Tijnema ! wrote:
[snip]
Should you create a header that is 1600 width, and resize it down
until 800 when a user with 800x600 visits? and all images used at
borders and corners? That's the biggest problem in dynamic layouts.
Atm, i repeat small images around the borders, but that's a real pain
in
Tijnema ! wrote:
I guess the same can be done with ... But the main problem is
that there's no real standard for resolution. I see people having
resolution set at 800x600, and 1600x200, how is it ever possible to
make a page look good at both? Resizing it to 1600x1200 would give you
an enormous p
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/27/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 3:44 PM +0200 4/27/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >Never knew anything of ems, i use % for al dynamic stuff. Is there any
> > >diference between those 2?
> >
> > Google "em css":
> >
> >
On 4/27/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 3:44 PM +0200 4/27/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>>
>
>Never knew anything of ems, i use % for al dynamic stuff. Is there any
>diference between those 2?
Google "em css":
http://htmlhelp.com/reference/css/units.html
Lot's of stuff there -- just another way
On 4/27/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11:56 AM +0200 4/27/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>I guess the same can be done with ... But the main problem is
>that there's no real standard for resolution. I see people having
>resolution set at 800x600, and 1600x200, how is it ever possible to
>make a pa
At 11:56 AM +0200 4/27/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
I guess the same can be done with ... But the main problem is
that there's no real standard for resolution. I see people having
resolution set at 800x600, and 1600x200, how is it ever possible to
make a page look good at both? Resizing it to 1600x1200 w
Tijnema ! wrote:
I guess the same can be done with ... But the main problem is
that there's no real standard for resolution. I see people having
resolution set at 800x600, and 1600x200, how is it ever possible to
make a page look good at both? Resizing it to 1600x1200 would give you
an enormous p
On 4/27/07, Justin Frim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Edward Vermillion wrote:
> So you're saying that if I "maximize" my browser window, all the
> sites that you made with tables will "actually look good", at 1680 x
> 1050, because they are stretchy-pages?
>
> Honestly, I have no clue as to why so
Edward Vermillion wrote:
So you're saying that if I "maximize" my browser window, all the
sites that you made with tables will "actually look good", at 1680 x
1050, because they are stretchy-pages?
Honestly, I have no clue as to why some folks think that a "stretchy"/
liquid/dynamic layout
On Thursday 26 April 2007 20:24, Justin Frim wrote:
> tedd wrote:
> > At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >> It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
> >> You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0
> >> Strict.
> >
> > Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" t
On Thursday 26 April 2007 20:34, tedd wrote:
> At 8:00 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>So we're talking around 2012? Hell, I'll be retired by then!!! ;)
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Rob.
> >
> >You maybe, but not everyone (like me :P)
> >
> >
2007. 04. 26, csütörtök keltezéssel 15.33-kor Robert Cummings ezt írta:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:26 +0100, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >
> > > > Laws, there are laws of course, but ignoring some laws doesn't mean
> > > > you get caught by the cops :)
> > >
> > > It also doesn't mean you don't get caught ;
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:26 +0100, Tijnema ! wrote:
>
> > > Laws, there are laws of course, but ignoring some laws doesn't mean
> > > you get caught by the cops :)
> >
> > It also doesn't mean you don't get caught ;)
>
> I can't really make a comment about it on this list, but you probably
> know
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 21:02 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:49 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > > On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tedd,
> > > >
> > > > If you still have those old un
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 21:02 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:49 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > > On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, I heard the Netherlands was really loose with their laws on this
kind of thing ;-P
Yeah, the cops are walking on the street :) not surfing on the web,...
Tijnema
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Th
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:49 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tedd,
> >
> > If you still have those old underwear, we should stick 'em up Tijnema's
> > nose! :-D
>
> Hmm, if you com
Yeah, I heard the Netherlands was really loose with their laws on this
kind of thing ;-P
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:49 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tedd,
> >
> > If you s
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:49 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tedd,
> >
> > If you still have those old underwear, we should stick 'em up Tijnema's
> > nose! :-D
>
> Hmm, if you come over to the netherlands to do that :)
>
> Just tell m
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tedd,
If you still have those old underwear, we should stick 'em up Tijnema's
nose! :-D
Hmm, if you come over to the netherlands to do that :)
Just tell me when you arrive at Schiphol (Or Groningen Airport Eelde,
lil bit closer), a
Tedd,
If you still have those old underwear, we should stick 'em up Tijnema's
nose! :-D
On 4/26/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, smartass, I was going to pay you a compliment and say that
you're
> well-versed and
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, smartass, I was going to pay you a compliment and say that you're
well-versed and have a good handle on programming for someone your age
but now, forget it! ;-P
What does one person more or less matter if there are already 100
Well, smartass, I was going to pay you a compliment and say that you're
well-versed and have a good handle on programming for someone your age
but now, forget it! ;-P
On 4/26/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're 15
On 4/26/07, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're 15 years old Tij?
