Re: [NH] txt2html
- --- In ntb-html@y..., "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:
> > <font> tag is text level element, so it shouldn't contain anyblock
> > elements as <p/ul/ol/dlfor/table>. Encapsulating the document inUnfortunately popular ones (or should I say *one*) forced others to
> > <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!!!!)
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
> > Using <font> as safegurad is better than relying on CSS alone asyou
> > can easily make a mistake of changing the background color withoutNOT
> > specifying contrasting text color, making the text unreadable with
> > CSS-disabled browsers.
> If you have a properly constructed, _and complete_, CSS this does
> happen! If CSS is unavailable/turned off then it should display inI have seen this on several commercial pages, on personal pages it's
> 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?
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 youcolour,
> certainly do want to set a background colour if you set a font
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
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.
- Hi Jorma,
> > Surely no one is crazy enough to do what you suggest and use halfa
> > belt and half a pair of braces?You're right, of course! My question was somewhat rhetorical!
> I have seen this on several commercial pages, on personal pages it's
> quite common.
> Another caveat with CSS-only approach isGood point. I would always avoid background pictures as results are
> that even if
> you set both bgcolor and text color in <BODY> tag, using background
> pictures in your tables can render the text unreadable.
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 ifI 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
> I'm not saying that CSS is bad thing, it just doesn't solve allYou're right, of course. CSS just replaces one set of problems with
> problems automatically.
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