snak detek+0r wrote:
> Well, of course it works, so I must say you're a total genius. :)
Geniuses sure come cheap these days ;-)
> Lastly, how did you decide on the values you used -- 890 & 910 ? I
> know I was aiming for a width of 900, but do you have a tool that
> will calculate widths for you? Or were you doing it in your head?
I never trust any tools and _never_ my head, so I tested what the
browsers could take and how they reacted on it.
IE6 complains when given values below 910, while others were ok with as
low as 890.
So ... I gave each of them the lowest they could take, after comparing
with your self-shrinking original.
IE6 probably has a white-space problem, but I didn't bother to look further.
>> BTW: I think you should write proper HTML comments, if only to
>> avoid those cascading error-messages...
>>
>
> Good idea! I know that dreamweaver has been complaining, but now that
> I've heard it from a human, I've gone and read about it. I'll start
> making my lines out of =====.
That's what HTML Tidy turned them into at my end.
I don't decorate my source-code with comments, so Tidy rarely ever get a
chance to correct them.
> My sincerest thanks for helping me both with my layout AND my coding
> style! And, btw, that's a healthy looking cow you've got there. Wish
> we had more like that in this country!
Me too.
You get what you ask for in this market-oriented world, so maybe you're
not asking for the right thing in your country..?
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