Wow, you were good at math right?
Tijnema
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:00 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>So we're talki
You're 15 years old Tij?
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:00 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So we're talking around 2012? Hell, I'll be retired by then!!! ;)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Rob.
>
>You maybe, but not everyone (li
At 8:00 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So we're talking around 2012? Hell, I'll be retired by then!!! ;)
Cheers,
Rob.
You maybe, but not everyone (like me :P)
I would love to, but well, i guess i can't stop when i'm 20 years old :)
On 4/26/07, Justin Frim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tedd wrote:
> At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>
>> It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
>> You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0
>> Strict.
>
>
> Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" to my ">"
At 1:57 PM -0400 4/26/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
> Besides, when HTML 4.01 finally does, someone will make a parser that
will fix everything.
And someone will probably make a good screen reader by then too
necessarily reducing the need for table
tedd wrote:
At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0
Strict.
Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" to my ">" in all my
code in all my sites. Literally millions of new "/"
On 4/26/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 19:17 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 5:26 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > >On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 19:17 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 5:26 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > >On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > >>>It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
> > >>>You'
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 5:26 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
> >>>It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
> >>>You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 5:26 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>>>It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
>>>You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0 Strict.
At 5:26 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" t
At 5:08 PM +0200 4/26/07, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2007. 04. 26, csütörtök keltezéssel 11.00-kor tedd ezt írta:
At 5:37 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
>Ted: FF 2.0.0.3 is what I used to examine your html code. It looks
>the same with IE7.
It's "tedd" not "Tedd"
I don't know for sure, but I do
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
>You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" to my ">" in all my
code in all my sites. Lit
At 5:06 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
It's not XHTML 1.0 Strict valid .. :P
You're page is HTML 4.01 valid, i think you should make it XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Ar. Then I would have to add all those "/" to my ">" in all my
code in all my sites. Literally millions of new "/" would have to be
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 4:54 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
>On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Also, which older browsers have problems with it?
>>I've been using "" in sites for many years
>>and never had any problem with it whatsoever.
>>Also, every browse
At 4:54 PM +0200 4/26/07, Tijnema ! wrote:
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, which older browsers have problems with it?
I've been using "" in sites for many years
and never had any problem with it whatsoever.
Also, every browser that BrowserCam provides has
not demonstrated any
2007. 04. 26, csütörtök keltezéssel 11.00-kor tedd ezt írta:
> At 5:37 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
> >Ted: FF 2.0.0.3 is what I used to examine your html code. It looks
> >the same with IE7.
>
>
> It's "tedd" not "Tedd"
>
> I don't know for sure, but I don't think IE 7 has the option to "View
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 5:37 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
>Ted: FF 2.0.0.3 is what I used to examine your html code. It looks
>the same with IE7.
It's "tedd" not "Tedd"
I don't know for sure, but I don't think IE 7 has the option to "View
Generated Source" -- however, F
At 5:37 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
Ted: FF 2.0.0.3 is what I used to examine your html code. It looks
the same with IE7.
It's "tedd" not "Tedd"
I don't know for sure, but I don't think IE 7 has the option to "View
Generated Source" -- however, FF does, so try it after you click
"Speak Ke
On 4/26/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 5:05 PM -0400 4/25/07, Lori Lay wrote:
>Zoltán Németh wrote:
>>
>>>Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
>>>
>>
>>can you tell me why is an error
>>
>>greets
>>Zoltán Németh
>>
>>
> is xhtml. It's not an error in xhtml, but
>might confuse olde
At 5:05 PM -0400 4/25/07, Lori Lay wrote:
Zoltán Németh wrote:
Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
can you tell me why is an error
greets
Zoltán Németh
is xhtml. It's not an error in xhtml, but
might confuse older browsers. I tried it, even
with a strict HTML 4.01 doctype an
On 4/26/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, April 25, 2007 3:29 pm, Zoltán Németh wrote:
> 2007. 04. 25, szerda keltezÃ(c)ssel 14.35-kor Al ezt Ãrta:
>> Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html
>> source code.
>>
>> Looks more like you are using DIV tag
On Wed, April 25, 2007 3:29 pm, Zoltán Németh wrote:
> 2007. 04. 25, szerda keltezéssel 14.35-kor Al ezt Ãrta:
>> Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html
>> source code.
>>
>> Looks more like you are using DIV tags, with simple POST values,
>> just like I'd have done it
Ted: FF 2.0.0.3 is what I used to examine your html code. It looks the same
with IE7.
The nifty FF add-on TotalValidator is what I used to validate your html code.
tedd wrote:
At 2:35 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html
source code.
tedd wrote:
At 2:35 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
Really -- why don't you tell the w3c about that?
