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

Re: unbreakable hyphen [NH]

Expand Messages
  • Mike
    Correct tag, John, but to make work _for sure_ with a hyphen the entire {word-hyphen-word} unit probably should be included between the tags, not
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 12 11:30 AM
      Correct tag, John, but to make <.NOBR> work _for sure_ with a hyphen the
      entire {word-hyphen-word} unit probably should be included between the
      tags, not just the hyphen itself, i.e., <.NOBR>anti-everything</NOBR>.

      Oh, and use the hyphen when you mean hyphen and dash when you mean dash.
      HTML gives entity codes to both the the em-dash (—) and en-dash
      (–) as well as the hyphen (-) and good browsers should render them
      differently, although some browsers don't know the difference.

      Mike
      ironmike@...
      ________________________________

      Previously, John told Fay:

      > Just enclose a regular hyphen (or any other text) that you do not want to
      wrap inside of the following tags:
      >
      > <nobr>The text between these tags will not allow line breaks to be
      inserted</nobr>

      > --- In ntb-html@y..., "Fay" <feigh@i...> wrote:
      > > I've worked out how to make a link back and forth between page and
      printable
      > > page, but I still don't know how to make an unbreakable hyphen. Does
      anyone
      > > know, please?
    • john041650
      Ahh, you are right of course Mike, a single character between those tags wouldn t be very effective would it? I knew I should have thought a
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 12 11:37 AM
        Ahh, you are right of course Mike, a single character between those <nobr></nobr> tags wouldn't be very effective would it? I knew I should have thought a little more before pounding out an answer to Fay, thanks for the correction.

        John :)


        --- In ntb-html@y..., "Mike" <ironmike@i...> wrote:
        > Correct tag, John, but to make <.NOBR> work _for sure_ with a hyphen the
        > entire {word-hyphen-word} unit probably should be included between the
        > tags, not just the hyphen itself, i.e., <.NOBR>anti-everything</NOBR>.
        >
        > Oh, and use the hyphen when you mean hyphen and dash when you mean dash.
        > HTML gives entity codes to both the the em-dash (—) and en-dash
        > (–) as well as the hyphen (-) and good browsers should render them
        > differently, although some browsers don't know the difference.
        >
        > Mike
        > ironmike@i...
        > ________________________________
        >
        > Previously, John told Fay:
        >
        > > Just enclose a regular hyphen (or any other text) that you do not want to
        > wrap inside of the following tags:
        > >
        > > <nobr>The text between these tags will not allow line breaks to be
        > inserted</nobr>
        >
        > > --- In ntb-html@y..., "Fay" <feigh@i...> wrote:
        > > > I've worked out how to make a link back and forth between page and
        > printable
        > > > page, but I still don't know how to make an unbreakable hyphen. Does
        > anyone
        > > > know, please?
      • Paul Lucas
        I have noticed that some posts in this thread recommend using the tags while others refer to instead. I have used the
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 12 11:58 AM
          I have noticed that some posts in this thread recommend using the
          <nobr></nobr> tags while others refer to <.NOBR></NOBR> instead. I have
          used the <nobr></nobr> combination before but have sometimes seen code
          validators refer to it as deprecated (i.e. on the way out).

          I am not familiar with the <.NOBR></NOBR> pair though. I assume you could
          use lowercase instead of capitals or there would definitely be a problem
          with (X)HTML but I have never seen a valid tag that started with a period.
          Is this something new or maybe a typo?

