Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

txt2html

Expand Messages
  • tenu@sci.fi
    From clip list, posted here as suggested by Jody. ... This would probably belong to HTML list, reply there if necessary. tag is text level element, so
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      From clip list, posted here as suggested by Jody.


      --- In ntb-clips@y..., Jody <av1611@e...> wrote:
      > You can do a <font> tag for the whole document, although the HTML
      > gurus will hang us if they see us using the depreciated tag. <bg>

      This would probably belong to HTML list, reply there if necessary.

      <font> tag is text level element, so it shouldn't contain any block
      elements as <p/ul/ol/dlfor/table>. Encapsulating the document in
      <font> works, but it's bad practise.

      Using <font> as safegurad is better than relying on CSS alone as you
      can easily make a mistake of changing the background color without
      specifying contrasting text color, making the text unreadable with
      CSS-disabled browsers. With CSS-disabled I mean either no CSS
      support, or CSS disabled by user.


      Jorma
    • Greg Chapman
      ... Too true! :-) ... *May* work in *some* browsers. (The popular ones admittedly, which tend to be too forgiving and hence allow bad practice to creep in.
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > --- In ntb-clips@y..., Jody <av1611@e...> wrote:
        > > You can do a <font> tag for the whole document, although the HTML
        > > gurus will hang us if they see us using the depreciated tag. <bg>

        Too true! :-)

        > <font> tag is text level element, so it shouldn't contain any block
        > elements as <p/ul/ol/dlfor/table>. Encapsulating the document in
        > <font> works, but it's bad practise.

        *May* work in *some* browsers. (The popular ones admittedly, which
        tend to be too forgiving and hence allow bad practice to creep in.
        Then some folk start to complain when they get caught out!!!!)

        > Using <font> as safegurad is better than relying on CSS alone as you
        > can easily make a mistake of changing the background color without
        > specifying contrasting text color, making the text unreadable with
        > CSS-disabled browsers.

        If you have a properly constructed, _and complete_, CSS this does NOT
        happen! If CSS is unavailable/turned off then it should display in
        the default colours of the browser on which it is being viewed.
        Surely no one is crazy enough to do what you suggest and use half a
        belt and half a pair of braces?

        If you want to control both font and background colours (and you
        certainly do want to set a background colour if you set a font colour,
        for the very reason you state) then SET BOTH OF THEM.

        Fail to define _both_ text and background colours whether using HTML
        tags/attributes in your document, or their equivalents in CSS, and you
        have a recipe for disaster. But never mix them! That too is a recipe
        for disaster/confusion!

        If you don't define both - whatever system you use - then you leave it
        open of the displaying browser to use its defaults. That's what
        causes the problems!!!! It's not a "Good HTML/Bad CSS" thing. It's
        simply a question of being thorough whatever system you use.

        Remember with web pages it's not a question of how it looks to you.
        It's a question of how the viewer's browser renders your code. A
        viewer of your web page may have different screen resolution,
        different colour depth capability - or no colour at all. The things
        that look fine on your 1280x1024 screen can wrap horribly on an
        800x600 screen. Your delicate graduated tone graphics may look
        hideously stepped in 256 colours. (How often have you seen web pages,
        designed to be printed which look hideous when printed by the average
        user? Often it's because there is extensive use of background colours
        on the site - and most users don't know how (or don't bother) to turn
        on background colour printing.

        Greg
      • Greg Chapman
        ... HTML ... ... I re-read this after it appeared on the list and realised that I may appear to have set myself up to appear like some guru. I m not!
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 14, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          > > > You can do a <font> tag for the whole document, although the
          HTML
          > > > gurus will hang us if they see us using the depreciated tag.
          <bg>
          >
          > Too true! :-)

          I re-read this after it appeared on the list and realised that I may
          appear to have set myself up to appear like some guru. I'm not! I'm
          just a self-taught, non-qualification holding pleb.

          However, I stand by the principle of what I'm saying. In any form of
          programming/computing or, indeed, most aspects of life, the sure way
          to unwelcome effects and things you just don't understand, is to do
          half the job one way, and try and then try to protect yourself against
          the problems caused by using a completely different approach to try
          and hide them - rather than solve the initial problem.

