain American English,
For the American people do not spoken
or written language perceived as unintelligible or devoid of sense
As you call nonsense...
a Potato is a American English word,
we American Rubbish thou a Potato Patch,
Look forward to eating them every summer..
see the world know and had learn a Native American word call Potato..
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker >
dorayme
Feb 4, 2012, 4:02:38 AM2/4/12
to
In article <4f2ce57b$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
Hardly. But what might be true is that
You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"Either" "either", "neither" "neither"
Let's call the whole thing off
You say "potato," I say "patattah"
You say "tomato", I say "creole tomata"
Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart
So, I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
I'm not gonna stop eatin' urstas just cause you say oyster,
Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, I say "pajamas", you say "pajamas"
Sugar, what's the problem?
Oh, for we know we need each other so
We'd better call the calling off off
So let's call it off, oh let's call it off
Oh, let's call it off, baby let's call it off
Sugar why don't we call it off,
I'm talking baby why call it off
Call it off¡?
Let's call the whole thing off
Talking tomatoes, - pronounced tomatoes here rather than tomatoes or
tomatoes, there is one cherry tomato plant in the garden out the back
here that is producing about a dozen every day for the last week. Very
nice. Never had any luck with potatoes, they get this blight. Cherry
tomatoes, a wilder variety, are not so prone to the fruit fly.
--
dorayme
Hardly. But what might be true is that
You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"Either" "either", "neither" "neither"
Let's call the whole thing off
You say "potato," I say "patattah"
You say "tomato", I say "creole tomata"
Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart
So, I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
I'm not gonna stop eatin' urstas just cause you say oyster,
Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, I say "pajamas", you say "pajamas"
Sugar, what's the problem?
Oh, for we know we need each other so
We'd better call the calling off off
So let's call it off, oh let's call it off
Oh, let's call it off, baby let's call it off
Sugar why don't we call it off,
I'm talking baby why call it off
Call it off¡?
Let's call the whole thing off
Talking tomatoes, - pronounced tomatoes here rather than tomatoes or
tomatoes, there is one cherry tomato plant in the garden out the back
here that is producing about a dozen every day for the last week. Very
nice. Never had any luck with potatoes, they get this blight. Cherry
tomatoes, a wilder variety, are not so prone to the fruit fly.
--
dorayme
Hot-Text
Feb 4, 2012, 4:11:26 AM2/4/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jghic1$u1i$1...@dont-email.me...
and are abbreviation for a word..
SRC= Source Code
ID= Identifier
But if I put that ID= is to Identifier Data is a code,
Would you be able to know that it's not
The abbreviation for Identifier Data?
>>
>> For there is Language Code marker,
>> in HTML to tell the Browsers to Alternate Code Language,
>>
>> Browsers Alternate Code Language to
>> <?PHP ?>
>> Browsers Alternate Code Language back to Text
>
> Nope. The browser NEVER sees the "<?PHP ?>". If it does your server is not configured properly
I said: For <> is Start and End,
or Lesser< Greater>
For "Start?PHP ?End". <Code here>
And you are right on The browser NEVER sees the "<>".
If it does it's your server is not configured properly
or it's a *.txt file your browser see..
>
>>
>> For <> is Start and End,
>> ^^^^
>> Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
>> But this it is: < > or < >
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not your translate..........
>>>
>>> "Not your translate"?
>
> adverb pronoun verb
>
> Not a coherent sentence make
>
True
that was just the point that
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
made in his on words..
it not your translator,
but the translate of it..
But you are Right,
look at it this way: Alternate= ALT Language Text,
it the first 3 letter that is the abbreviations of Alternate,
not a abbreviations of Alternate Language Text...
So you have Error,
at the start of my post's....
TD= Table Data
TR= Table Row
IMG= Image
not IMG= Disk Image
but can be in SRC=door_opener.img
now that can be some Hot-Text..
> Hot-Text wrote:
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgh9is$8hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>>>> reading Texts,
>>>
>>> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>>>
>>> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
>> for alt is a CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
>>>
>>
>> Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
>> Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
>> and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
>
> Huh? not it is just an attribute name, like SRC, WIDTH, HEIGHT, ID....
>
You a 100% right..
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgh9is$8hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For it's ALT= Alternate Language Text, is for Browsers to know that it
>>>> reading Texts,
>>>
>>> No. ALT is the HTML attribute for "alternate text"
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> 13.8 How to specify alternate text
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>
>>>
>>> There is no reference to "Alternate Language Text"
>> for alt is a CTA: Common Text Abbreviations
>>>
>>
>> Plain Text is a code when it's imbedded in HTM Language code and,
>> Browsers need to know when to Alternate Language to Text,
>> and Alternate back to HTM Language Code..
>
> Huh? not it is just an attribute name, like SRC, WIDTH, HEIGHT, ID....
>
and are abbreviation for a word..
SRC= Source Code
ID= Identifier
But if I put that ID= is to Identifier Data is a code,
Would you be able to know that it's not
The abbreviation for Identifier Data?
>>
>> For there is Language Code marker,
>> in HTML to tell the Browsers to Alternate Code Language,
>>
>> Browsers Alternate Code Language to
>> <?PHP ?>
>> Browsers Alternate Code Language back to Text
>
> Nope. The browser NEVER sees the "<?PHP ?>". If it does your server is not configured properly
Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
But this it is:
Lesser< Greater>
But this it is:
or Lesser< Greater>
For "Start?PHP ?End". <Code here>
And you are right on The browser NEVER sees the "<>".
If it does it's your server is not configured properly
or it's a *.txt file your browser see..
>
>>
>> For <> is Start and End,
>> ^^^^
>> Not Lesser Then < or > Not Greater then,
>> But this it is: < > or < >
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not your translate..........
>>>
>>> "Not your translate"?
>
> adverb pronoun verb
>
> Not a coherent sentence make
>
that was just the point that
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
made in his on words..
it not your translator,
but the translate of it..
look at it this way: Alternate= ALT Language Text,
it the first 3 letter that is the abbreviations of Alternate,
not a abbreviations of Alternate Language Text...
So you have Error,
at the start of my post's....
TD= Table Data
TR= Table Row
IMG= Image
not IMG= Disk Image
but can be in SRC=door_opener.img
now that can be some Hot-Text..
Hot-Text
Feb 5, 2012, 3:04:18 AM2/5/12
to
"dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:dorayme-499A73...@news.albasani.net...
LOOL dorayme I believe your sing is 100% rigth.
American Cherry tomatoes home grown not made win the day.....
For Ketchup is the Chinese word for Tomato Salsa,(PASTA DE TOMATE)
That go good on a thinly sliced of backed English Ham...
American Cherry tomatoes home grown not made win the day.....
For Ketchup is the Chinese word for Tomato Salsa,(PASTA DE TOMATE)
That go good on a thinly sliced of backed English Ham...
0 new messages