          -Paul

          At 8/12/02 11:37 AM, you wrote:
          >Ahh, you are right of course Mike, a single character between those
          ><nobr></nobr> tags wouldn't be very effective would it? I knew I should
          >have thought a little more before pounding out an answer to Fay, thanks
          >for the correction.
          >
          >John :)
          >
          >
          >--- In ntb-html@y..., "Mike" <ironmike@i...> wrote:
          > > Correct tag, John, but to make <.NOBR> work _for sure_ with a hyphen the
          > > entire {word-hyphen-word} unit probably should be included between the
          > > tags, not just the hyphen itself, i.e., <.NOBR>anti-everything</NOBR>.
          > >
          > > Oh, and use the hyphen when you mean hyphen and dash when you mean dash.
          > > HTML gives entity codes to both the the em-dash (—) and en-dash
          > > (–) as well as the hyphen (-) and good browsers should render them
          > > differently, although some browsers don't know the difference.
          > >
          > > Mike
        • Mike
          When you see a listing on a newslist it is because some newsreaders attempt to render HTML tags as if they were part of the source code for the message
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 12 11:35 PM
            When you see a <.tag> listing on a newslist it is because some newsreaders
            attempt to render HTML tags as if they were part of the source code for the
            message -- not part of the text of the message. The dot breaks the HTML
            format so the text is rendered as intended in all newsreaders. The dot is
            also used to break the format of scripting language code so no attempt is
            made to execute rather than render the code.

            As for capitalized vs. uncapitalized HTML tags, I capitalize in text so the
            tag stands out. I use lower case and xhtml standards in all actual coding.

            I'm not surprised that the <.NOBR> tag is listed as depricated. CSS would
            seem to be a better solution, but the depricated tags will still be
            recognized for a long time, I think. Sometimes they represent a quick,
            straight-forward way to get something done.

            Most of the references I have at hand are circa 1998 -- almost antiques in
            the world of computers and the internet. In 1998 we were strugling just to
            understand what CSS was and had very little sophistication in its use. HTML
            4.0 was brand new, and IE4/NS4 were the most advanced browsers.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Paul Lucas" <pwlucas@...>

            > I have noticed that some posts in this thread recommend using the
            > <nobr></nobr> tags while others refer to <.NOBR></NOBR> instead. I have
            > used the <nobr></nobr> combination before but have sometimes seen code
            > validators refer to it as deprecated (i.e. on the way out).
            >
            > I am not familiar with the <.NOBR></NOBR> pair though. I assume you could
            > use lowercase instead of capitals or there would definitely be a problem
            > with (X)HTML but I have never seen a valid tag that started with a period.
            > Is this something new or maybe a typo?
            >
            > -
          • loro
            Hi Fay and others, ... Me too. Nothing like upper case in email. :-) In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for ever and is
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 13 1:30 AM
              Hi Fay and others,

              At 08:35 2002.08.13, Mike wrote:
              >As for capitalized vs. uncapitalized HTML tags, I capitalize in text so the
              >tag stands out.

              Me too. Nothing like upper case in email. :-)

              In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for
              ever and is understood by most (all?) browsers. It's probably still the
              most cross-browser way of doing it. I know Opera (that isn't that true to
              standards at all) recognizes it and so does Mozilla, even in Standards
              Mode. Don't know about IE6 but I assume it works.

              I just have to vent how much hate it that they haven't included an inline
              NOBR element in HTML. It should be there for the same reason PRE is still
              there. Sometimes white-space is structural or semantic and should be
              rendered even without CSS. Not even  -  holds together. Grrrrr!

              The CSS equivalent to NOBR, "white-space: nowrap", of course doesn't work
              in Netscape 4 but worse is that it doesn't work in IE5 either.

              So Fay, if you want it to hold together you probably have to break the
              rules and use NOBR as others already have suggested.


              Lotta
            • Ron Woodall
              Hi Fay and others: ... The trick is included in the Compendium s coding notes. NOBR was one of the original elements pre-WWW standards. We used to just
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 13 5:30 AM
                Hi Fay and others:

                At 10:30 AM 8/13/02 +0200, you wrote:

                >In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for
                >ever and is understood by most (all?) browsers.

                The <.NOBR> trick is included in the Compendium's coding notes.
                NOBR was one of the original elements pre-WWW standards. We used to just
                call it HTML. It's still not part of the standards that I can find but is
                one of those "heritage" elements. If anyone stops supporting it, it will be
                Mozilla 5+/Netscape 6+ first, since these both profess stringent standards
                adherence. Most everyone else is following MSIE's element list.

