Meta-reply; sorry, a bit long. (Yes, I know it'll break threads too.
Bad me.)
On 30/06/2001 at 01:52 +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:17:20AM +0100, Natalie Ford wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:03:20AM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
>> > As threatened, I've changed the london.pm.org top and bottom wrappers
>> > so that they're no longer fixed to a single width.
>>
>> Well, I have just taken a look at http://london.pm.org/ in Galeon[1]
>>under
>> XWindows in a 640 wide window (some displays are still 640x480) and
>>I can't
Leo hasn't applied the changes yet- since I originally mailed him
@london.pm.org it got caught up in Friday's outage.
Please check the version(s) at http://husk.org/perl/site/ and join the
campaign against fixed-width badness!
>Not to sound cruel or heartless or anything but if someone can't see the
>entire 100% on a 640x480 screen they have bigger problems than viewing
>London.pm: their entire computer sucks harder than an Olympic Sucking
>Squadron.
What if (like me) you have a 1024x768 (or bigger) display, but choose
to have 600-odd pixel wide browser windows? Why should I have to resize
*my* browser for *you*?
What if you like your ancient little LC enough to keep that in your
bedroom? As it's so little effort to fix, why not Just Do It? (See
above :)
>If it's XML it should be easy enough to generate a text-only version for
>the hard-of-browsing.
As Jonathon Stowe noted, all extant versions work fine in links/lynx (I
haven't tried w3m- any takers?).
On 30/06/2001 at 10:01 +0100, Steve Mynott wrote:
>Personally I also think the html should validate as xml (i.e. xhtml
>1.0) since it proudly displays these three letters on every page.
Yes it should, but it won't without major changes (see original mail-
basic explanation is that CSS for table backgrounds isn't supported in
NS4, so we either
a) abandon NS4 support
b) abandon prettiness
c) abandon compliance
At the moment, the version on husk chooses c.) See below.
>Is the template available on the site for people to hack around with?
I don't know. I just wgot the site and hacked the HTML, hoping I'd
figured out where the TT bits kicked in from a diff with another page.
It might be nice, though.
On 30/06/2001 at 10:15 +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>yeah, but lets not be petty ..
>
>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flondon.pm.org&doctype=Inline
What document type is that validating against, I wonder?
I declare the DTD as HTML 4.0 Transistional in the husk.org version;
the result is, as predicted, failure: (URL may wrap)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhusk.org%2Fperl%2Fsite%2Finde
x_c.html&doctype=Inline
The CSS validate, with warnings (no background-color specified)
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://husk.org/perl/site/s
tyle.css
Right, that should do for now.
--
:: paul
:: what are the military applications?
