Headings

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Jeff wrote:

In my case, we had set a
default line-height for that "column". It came as a surprise when I
looked at this in IE and the larger heading size in IE had cause the
heading to wrap and *overlap*.

Obscure your question is. No URL you gave. Impossible to see your real
problem is. Great confusion you create.

You have forever changed the way I'll remember Yoda. From now on, he is
a cranky Finn.

Although the problem (immediately corrected) was specific, the
question was general.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

You have forever changed the way I'll remember Yoda. From now on, he
is a cranky Finn.

I do not think every Jeff behaves like you.

Although the problem (immediately corrected) was specific, the
question was general.

So you apparently don't want to solve your problem.

Please use the same forged From field as long as you remain clueless.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Jeff wrote:

You have forever changed the way I'll remember Yoda. From now on, he
is a cranky Finn.

I do not think every Jeff behaves like you.

Although the problem (immediately corrected) was specific, the
question was general.

So you apparently don't want to solve your problem.

The advice I've gotten so far, to set top margin is good, setting a
line-height is also appropriate if the line height might be inherited
from it's container. IE does that Firefox does not for headings.

Please use the same forged From field as long as you remain clueless.

In a time, long long ago, I took the advice to use my real email
address in the: "From" field. I can no longer can use that email
address. The reasons why many of us don't use real addresses is obvious.
Now perhaps, spam harvesting from usenet is not the problem it used to
be, but I'm not so desirous of getting your approval that I wish to find
out.

Jeff

In article <slrngmh3vc.3jf.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:

But here is a simple bit of markup for you so that you can alter the
main factors that influence exactly where a heading text is placed in
the normal scheme of things. Let us zero margins for body to get started
without distractions in top left:

http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/heading.html

Remove the CSS to see the defaults in each browser.

Obviously the font-size is a factor, the line-height is another, margin
is yet another. I mention these because these are the main factors and
each browser has defaults for these. Generally, they are about 1.2em for
line-height (unlike in the url). Perhaps about 0.7em for top and bottom
margin.

I think most browser default stylesheets just leave line-height as
normal on headings.

Yes, I guess a distinction can be made about the origin of the factors
that influence how a heading is placed in browsers. The line-height
being set more generally (for body say) by defaults. But, perhaps it is
worth noting that if you do set the line height specially for some
element, it ... well ... it is a control on placement on the page. (Try
10 on H1 in the above URL <g>)

--
dorayme

In article <B90al.9779$cu.6496 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

I understand. IE does do things a little different. I suggest that if
it bothers you that the defaults in IE are causing trouble for you and
clients (and I do understand this, it can cause all sorts of trouble
in various contexts), use a separate stylesheet for IE by means of
conditional comments in the head of the HTML doc. Like:

dorayme. Really. Don't.
Conditional comments just to make a header look pixel perfect in more than
one browser?

OP: Live with the difference. You will *never* get your page to look exactly
the same in the many browsers out there.

Depends on what the differences are. Sometimes a small difference can
make a big difference in some context. I speak in general*

---------------
* partly because generality is power and power is an aphrodisiac ...

--
dorayme

In article <BYqdndd7Z5-6VvXUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

I look at it this way, since I need to earn a living. Satisfy the
client, but do it in a way that doesn't degrade poorly. YMMV.

Suggestion for pricing model:
Website for Standard browsers. Cost X
Add looks good in IE8. Cost 2X
Add also looks good in IE7. Cost 4X
Add also looks good in IE6. Cost 8X
Add also looks good in IE5 ...
and so on to taste, with variations on the exponent

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

On 2009-01-11, Eric Lindsay wrote:

In article <BYqdndd7Z5-6VvXUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

I look at it this way, since I need to earn a living. Satisfy the
client, but do it in a way that doesn't degrade poorly. YMMV.

Suggestion for pricing model:
Website for Standard browsers. Cost X
Add looks good in IE8. Cost 2X
Add also looks good in IE7. Cost 4X
Add also looks good in IE6. Cost 8X
Add also looks good in IE5 ...

... priceless!

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Eric Lindsay wrote:

In article <BYqdndd7Z5-6VvXUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

I look at it this way, since I need to earn a living. Satisfy the
client, but do it in a way that doesn't degrade poorly. YMMV.

Suggestion for pricing model:
Website for Standard browsers. Cost X
Add looks good in IE8. Cost 2X
Add also looks good in IE7. Cost 4X
Add also looks good in IE6. Cost 8X
Add also looks good in IE5 ...
and so on to taste, with variations on the exponent

I love it.

William Gill wrote:

Eric Lindsay wrote:
In article <BYqdndd7Z5-6VvXUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

I look at it this way, since I need to earn a living. Satisfy the
client, but do it in a way that doesn't degrade poorly. YMMV.

Suggestion for pricing model:
Website for Standard browsers. Cost X
Add looks good in IE8. Cost 2X
Add also looks good in IE7. Cost 4X
Add also looks good in IE6. Cost 8X
Add also looks good in IE5 ...
and so on to taste, with variations on the exponent

This reply is directed at no one in specific, but this looked like a
good place for me to insert my 2 cents (U.S.). Isn't it interesting how
so many here will totally disavow the use of something like ECMAScript
(JavaScript) because it is disabled in maybe 10% of the users' browsers,
and similarly discourage any "special" consideration of a browser that
is used by considerably more than 10% or the browsing public.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating designing for any specific
browser, but OP how long have you been "happily htmling away" without
any consideration that your client might have different hardware,
software,desktop configuration, and preferences than you?

Well, my boot drive died and with it IE6. When I got it back up I
loaded IE7, which acted like it worked but didn't. I uninstalled IE7 and
tried to load IE6 which XP refused to accept. A week and a half later I
got IE6 running again, I don't remember what I did , but it wasn't
pretty. In the meantime, the site had been checked on Firefox, Safari
and Opera on the windows side, and Safari and Firefox on the Mac side.

I firmly believe in checking on IE.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

Well, my boot drive died and with it IE6. When I got it back up I
loaded IE7, which acted like it worked but didn't. I uninstalled IE7 and
tried to load IE6 which XP refused to accept.

I guess you haven't heard - multiple IE's on XP is not a problem. Google
is your friend.

Install IE7 then as many other versions as you like. You can get them at
http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone

--
Berg