From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Dec 05 13:21:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 5 Dec 2001 21:21:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 94473 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 21:21:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2001 21:21:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 21:21:55 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fB5LLs612472 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:21:50 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16BjT9-0000GC-00 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:20:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:20:43 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! Message-ID: <20011205162043.C773@twcny.rr.com> References: <20011205193125.GC28699@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011205193125.GC28699@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:31:25AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Everyone, please take a look at http://www.digitalkingdom.org:8080/ > > I've stolen a bunch of ideas from the Lojban Portal, and some from Jay's > site as well. I should have read this message before sending my earlier reply. (I hope I sent that to the list, and not to Jay or whoever's message I hit "reply" on.) > One thing: some browsers have margin problems (such as the list items > being mushed into the left hand menu). These will not be fixed, because > they are your browser's fault; it is non-conformant to the CSS standard > in stupid ways (notably Mozilla and Netscape 4.*). I have made the > pages work as well as I can with 6 different browsers (Mozilla, Netscape > 4, IE, Opera, lynx and w3m; all on Windows except the last two). I > assure you, anything that I do to make it look better for you will > completely break things in at least one other browser. The margins are all set to 1% or 2%, which comes out to a pixel or two. Given that, I'd say Mozilla is showing them right. What browser is broken by setting these to a reasonable value? Do all browsers show a blue box around the images? I'm fairly sure that's the default unless border=0 is set. > If such issues are really annoying you, please send in a bug report for > the browser in question. There are still people who use Netscape 4. I fear that in your quest for correctness you might have to create practically a different page for Netscape 4. In one of my versions of the page, I made all the font sizes relative to whatever the standard font was, so that the page would adjust accordingly for people who preferred large fonts or small fonts. Unfortunately, Netscape 4 decided to apply those percentages *recursively*, resulting in some shockingly large text. So I went back to absolute sizes (as in "small" and "medium") as a compromise. The idea of "Best Viewed in Any Browser" even includes browsers which are gigantic screw-ups. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri