On Thu, 1 May 2003 17:55:21 +0000
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01 May 2003 11:37:39 -0400, Bob Woodside wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone else have access to a slow connection and a browser
> > other than Internet Exploder? If so, would you try out the pages and
> > let us know if you see the resizing problem Dominik describes?
>
> I always saw this, even using localhost after a complete reload.
> Opera, Konqueror. This happens now too.
I really hate to ask this...but are you absolutely sure the browser
isn't pulling a cached copy? If you view the source you should see 2
occurrences of 'width="100"'. If that's the version you're getting, and
if you see what Dominik described - not just a little resizing, but the
"window" frame rendered to fill the whole window and then resized to
accommodate the "pager" frame - then I don't know what more we can
do to try to prevent it (other than maybe making the whole pager an
image-mapped image, but I agree with Uwe in not liking that idea too
much).
But I still can't see it happen here with NS 6.2 & 7.0, Opera 6 & 7,
IE6, Mozilla (old)...
> I don't call this a problem, it is nice fast browser rendering
> engines.
I don't think so. I still say it's over-aggressive if the browser
starts rendering a row of a table without waiting to see if any of the
cells specifies an explicit width. Redrawing the window after it
dicovers its layout assumptions were wrong slows things down, it doesn't
speed them up. Starting to render while images are loading is fine, but
not before at least getting the HTML description of the cells in the
first row. These days more and more HTML authors (and authoring tools)
have caught on to the trick of explicitly specifying image dimensions
(and cell dimensions where they think it matters, often to excess), so I
think that the likelihood of the browser's guessing correctly is
overshadowed by the likelihood that it will receive explicit layout
information in the HTML row and cell description.
> As for the pager it is still too wide, the width should be 80, not
> 100.
In theory, yes. But here again, we're at the mercy of the individual
user's browser and the fonts that it uses. On my system, 80 will be just
a bit too narrow for the page heading "Documentation"...so the browser
will go ahead and take 100 anyway. On your system, 80 is presumably just
right. That's why I don't like to specify absolute widths (except for
images) unless it's absolutely necessary. As I said, we may want to back
the fix out altogether if it doesn't produce the desired results.
Cheers,
Bob
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
