Stas Bekman wrote: > > allan wrote: > > > but that was not what i meant in my mail. i meant, change this: > > > > > > text text ... text > > > > top-widget (or any widget) > > > > text text ... text > > > > > > to: > > > > text text ... text > > > > > > top-widget (or any widget) > > > > > > text text ... text > > > > > > more vertical whitespace. it will increase the chances of a > > vertical scrollbar but will be a hell of a lot easier and > > cleaner to read. > > even when we now use the image? See for example: > > http://domm.zsi.at/modperl-site-domm/docs/2.0/devel/testing/testing.html#Batch_Mode
eh, i dont get you. what image? are we not talking about the image with an arrow and the word "top"? that image has been used for some time mow, right? that is the image i am refering to. i simply want more pixels (not a lot perhaps 10-15) *above _and_ below* this image. if you look at http://www.apache.org/~stas/preview/allan_24_1/docs/2.0/devel/testing/testing.html#Batch_Mode, you can see what i am agitating for ;-) > >>>>3) (cvs-version) > >>>>the menu (box-type) looks bad in ns4.7 - and i think thomas > >>>>you agree that this is just not fixable without the use of > >>>>tables (see al-version) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I agree. That's why I dumped the boxes in the domm-version > >>> > >>+1 please send me patches, preferably gradually. so we fix a piece at a > >>time. But a few together is fine too. > >> > > > > regarding menu. > > i prefer the boxed verion, but either we ignore ns4+ in the > > sense that it will look bad, but not exactly unsuable, or we > > use a html-table as in my version. i dont vote for bullets > > or arrows or a unboxed version of the menu. > > it looks the same in mozilla and ns4-79 on linux, but yes, the menu has > lost some of its appeal without a border. I guess the previous versions > were somewhat better, so we couldn't figure out how to resolve the buggy > browsers problems without using tables. So shell we use a table here? +1 for using a table here. (see possible hmtl-code at: http://www.apache.org/~stas/preview/allan_24_1/) > > well, as far as i understand the use of ems is _basically_, > > please correct me someome if i wrong here: > > > > browser-config: whatver font, 10pt. > > style.css: whatvever font 1.5em => 15pt. > > > > browser-config: whatever font, 15pt. > > style.css: whatvever font 2.0em => 30pt. > > > > "am em is the actual height of the element's font as > > rendered on a given display device" > > (from the flamingo book) > > > > so, for instance, if we have a specfic nested <p>-tag in a <div>-tag: > > > > div {10t} > > p {2.0em} => 20pt because > > I guess the question is whether the majority of the browsers will do the > right thing. they will certainly not do the _same_ thing, but taking everything (userbility, cross-browser issues) into acount i personally think they almost always will do the right thing for us. > > the only problem i see with using relative sizes is that if > > someone browser confic, has, say a default-font-size set to > > 56pt it will look quite bad. > > well, the fonts will look beautiful, but the design/boxes > > will look bad :-) > > this is extreme cases so i dont think we need worry. > > but then users can adjust their settings no? yes, and we dont mind that users can adjust their settings, do we? using font size="+1" gives more or less the same result as using {font-size:1.2em}. with ems you can fine tune more, and that - combinbed with the fact that a user with damaged vision can increase our text-size - i like. > I don't think we try to > deviate from the sites with similar content (info). Are we? what do you mean by this, i dont understand ?? > So check the new way the [SRC][PDF] is presented (no icons at all) > (though the [PDF] link doesn't appear, but imagine that it does). Do you > like it better? The problem I had with the src-icon is that it wasn't > clear that it was a source (no problem with the PDF icon). i think i prefer the icons being there. especially the pdf icon is so well known and most people know by intuition that when they meet this icon on a website it automatically means that here is something that can be downloaded. _if_ we go for the soloution that incorperates these icons i _also_ suggest we use a non-underlined link for the two words "pdf" and "src", again because espceially the pdf-icon is so well-knowm so the user automatically knows that this section is downloadable. > >>>>- use tabs for indention > >>>> > >>-1, it doesn't work in reality because people use different lengths of > >>tabs and they don't always use tabs but mix with spaces. > >> > > > > true and annoying :-) > > but tell you editor to do the annoying part for you, I've long forgotten > that my tab is actually using spaces and use tab-key for indentation all > the time. and thats why you are now sometimes sloppy ;-): > ... because in some cases you the > text end up on the border of the tab and you happen to adjust it with > the space bar, forgetting about using tab. > > ok, no problem. but think of all that silly extra bytes > > browsers need to download :-) > > You can use Apache::Clean! :) wow, that sounds great! ./allan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
