Re: iframe or what?

In article <kh8qn39a7np0g66j7h8rai3nar2ra11qte (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

--
dorayme

"richard" <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <kh8qn39a7np0g66j7h8rai3nar2ra11qte (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?
IE plays hell with an em. What am I supposed to do then? Create a page
for a specific browser? Like hell I will. Then a page for each
resolution? Bullshit.

The way I see it, if those are choices, then if we're not supposed to
use them, then why are they choices?

Because CSS allows you to have different stylesheets for different media.
Points and inches are appropriate for a print stylesheet.

In article <idfqn3pgshitbc3qdekfumdsiqt21ukreh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <kh8qn39a7np0g66j7h8rai3nar2ra11qte (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?
IE plays hell with an em. What am I supposed to do then? Create a page
for a specific browser? Like hell I will. Then a page for each
resolution? Bullshit.

The way I see it, if those are choices, then if we're not supposed to
use them, then why are they choices?

Every damn screen can't agree on how many pixels fill an inch or
how big a pixel is - so hang onto your shirt! <g>

If you say nothing at all about font-sizes anywhere in your html
or css, you will do fine. There is a lot of intelligence in the
default styles that are used by browsers. Clever people whose
business it is to know things made these styles. A lot of this
work is already done to a reasonably high standard. That is first
point.

<URL: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ />

<URL: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html />

If you really want to set font-sizes because you do not like the
ones that are provided by default, then tread lightly and set the
body to font-size: 100%; and a few other important ones like
headings at what you like; e.g. an h1 to 180%, a footnote to 85%
etc.

--
dorayme

On Jan 3, 3:04 pm, richard <I.dont.c... (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.
Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?

Nice way to reply. You do know that dorayme is a recovering
tourette's patient and your swearing probably knocked her off the
wagon! Great job there richard!

The group can do without your posts can you set them to be removed in
a day rather than 6?

In article
<0fd54666-5068-4bab-9674-ba5003746b44 (AT) d4g2000prg (DOT) googlegroups.com

,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Jan 3, 3:04 pm, richard <I.dont.c... (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:
Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.
Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?

Nice way to reply. You do know that dorayme is a recovering
tourette's patient and your swearing probably knocked her off the
wagon! Great job there richard!

The group can do without your posts can you set them to be removed in
a day rather than 6?

Well, thanks Travis. But my attitude is actually rather different
on this one. Until I hear otherwise, I rather think of Richard's
language and protest as earthy and heartfelt. If everyone else
here was prepared to indulge in same, I would happily throw out
the civilised version of the international English dictionary and
use the dinkiest of dinky die old fashioned working class inner
city Australian pub one. But I fancy it would be just too much
for delicate international ears.

The real trouble with allowing this kind of earthiness is that it
attracts bad types, that is, people with base motives, low
breeding, mean sob resentments towards life and fellows and like
that. So reluctantly, I suppose, we must be a bit straight-laced.

Please excuse me Travis but I have to pop into my sound-proof
room now to tap and tap and tap the special tourette-absorption
device I built myself... and ... well... to scream.

--
dorayme

In article <9q4rn399taav8f4c9e1dhsjhi6e3tiv0q3 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <kh8qn39a7np0g66j7h8rai3nar2ra11qte (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

Another thing, the way I see it, a screen is nothing more than a fancy
sheet of paper. Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
around well before electronics came into the world.

OK. You complained about waiting 7 day for replies in another
post. Reply to this:

Did you read the urls I gave you?

Do you know that the percentage of area taken up by a square inch
on one monitor is no indication of the percentage area taken up
on another screen?

Would it not be safer and more sensible, even when thinking of
designing for visual users, to go for relative dimensions? Like,
for example, % widths and heights?

Do you know that by fixing widths in inches for boxes, even
though you specify pts for font sizes, many modern browsers will
allow users to enlarge the text size and that when this happens,
text can break out of the fixed size boxes?

Or that one excellent way of avoiding the latter is to specify
both font sizes and boxes in em units?

Have you ever seen print on a piece of paper that a reader can
alter the actual size of?

Have you ever heard of Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles which
has corollaries that say in effect that the more things differ,
the less they can be the same?

When you respond to this, we will go further. But please reflect
on this first.

You may continue to use really foul language as long as it is not
personally insulting.

--
dorayme

..oO(richard)

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

Another thing, the way I see it, a screen is nothing more than a fancy
sheet of paper. Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
around well before electronics came into the world.

Correct. But screens don't work with points or inches, they work with
pixels. Now the problem is, that in order to correctly calculate the
corresponding length in pixels for a given pt or in value, the operating
system has to be configured to a correct dpi/ppi value. But most systems
simply run with the default values of 72 or 96 dpi, which means that the
results are completely unpredictable and never the same on different
platforms with different monitor sizes. A pixel will (almost) always be
a pixel, but an inch or point may result in quite different pixel sizes.

Micha

..oO(richard)

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:34:46 +0100, Michael Fesser <netizen (AT) gmx (DOT) de
wrote:

Correct. But screens don't work with points or inches, they work with
pixels. Now the problem is, that in order to correctly calculate the
corresponding length in pixels for a given pt or in value, the operating
system has to be configured to a correct dpi/ppi value. But most systems
simply run with the default values of 72 or 96 dpi, which means that the
results are completely unpredictable and never the same on different
platforms with different monitor sizes. A pixel will (almost) always be
a pixel, but an inch or point may result in quite different pixel sizes.

Which is why I decided to use inches and pts.
Comparing positioning in both IE and FF, it is the only way in which
both show the same locations for the same information.

Nope. That would be px. A 50px margin will always be 50px. But a 2in
margin can be nearly anything on the user's screen.

For example a 2in width as defined in the CSS appears as 4.5cm on my 19"
screen at a 1600 resolution, since I use the default setting of 96ppi.

Practically everything else is a variable.

In the WWW nearly everything is variable.
But this is feature, not a bug.

That is, it has no distinct
properties other than what the screen tells it.
An inch is a fixed standard. It can only be represented one way.

Nope. You don't know how many pixels an inch defined in your CSS will be
on the user's screen, since it depends on the OS configuration.

Micha

richard wrote:

An inch is a fixed standard. It can only be represented one way.

That's making the bold assumption that the user's screen is properly
calibrated. Most are probably not.

--
Berg

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:06:09 -0500, richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> wrote:

Another thing, the way I see it, a screen is nothing more than a fancy
sheet of paper.

No, it's _lots_of_ fancy sheets of paper, all different. The number of
pixels height a character needs to be readable is different on my screen
and your screen.