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

Re: unbreakable hyphen [NH]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Aug 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 21 , Aug 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 21 , Aug 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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.