          And that's what was being suggested to cure an incomplete CCS. Plug
          the gaps with an incomplete set HTML tags.

          Greg
        • tenu@sci.fi
          ... block ... Unfortunately popular ones (or should I say *one*) forced others to follow the wrong road. I have IE, Netscape (two versions), Mozilla, Opera
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 16, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In ntb-html@y..., "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:

            > > <font> tag is text level element, so it shouldn't contain any
            block
            > > elements as <p/ul/ol/dlfor/table>. Encapsulating the document in
            > > <font> works, but it's bad practise.
            >
            > *May* work in *some* browsers. (The popular ones admittedly, which
            > tend to be too forgiving and hence allow bad practice to creep in.
            > Then some folk start to complain when they get caught out!!!!)

            Unfortunately popular ones (or should I say *one*) forced others to
            follow the wrong road. I have IE, Netscape (two versions), Mozilla,
            Opera and Lynx installed, and they all (except Lynx :) use the font
            for whole document. Too bad. I hoped Opera would be better than
            others.


            > > Using <font> as safegurad is better than relying on CSS alone as
            you
            > > can easily make a mistake of changing the background color without
            > > specifying contrasting text color, making the text unreadable with
            > > CSS-disabled browsers.
            >
            > If you have a properly constructed, _and complete_, CSS this does
            NOT
            > happen! If CSS is unavailable/turned off then it should display in
            > the default colours of the browser on which it is being viewed.
            > Surely no one is crazy enough to do what you suggest and use half a
            > belt and half a pair of braces?

            I have seen this on several commercial pages, on personal pages it's
            quite common. Another caveat with CSS-only approach is that even if
            you set both bgcolor and text color in <BODY> tag, using background
            pictures in your tables can render the text unreadable.

            > If you want to control both font and background colours (and you
            > certainly do want to set a background colour if you set a font
            colour,
            > for the very reason you state) then SET BOTH OF THEM.

            I do. I also check my pages without CSS and/or JavaScript. Still I
            get caught when IE on Mac fails to display wide background pictures.
            But at least I don't tell people they need Frame-capable browser if
            they have JavaScript turned off.

            I'm not saying that CSS is bad thing, it just doesn't solve all
            problems automatically. If one never checks his pages with anything
            else than IE, she should tell that on the first page so people using
            other browsers can go elsewhere to spend their money.


            Jorma
          • Greg Chapman
            Hi Jorma, ... a ... You re right, of course! My question was somewhat rhetorical! ... Good point. I would always avoid background pictures as results are
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 18, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Jorma,

              > > Surely no one is crazy enough to do what you suggest and use half
              a
              > > belt and half a pair of braces?
              >
              > I have seen this on several commercial pages, on personal pages it's
              > quite common.

              You're right, of course! My question was somewhat rhetorical!

              > Another caveat with CSS-only approach is
              > that even if
              > you set both bgcolor and text color in <BODY> tag, using background
              > pictures in your tables can render the text unreadable.

              Good point. I would always avoid background pictures as results are
              entirely erratic across different browsers! Navigator, I understand.
              restarts a picture from the top left in every cell. Internet Explorer
              normally will flow the picture across all the cells of the table.

              > But at least I don't tell people they need Frame-capable browser if
              > they have JavaScript turned off.

              I came across one of my pages in a search engine the other day. One
              which quotes the first few lines from the page it has indexed. It
              made me realise that the advice usually given to include instructions
              for those who don't have frame aware browsers isn't especially helpful
              in this case. All that someone would discover about my index page,
              apart from its title, is that the site is designed for frame aware
              browsers!!

              > I'm not saying that CSS is bad thing, it just doesn't solve all
              > problems automatically.

              You're right, of course. CSS just replaces one set of problems with
              another. However, in general, I do believe that it is good practice
              to separate the message of the web page from the display instructions.
              CSS does this and has other advantages for site-wide changes to site
              design.

              Greg
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.