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

Re: [NH] centering image for all monitors

Expand Messages
  • Axel Berger
    ... There are two: http://axel.berger-odenthal.de/ http://fdp-odenthal.de/pages/Technik.shtml The first is my own and as primitive and basic as it gets. The
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Edward wrote:
      > Would you give me a web page site of yours

      There are two:
      http://axel.berger-odenthal.de/
      http://fdp-odenthal.de/pages/Technik.shtml

      The first is my own and as primitive and basic as it gets. The
      second is done for the local party and the page with the technical
      details is in English (as technical documentation ought to be IMHO).
      You'll notice I disregarded my own rule about font size and set it
      at 75% of the browser default (but using a relative size it can
      still be scaled). That's because the visual design is a faithful
      copy and ripoff of other party designs, though the code is mine,
      clean and validating.

      The technical sample is seriously out of date by now, but the main
      parts not changed.

      Axel
    • Cary
      Basically, all modern, major browsers handle true xhtml, that is xhtml served as xhtml rather than html, except IE which will ask you to save the page as a
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Basically, all modern, major browsers handle true xhtml, that is xhtml
        served as xhtml rather than html, except IE which will ask you to save
        the page as a file.

        Obviously, sites configured for access by the general public are set
        up to serve pages as html so IE won't choke. Xhtml 1.0 is fine for
        this purpose, but xhtml 1.1 should only be used if it is in fact going
        to be served as xhtml.


        --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, Greg Chapman wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > On 08 Jan 09 19:14 MotoMania said:
        > > Glad that got things started. I try to stay W3C XHTML 1.1 and CSS
        > > standard with any sites that I create or update.
        >
        > I understand that no modern browser actually renders true XHTML and
        > simply converts the code to HTML and renders that. In consequence,
        > there is little point in writing XHTML markup for web sites. These
        > days XHTML is seen as a (rare?) blind alley up which the W3C
        > travelled. Indeed, I believe there is now an W3C HTML v5 working group
        > to update HTML for the modern environment.
        >
        > I confess that I have never bothered to check out these tales (from
        > people I respect) which I read on other forums, but the snippets I do
        > read elsewhere suggest that their remarks are true.
        >
        > These days my own sites use HTML4 STRICT (which obliges use of CSS).
        > It certainly handles the vast majority of hassles I used to get with
        > some browsers.
        >
        > Greg
        >
      • Cary
        Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so hover comes before active. a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;} a:visited
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so
          hover comes before active.

          a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
          a:visited {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
          a:hover {color: red; text-decoration: bold}
          a:active {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
          a.other:link {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
          a.other:visited {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
          a.other:hover {color: pink; text-decoration: bold}
          a.other:active {color: red; text-decoration: none}


          --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
          >
          > I am having trouble getting an image to center after putting a table
          with the links ot other pages on the left side of the page...
        • loro
          ... Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said, that XHTML is treated as XML if it s served with an XHTML content-type. But it can t be,
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Greg Chapman wrote:
            >I understand that no modern browser actually renders true XHTML and
            >simply converts the code to HTML and renders that. In consequence,
            >there is little point in writing XHTML markup for web sites.

            Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said,
            that XHTML is treated as XML if it's served with an XHTML
            content-type. But it can't be, partly because of IE and partly
            because many (most?) XHTML pages wouldn't display in any browser if
            they were served with the correct content-type.

            XML has few requirements, but one of them is that a page that isn't
            well-formed shouldn't be displayed by the browser. All browsers
            conform to this. Since many XHTML pages aren't as well-written as
            their authors think when they plaster that XHTML button on, there
            would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most authors would
            quickly revert to HTML and the blessings of the error handling HTML
            parsers are so richly equipped with.

            This requirement makes me think XML isn't really suited to be used on
            this side of the server. Generated on the server, validated and
            foolproofed on the server, maybe. But how often does that happen? Can
            you imagine a site of any importance to its users or to the owner
            that goes blank until someone has found the tiny little error that
            maybe originates deep down in some server side program?

            Strict instead of Transitional is much more important. The fact that
            there even exists a Transitional version of XHTML and that it's
            widely used say everything about what the XHTML hype is about. I
            think the expression is "blowing smoke". ;-)

            Lotta
          • Axel Berger
            ... I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn t displayed, people blame
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 9, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              loro wrote:
              > there would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most
              > authors would quickly revert to HTML and the blessings
              > of the error handling HTML parsers are so richly equipped
              > with.

              I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now
              there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn't
              displayed, people blame their browser. More importantly and worse,
              if you go and complain to the junk merchants, they have the gall to
              tell you everyone else was satisfied and that it must be your fault.
              And of course, if all browsers gave error messages instead of
              guessed at approximate renderings our life would be easier and we'd
              not need to employ all those extra validating tools and would not
              get caught out by those easily overlooked little mistakes, that
              happen not to show up when trying things out in the few browsers and
              versions we happen to have at our disposal.

              Life would become harder for all thise idiots out there refusing to
              take care and not trying to do a good rather than botched job, but I
              don't see how that would be bad.

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