                The moral of the story -- even <.NOBR> is suspect and may enjoy
                increasingly limited support.

                Good luck. When you figure this one out, let me know. I'd like to
                include it on my hyphenation page.

                Ron Woodall


                ---------------------------------------
                Ron Woodall
                nor@...

                The Compendium of HTML Elements
                "your essential web publishing resource"

                - available at/disponible à:
                http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
              • Paul Lucas
                One thing to remember about the tag is that even though it currently seems to work in most browsers because it is not a part of any standard it
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 13 8:52 AM
                  One thing to remember about the <nobr></nobr> tag is that even though it
                  currently seems to work in most browsers because it is not a part of any
                  standard it could suddenly cease to be supported without notice in the future.

                  More important is that no document containing the <nobr> tag will ever be
                  able to pass the W3C validation test (http://validator.w3.org/) for HTML
                  4.01 or XHTML - not even at the loose, transitional level which "includes
                  presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
                  support for style sheets matures". Thus it cannot be used in any document
                  on any site which needs to be standards compliant such as a federal
                  government web site.

                  If you really must you can achieve the same thing by using non-breaking
                  spaces ( ) between all of the words that need to be on the same line
                  and although the markup will look ugly it will pass the W3C HTML or XHTML
                  validation tests.

                  In general though it is not usually a good idea to try to force
                  presentation onto content as what looks nice on a pc/browser may not work
                  so well with an audible screen reader or a braille browser and enforced
                  long lines can be really messy on PDAs and web enabled cell phones with
                  three inch square screens.

                  -Paul

                  At 8/13/02 05:30 AM, you wrote:
                  > >In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for
                  > >ever and is understood by most (all?) browsers.
                  >
                  > The <.NOBR> trick is included in the Compendium's coding notes.
                  >NOBR was one of the original elements pre-WWW standards. We used to just
                  >call it HTML. It's still not part of the standards that I can find but is
                  >one of those "heritage" elements. If anyone stops supporting it, it will be
                  >Mozilla 5+/Netscape 6+ first, since these both profess stringent standards
                  >adherence. Most everyone else is following MSIE's element list.
                  >
                  > The moral of the story -- even <.NOBR> is suspect and may enjoy
                  >increasingly limited support.
                  >
                  > Good luck. When you figure this one out, let me know. I'd like to
                  >include it on my hyphenation page.
                  >
                  > Ron Woodall
                • Scott Fordin
                  IMHO, you really do want to stick to the standard set of W3-approved HTML tags for whatever version of HTML you re coding to. Avoid browser-specific extensions
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 13 11:40 AM
                    IMHO, you really do want to stick to the standard set
                    of W3-approved HTML tags for whatever version of HTML
                    you're coding to. Avoid browser-specific extensions
                    like the plague... Please!!

                    Having said this, remember that the <td> and <th>
                    tags do accept the nowrap option, which is W3-approved
                    and does pretty much the same thing as <nobr>.

                    Regards,

                    Scott

                    Paul Lucas wrote:

                    > One thing to remember about the <nobr></nobr> tag is that even though it
                    > currently seems to work in most browsers because it is not a part of any
                    > standard it could suddenly cease to be supported without notice in the future.
                    >
                    > More important is that no document containing the <nobr> tag will ever be
                    > able to pass the W3C validation test (http://validator.w3.org/) for HTML
                    > 4.01 or XHTML - not even at the loose, transitional level which "includes
                    > presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
                    > support for style sheets matures". Thus it cannot be used in any document
                    > on any site which needs to be standards compliant such as a federal
                    > government web site.
                    >
                    > If you really must you can achieve the same thing by using non-breaking
                    > spaces ( ) between all of the words that need to be on the same line
                    > and although the markup will look ugly it will pass the W3C HTML or XHTML
                    > validation tests.
                    >
                    > In general though it is not usually a good idea to try to force
                    > presentation onto content as what looks nice on a pc/browser may not work
                    > so well with an audible screen reader or a braille browser and enforced
                    > long lines can be really messy on PDAs and web enabled cell phones with
                    > three inch square screens.
                    >
                    > -Paul
                    >
                    > At 8/13/02 05:30 AM, you wrote:
                    >
                    >>>In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for
                    >>>ever and is understood by most (all?) browsers.
                    >>>
                    >> The <.NOBR> trick is included in the Compendium's coding notes.
                    >>NOBR was one of the original elements pre-WWW standards. We used to just
                    >>call it HTML. It's still not part of the standards that I can find but is
                    >>one of those "heritage" elements. If anyone stops supporting it, it will be
                    >>Mozilla 5+/Netscape 6+ first, since these both profess stringent standards
                    >>adherence. Most everyone else is following MSIE's element list.
                    >>
                    >> The moral of the story -- even <.NOBR> is suspect and may enjoy
                    >>increasingly limited support.
                    >>
                    >> Good luck. When you figure this one out, let me know. I'd like to
                    >>include it on my hyphenation page.
                    >>
                    >> Ron Woodall
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • loro
                    ... The problem is that this doesn t always work. As for what Fay wanted, an unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn t break is
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 13 8:43 PM
                      At 17:52 2002.08.13, Paul Lucas wrote:
                      >If you really must you can achieve the same thing by using non-breaking
                      >spaces ( ) between all of the words that need to be on the same line
                      >and although the markup will look ugly it will pass the W3C HTML or XHTML
                      >validation tests.


                      The problem is that this doesn't always work. As for what Fay wanted, an
                      unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn't
                      break is the minus sign (− or −) but since Fay wants to support
                      Netscape 4 that one is out too...

                      Lotta
                    • Ron Woodall
                      ... The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes − properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an en-dash (nutt)
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 14 6:55 AM
                        At 05:43 AM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:

                        >The problem is that this doesn't always work. As for what Fay wanted, an
                        >unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn't
                        >break is the minus sign (− or −) but since Fay wants to support
                        >Netscape 4 that one is out too...

                        The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
                        properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
                        en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
                        at all.

                        Well, it appears that we have a solution for recent technology.
                        Thanks for pointing this out Lotta.

                        Ron Woodall

                        ---------------------------------------
                        Ron Woodall
                        nor@...

                        The Compendium of HTML Elements
                        "your essential web publishing resource"

                        - available at/disponible à:
                        http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                        http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
                      • loro
                        ... That s interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little higher up
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 14 8:06 AM
                          At 15:55 2002.08.14, Ron Woodall wrote:
                          > The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
                          >properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
                          >en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
                          >at all.

                          That's interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the
                          minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
                          higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
                          en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
                          "-" inserted with the key board.

                          On a side note, in both CSS1 and 2 specifications it says that the
                          white-space property only applies to block level elements. I learnt
                          recently that this is wrong (which is good). It applies to all elements
                          which is also stated in the errata (both specs). But who reads those? Now
                          when they have published a working draft for CSS2.1 this is clearly stated
                          under "Changes":

                          "Section 16.6 Whitespace: the 'white-space' property
                          The 'white-space' property applies to all elements, not just block-level
                          elements."
                          http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/changes.html#q29

                          Great. But in the property description it still says:

                          "Applies to: block-level elements"
                          http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/text.html#propdef-white-space

                          Err...hope they notice before this one is made permanent.

                          White-space and hyphens - what a mess! And then we haven't even mentioned
                          ­ ;-)


                          Lotta
                        • Rudolf Horbas
                          Lotta, Ron, ... Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 14 10:15 AM
                            Lotta, Ron,

                            > Ron Woodall wrote:
                            >
                            >> The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
                            >>properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
                            >>en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
                            >>at all.
                            > loro wrote:
                            > That's interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the
                            > minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
                            > higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
                            > en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
                            > "-" inserted with the key board.

                            Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
                            system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                            found that many do not contain all the possible types.

                            There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
                            show different results than Netscape 4.x, which would be different than
                            the discrepancies on Win 9x between the browsers.

