Hello again,
To date, I've received 23 replies to my plea for advice on buying a
digital camera. The comments were interesting and useful. Thanks for
the help. As best as I can remember, no camera model was recommended
more than once, leaving me with quite a range of possibilities to
select
I also have used a 3.2 megapixle camera for sundial hunting. I don't
find the
3.2mp to be too inhibiting unless I am trying to enlarge some distant
sundial
that the 3x optical zoom (enhanced with a doubler to 6x) still makes small.
This happens a lot when shooting dials that are inaccessible
Greetings fellow dialists,
For many years on my old computer I've enjoyed viewing Jim Morrison's
"Electric Astrolabe" (and it has lots of useful material for dialists). Now
with my new computer and Windows XP I seem unable to download the programme.
Can anyone offer an expanation and, even more im
Greetings fellow dialists,
For many years on my old computer I've enjoyed viewing Jim Morrison's
"Electric Astrolabe" (and it has lots of useful material for dialists). Now
with my new computer and Windows XP I seem unable to download the programme.
Can anyone offer an expanation and, even more
You seem to have the right friends ;-)
BTW: on the page http://www.lindisun.demon.co.uk/workshop.html the link to
'latest projects' doesn't work.
Thibaud
At 23:04 20-09-2004, tony moss wrote:
Fellow Shadow Watchers,
You may care to visit my newly-revised wbsite at
its p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Th. Taudin Chabot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks great, a very fine example of what can be done on a website.
> You seem to have the right friends ;-)
> BTW: on the page http://www.lindisun.demon.co.uk/workshop.html the link to
> 'latest projects' d
standards, then you are entitled to put the "W3C" tick-mark 'logo' on your
website - which lets all visitors know that they should not experience any
problems with the pages, regardless of the computer or Browser being used.
Wholeheartedly confirm our need to comply with standards, and the
us
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Bill Thayer wrote:
> >Apart from anything else, if your website pages DO fully comply with these
> >standards, then you are entitled to put the "W3C" tick-mark 'logo' on your
> >website - which lets all visitors know that they should not experience any
> >problems with the pa
Actually i dont see any need to stay having W3c
validation..
check out popular websites, try yahoo.com or even microsoft.com.. it will
find loads of errors in them. And yet, they are displayed perfectly on my
pc.
Well done Tony
Alexei
Malta
At 18:25 21/09/2004, Dave Bell wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 20
Agree with that! (particularly handsome color scheme, look-and-feel); but
Actually i dont see any need to stay having W3c validation..
check out popular websites, try yahoo.com or even microsoft.com.. it
will find loads of errors in them. And yet, they are displayed
perfectly on my pc.
did
I use Netscape Composer for generating my web pages. When version 7.1
first came out I tried the validate this web page item in the Composer
tools menu and found my web pages were compliant with the 1.0 html spec.
Today, now using version 7.2, I checked a web page and it was compliant
with
11 matches
Mail list logo
