Re: iframe or what?

In article <qepao3pibo8paf7lueb70th9mrphljkaui (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

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.

I have a wall here that listens to your words more than the OP is
likely to...

--
dorayme

richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> writes:

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

With the "fancy" part being that the reader can resize it at will.

It's a very important distinction. You can't depend on this "paper" to be
8.5" wide, for instance. We have no idea how wide this paper is, and we
can't expect it to stay that size.

Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
around well before electronics came into the world.

You'd be right, if the translation from inches and points to pixels onscreen
were reliably accurate. Sadly, it's not. :-(

That 6in width in your style sheet might be anywhere from 4-8in wide on
screen. That 10pt text might be a readable 12px on your monitor, but on
mine it's 4px tall.

It's not the *idea* of using physical units that's the problem; it's the
fact that the implementation is unreliable at the moment.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

In article <m1zlveqre4.fsf (AT) dot-app (DOT) org>,
Sherman Pendley <spamtrap (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:

richard <I.dont.care (AT) do (DOT) you> writes:

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

With the "fancy" part being that the reader can resize it at will.

I am sure you are meaning the browser window...

Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
around well before electronics came into the world.

You'd be right, if the translation from inches and points to pixels onscreen
were reliably accurate. Sadly, it's not. :-(

That 6in width in your style sheet might be anywhere from 4-8in wide on
screen. That 10pt text might be a readable 12px on your monitor, but on
mine it's 4px tall.

It's not the *idea* of using physical units that's the problem; it's the
fact that the implementation is unreliable at the moment.

The idea of using physical units *is* a problem quite apart from
the 'translation" trouble you mean (as I understand you). Simply
because it goes right against the idea of any fluid design meant
to adapt to any screen. If an author specifies his boxes in
inches, and it was faithfully translated onto every screen in the
world in so far as they can fit the boxes on so they are visible
without inordinate scrolling, there would still be the problem of
the "in so far". This latter problem is an independent problem to
the translation one. The OP is not right about anything and
furthermore, he is not the slightest bit interested in looking
into anything.

--
dorayme

On 10 Jan, 01:55, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

I have a wall here that listens to your words more than the OP is
likely to...

I like to think more about future archive searches than Mr Bullis.

On 10 Jan, 04:35, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

With the "fancy" part being that the reader can resize it at will.

I am sure you are meaning the browser window...

I can resize my screen (in pixels) pretty easily. I can even change
its physical size (same pixel count) most easily of all, by pressing a
button on my KVM switch.

In article
<3424a0a0-b73d-4420-8bc9-f5d3d76b88a1 (AT) i3g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com

,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

On 10 Jan, 04:35, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

With the "fancy" part being that the reader can resize it at will.

I am sure you are meaning the browser window...

I can resize my screen (in pixels) pretty easily. I can even change
its physical size (same pixel count) most easily of all, by pressing a
button on my KVM switch.

Lets take the first. (Perhaps sherm *was* meaning something along
these lines, I simply forget now. I did not think this at the
time?). The screen can be configured for a set number of pixels
to take up an inch. This figure can be changed. (I get not the
best and often quite lousy results on LCD screens compared with
CRT when I have tried any but the natural finest resolution.

But your second is the most interesting. It involves replacing
one object with another rather than what was intended to be the
operation talked about, a change in one object. One could say
that your second point involves switching more than a KVM. It
commits a logical fallacy, the Aristotelian name for which, when
translated, is something like, drawing a conclusion by switching
the subject. It is the lowest form of argument and the ancient
Greeks used to show their contempt by a nasal gesture when they
found themselves in the presence of such. I would do the same if
I had a nose.

I will conclude on a less logical and more moral note by saying
that switching to another screen to obtain an advantage is like
switching from a faithful old car to gain an advantage. In the
case of *my* car it would leave a sour cheatin' taste as if one
had dumped a spouse to gain some physical advantage.

--
dorayme