                            For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
                            clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
                            Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
                            would not support them.
                            I even had to remove € (Euro) from some important pages and put
                            back EUR there -- Netscape on Mac would show the literal € ...

                            Although it is possible, even on a western PC, to show Arabic text in a
                            browser, I have seen many Arabic websites that settle for just --
                            _graphics_!

                            All this is still to come -- hopefully.

                            Rudi
                          • loro
                            Hi Rudolf! ... Don t know. I haven t thought about this earlier. Courier New and Arial render the minus much the same in IE5 and Moz 1.0 for me. Opera differs.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 14 11:30 AM
                              Hi Rudolf!

                              >Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
                              >system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                              >found that many do not contain all the possible types.

                              Don't know. I haven't thought about this earlier. Courier New and Arial
                              render the minus much the same in IE5 and Moz 1.0 for me. Opera differs.
                              Could be OS or service packs too, I guess.

                              >There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
                              >show different results

                              Yeah, IE5 Mac is a totally different, and I hear better, rendering engine.
                              The man who's responsible for it was also the one who first figured out a
                              CSS "hack" for IE Win's broken box model - that figures!

                              >For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
                              >clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
                              >Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
                              >would not support them.

                              I remember - where's that page gone? Someone on this list asked for it not
                              long ago. To me this whole unicode thing is still confusing and scary.
                              Guess it takes a while to get used to.

                              Lotta
                            • Rudolf Horbas
                              Hi Lotta and all, ... Oops, seems I m not following the list close enough. I just checked -- seems the provider deleted it, though I m still paying (they were
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 14 2:04 PM
                                Hi Lotta and all,

                                > I remember - where's that page gone? Someone on this list asked for it not
                                > long ago.

                                Oops, seems I'm not following the list close enough. I just checked --
                                seems the provider deleted it, though I'm still paying (they were taken
                                over by another company couple weeks ago) :-( .
                                But there's got to be a backup disk somewhere, wait ... (rustle, rustle,
                                fiddle, shove...) It's online again, at my new provider (I've got to
                                remember to give the other one the boot):
                                http://www.hypotext.de/unicode/

                                Hope everything's where it's supposed to be. It's all plain static HTML,
                                though I'm planning re-doing this with php/MySql (easier to maintain)
                                one day.

                                Strange: A lot of the icons appear in the wrong places ... I'll have to
                                figure that out. Meanwhile, just trust the characters that Your browsers
                                can render ...

                                > To me this whole unicode thing is still confusing and scary.
                                > Guess it takes a while to get used to.

                                Aw, don't be scared! :-)
                                I wouldn't get used to it too much yet, though, because many of these
                                characters are not properly supported yet ...

                                G'night,
                                Rudi
                              • Ron Woodall
                                Hi Lotta: ... Running MSIE 5.0 and 6.0. My 5.5 got killed when I upgraded one of my garbage systems. ... Is this actually correct? When you apply white space
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 15 6:42 AM
                                  Hi Lotta:

                                  At 05:06 PM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:
                                  >At 15:55 2002.08.14, Ron Woodall wrote:
                                  > > The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
                                  > >properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
                                  > >en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
                                  > >at all.
                                  >
                                  >That's interesting. What version of IE do you have?

                                  Running MSIE 5.0 and 6.0. My 5.5 got killed when I upgraded one of
                                  my garbage systems.

                                  > I run IE5 on 2K and the
                                  >minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
                                  >higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
                                  >en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
                                  >"-" inserted with the key board.
                                  >
                                  >On a side note, in both CSS1 and 2 specifications it says that the
                                  >white-space property only applies to block level elements. I learnt
                                  >recently that this is wrong (which is good). It applies to all elements
                                  >which is also stated in the errata (both specs). But who reads those? Now
                                  >when they have published a working draft for CSS2.1 this is clearly stated
                                  >under "Changes":

                                  Is this actually correct? When you apply "white space" to in-line
                                  elements, they inherit the spacing from the parent. Imposing spacing
                                  changes on in-line elements may produce some very undesirable results.
                                  Comments?