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_br.asp
Actually your example here is wrong. It is unfortunate how they have
written this explanation. In xhtml is qui
2007. 04. 25, szerda keltezéssel 17.05-kor Lori Lay ezt írta:
> Zoltán Németh wrote:
> >
> >> Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
> >>
> >
> > can you tell me why is an error
> >
> > greets
> > Zoltán Németh
> >
> >
> >
> is xhtml. It's not an error in xhtml, but might confuse old
Zoltán Németh wrote:
Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
can you tell me why is an error
greets
Zoltán Németh
is xhtml. It's not an error in xhtml, but might confuse older
browsers. I tried it, even with a strict HTML 4.01 doctype and didn't
get any errors, but who kno
At 2:35 PM -0400 4/25/07, Al wrote:
Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html
source code.
If you used a browser that could see generated html (like FireFox),
then you will see it -- try it. It's good to know about tools like
that.
Looks more like you are using DIV
2007. 04. 25, szerda keltezéssel 14.35-kor Al ezt írta:
> Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html source
> code.
>
> Looks more like you are using DIV tags, with simple POST values, just like
> I'd have done it.
>
> Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
can you tell
Very clever use of iFrame. So clever it doesn't show in your html source code.
Looks more like you are using DIV tags, with simple POST values, just like I'd
have done it.
Incidentally, "" is an error for html.
tedd wrote:
At 11:12 AM -0400 4/24/07, Al wrote:
Provide an example of an iFrame
I stand corrected by pros.
One should always double check their memory before posting, even when in a
hurry.
Al wrote:
iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if IE7
does.
Use css tags instead.
Hans wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to post variables to a parent frame
Sorry about that guys. I just fixed it.
Stut wrote:
FYI: Every time I reply to you I get a bounce back saying your email
address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) does not exist. It's starting to get annoying.
-Stut
Stut wrote:
Al wrote:
Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browser
At 11:12 AM -0400 4/24/07, Al wrote:
Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern
browsers and that can't be done with DIVs or OBJECTS
Al:
Okay, try this:
http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/
I use iframe to deliver the sound without a refresh via ajax.
Show me how you can
Richard Lynch wrote:
Maybe he's thinking FRAMESET???
My comment would still stand. Frames are not obsolete, and there are
(very few) legitimate uses for them.
-Stut
On Tue, April 24, 2007 9:39 am, Stut wrote:
Al wrote:
iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if
Maybe he's thinking FRAMESET???
On Tue, April 24, 2007 9:39 am, Stut wrote:
> Al wrote:
>> iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if
>> IE7
>> does.
>
> Well that's just a complete load of rubbish. The iframe tag is not
> obsolete, and I don't know where you got the idea
I'll jump in on this one, because I've dealt with the div/object/iframe
frustration before.
And I would not be very happy if the W3C decided to deprecate iFrames
right now, at least with the current state of the world's browsers.
I found that with I didn't have very much control over the
bord
2007. 04. 24, kedd keltezéssel 16.25-kor Stut ezt írta:
> FYI: Every time I reply to you I get a bounce back saying your email
> address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) does not exist. It's starting to get annoying.
Al, that also happens for me. I just didn't mention it yet, because I
thought if it happens o
FYI: Every time I reply to you I get a bounce back saying your email
address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) does not exist. It's starting to get annoying.
-Stut
Stut wrote:
Al wrote:
Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browsers
and that can't be done with DIVs or OBJECTS
I did
check out FCKeditor for example.
http://www.fckeditor.net/demo
I included it in various CMS systems and I find it a great tool.
And it uses iframe
greets
Zoltán Németh
2007. 04. 24, kedd keltezéssel 11.12-kor Al ezt írta:
> Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browsers an
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 11:12 -0400, Al wrote:
> Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browsers and
> that can't be done with DIVs or OBJECTS
That doesn't imply obsoletion, rather it implies lack of implementation
or improper implementation.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
.---
Al wrote:
Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browsers
and that can't be done with DIVs or OBJECTS
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was different. Take Google
Ads for example. These are currently served in an iframe. To do it in a
div is possible but leads
Provide an example of an iFrame that will work on all modern browsers and that
can't be done with DIVs or OBJECTS
Stut wrote:
Al wrote:
iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if
IE7 does.
Well that's just a complete load of rubbish. The iframe tag is not
obsolete,
Al wrote:
iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if IE7
does.
Well that's just a complete load of rubbish. The iframe tag is not
obsolete, and I don't know where you got the idea that they are. Several
legitimate uses for iframes exist, and they're unlikely to go aw
iFrames are obsolete and only IE handles them. I don't even know if IE7 does.
Use css tags instead.
Hans wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to post variables to a parent frame, I'm working from a page that
is in an iFrame. However, I don't know how to accomplish this. I tried
target='top' to includ
67 matches
Mail list logo
