On Sun, Nov 15, 1998, Mats Dufberg wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> > Yeah, it uses a width of 600 pixel. That's not to bother you. There are two
> > reasons for it: First this way I'm able to layout the various nested tables
> > more easily (where I sometimes had to specify fixed widths to avoid nasty
> > next wrappings) and second this way the text lines are shorter. The reason for this
> > are the same typographical reasons you find in books and newspapers: To make
> > it easier to read. I know that the usage of HTML for doing fixed layouting is
> > against the intent of HTML but I break those rules intentionally as a
> > webdesigner (and not as a HTML purist) here ;-)
>
> By making a fixed width of 600 you make the pages harder to read in a
> narrower window. If a text is meant to be reference, there are many times
> that you want the text to be side by side with a window with your
> configuration in an editor. I see your point, but the HTML "purist" view
> make life more flexible.
Sure, but it isn't such problematic as it looks. Because first 600 pixels is
not really large and second: there are images which are already between 500
and 600 pixels in width (and which don't scale with the browser window at
all). But it's as always when one wants to do typographically strong documents
with HTML: a lot of compromises have to be done... and the current approach
seems to be a reasonable compromise between puristic-and-flexible-online and
nice-looking-in-print-offline IMHO.
But don't let us discuss too much about the layout. What's a lot more
important is the contents. Give me especially your opinion on the contents,
too.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to SSLeay (mod_ssl) www.engelschall.com/sw/mod_ssl/
Official Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