                                  >"Section 16.6 Whitespace: the 'white-space' property
                                  >The 'white-space' property applies to all elements, not just block-level
                                  >elements."
                                  >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/changes.html#q29
                                  >
                                  >Great. But in the property description it still says:
                                  >
                                  >"Applies to: block-level elements"
                                  >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/text.html#propdef-white-space

                                  I'd wait a bit longer before referencing 2.1. There are still some
                                  gyrations to go through ( I think.)

                                  >Err...hope they notice before this one is made permanent.

                                  Don't depend on it. Write them and tell them about it. There
                                  should be a mailto somewhere on the document.

                                  >White-space and hyphens - what a mess! And then we haven't even mentioned
                                  >­ ;-)

                                  Big problem here. Using the & #173; requires the use of a
                                  hyphenation dictionary. Which one?

                                  Ron Woodall

                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Ron Woodall
                                  nor@...

                                  The Compendium of HTML Elements
                                  "your essential web publishing resource"

                                  - available at/disponible à:
                                  http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                                  http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
                                • Ron Woodall
                                  Hi Rudolph and Lotta and Congregation: ... Several points here: yes, every font is different and there are even differences from one font size to another. Alot
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 15 6:57 AM
                                    Hi Rudolph and Lotta and Congregation:

                                    At 07:15 PM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:

                                    >Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
                                    >system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                                    >found that many do not contain all the possible types.

                                    Several points here: yes, every font is different and there are
                                    even differences from one font size to another. Alot depends on the
                                    placement of the pixels when the font is rendered. If the hyphen character
                                    renders perfectly across a two pixel wide horizontal row, it will be quite
                                    dominant. However, if the character renders only over one row and is
                                    aliased across the pixel rows above and below, it will seem somewhat
                                    feeble. Here's a test: take this message and carefully scroll the scrollbar
                                    up or down one pixel. Careful don't sneeze or breath. At some point this
                                    pair of hyphens "--" will seem distorted. This will be more easily
                                    recognized in larger fonts but more dramatic on smaller fonts, magnified.

                                    >There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
                                    >show different results than Netscape 4.x, which would be different than
                                    >the discrepancies on Win 9x between the browsers.

                                    Big time! There will even be differences from system to system.
                                    The change of a video card or a monitor makes a difference. I have a
                                    ViewSonic E773 on one video card and a pair of Optiquest Q71s on two other
                                    video cards. All of the video cards are identical. There is a slight
                                    difference between the ViewSonic and the Optiquests but not much between
                                    the two Optiquests. Technologically the ViewSonic and Optiquests are identical.

                                    >For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
                                    >clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
                                    >Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
                                    >would not support them.
                                    >I even had to remove € (Euro) from some important pages and put
                                    >back EUR there -- Netscape on Mac would show the literal € ...

                                    Welcome to the frustrating world of browsers. You haven't seen the
                                    half of it.

                                    Ron Woodall

                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Ron Woodall
                                    nor@...

                                    The Compendium of HTML Elements
                                    "your essential web publishing resource"

                                    - available at/disponible à:
                                    http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                                    http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
                                  • loro
                                    ... Yes, because it s legit (and has been all the dame damn them) to write .nobr { white-space: nowrap } blah blah Rigby-Smythe
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Aug 15 9:15 AM
                                      At 15:42 2002.08.15, Ron Woodall wrote:
                                      > Is this actually correct? When you apply "white space" to in-line
                                      >elements, they inherit the spacing from the parent. Imposing spacing
                                      >changes on in-line elements may produce some very undesirable results.
                                      >Comments?

                                      Yes, because it's legit (and has been all the dame damn' them) to write

                                      .nobr { white-space: nowrap }
                                      blah blah <span class="nobr">Rigby-Smythe</span> blah blah


                                      >I'd wait a bit longer before referencing 2.1. There are still some
                                      >gyrations to go through ( I think.)

                                      It's in the old errata. It has been permitted all the time. The browsers
                                      apply it to in-line content too there is no problem really.
                                      Section 16.6 here:
                                      http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html

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