IE (AIIEEEEEEEE!)

#11

rf wrote:

Quote:

Joshua Whalen wrote:
Hello, again.

If I may ask one more favor of you all, I only have IE 7 on winXP sp3,

Google for multiple IEs. Its a simple matter to download and install every
IE back to 4.0.

Actually back to 3.0

http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
Install multiple versions of IE on your PC | TredoSoft

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

#12

In article <b1d5$4996f455$414ebc3d$20877 (AT) EVERESTKC (DOT) NET>,
Mark Hansen <meh (AT) NOSPAMwinfirst (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On 02/13/09 23:32, dorayme wrote:

[ snip ]

Actually I better stop because I sense no one is reading me at this
stage and I better cut my losses and end inconclusively.

Not true :-)

Not true? OK. How about me talking less and acting more. Here is
something that is simpler for OP (but still uses some of his stuff out
of need for speed for me).

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/lyndon.html>

Not perfect by any means but clearer line of thought and works better I
think without all that complicated positioning of original.

--
dorayme

#13

dorayme wrote:

Quote:

In article <b1d5$4996f455$414ebc3d$20877 (AT) EVERESTKC (DOT) NET>,
Mark Hansen <meh (AT) NOSPAMwinfirst (DOT) com> wrote:

On 02/13/09 23:32, dorayme wrote:

[ snip ]

Actually I better stop because I sense no one is reading me at this
stage and I better cut my losses and end inconclusively.

Not true :-)

Not true? OK. How about me talking less and acting more. Here is
something that is simpler for OP (but still uses some of his stuff out
of need for speed for me).

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

Not perfect by any means but clearer line of thought and works better I
think without all that complicated positioning of original.

But why am I seeing a font that looks "smeared"? Am I seeing a fixed-width

site being stretched width-wise, or something?

Doug,
Linux, Firefox 3.
--
Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world is the triumph
of some enthusiasm.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

#14

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

Quote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <b1d5$4996f455$414ebc3d$20877 (AT) EVERESTKC (DOT) NET>,
Mark Hansen <meh (AT) NOSPAMwinfirst (DOT) com> wrote:

On 02/13/09 23:32, dorayme wrote:

[ snip ]

Actually I better stop because I sense no one is reading me at this
stage and I better cut my losses and end inconclusively.
Not true :-)
Not true? OK. How about me talking less and acting more. Here is
something that is simpler for OP (but still uses some of his stuff out
of need for speed for me).

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

Not perfect by any means but clearer line of thought and works better I
think without all that complicated positioning of original.

But why am I seeing a font that looks "smeared"? Am I seeing a fixed-width
site being stretched width-wise, or something?

It's an image being scaled by the browse. Sucks doesn't it? Great
demonstration why one should resample an image to size and not constrain
with HTML or style.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

#15

In article <l5et66-aec.ln1 (AT) dougshost (DOT) douglaidlaw.net>,
Doug Laidlaw <doug (AT) dougshost (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Quote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <b1d5$4996f455$414ebc3d$20877 (AT) EVERESTKC (DOT) NET>,
Mark Hansen <meh (AT) NOSPAMwinfirst (DOT) com> wrote:

On 02/13/09 23:32, dorayme wrote:

[ snip ]

Actually I better stop because I sense no one is reading me at this
stage and I better cut my losses and end inconclusively.

Not true :-)

Not true? OK. How about me talking less and acting more. Here is
something that is simpler for OP (but still uses some of his stuff out
of need for speed for me).

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

Not perfect by any means but clearer line of thought and works better I
think without all that complicated positioning of original.

But why am I seeing a font that looks "smeared"? Am I seeing a fixed-width
site being stretched width-wise, or something?

If you are talking about the white boxed white white content text, note
that it is a screenshot of the OP's content text. It is not proper
markup, it is a picture. With a touch by me of percentaging it
suggesting fluidity. I did not try to help him with marking that bit up.
I was just suggesting a more solid basis for laying out his page as a
whole. I thought I would leave the content bit as an exercise for him or
others.

--
dorayme

#16

In article <896b8$499c274f$40cba7b7$22368 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Doug Laidlaw wrote:
dorayme wrote:

In article <b1d5$4996f455$414ebc3d$20877 (AT) EVERESTKC (DOT) NET>,
Mark Hansen <meh (AT) NOSPAMwinfirst (DOT) com> wrote:

On 02/13/09 23:32, dorayme wrote:

[ snip ]

Actually I better stop because I sense no one is reading me at this
stage and I better cut my losses and end inconclusively.
Not true :-)
Not true? OK. How about me talking less and acting more. Here is
something that is simpler for OP (but still uses some of his stuff out
of need for speed for me).

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

Not perfect by any means but clearer line of thought and works better I
think without all that complicated positioning of original.

But why am I seeing a font that looks "smeared"? Am I seeing a fixed-width
site being stretched width-wise, or something?

It's an image being scaled by the browse. Sucks doesn't it? Great
demonstration why one should resample an image to size and not constrain
with HTML or style.

I did not think *you* or OP would miss the point! Ah well...

The picture of the text was not meant to be something the OP was
supposed to emulate! It was a time saver for me.

I *should* have explained, of course. Please be more alert Jonathan and
help me out with stuff like:

"In case anyone does not realise it, the pic is there as a place holder
for real mark up. dorayme has talked itself hoarse on that thread and
forgot to add this explanation.

In other words, cover my back please. I will send regular payments.

--
dorayme

#17

dorayme wrote:

Quote:

In article <896b8$499c274f$40cba7b7$22368 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

But why am I seeing a font that looks "smeared"? Am I seeing a fixed-width
site being stretched width-wise, or something?

It's an image being scaled by the browse. Sucks doesn't it? Great
demonstration why one should resample an image to size and not constrain
with HTML or style.

I did not think *you* or OP would miss the point! Ah well...

The picture of the text was not meant to be something the OP was
supposed to emulate! It was a time saver for me.

Well my comments were not in reference to the OP, but the immediate
answer to Doug here. I was not really being critical of your practice
here, just that your demo and Doug's question perfectly addressed
questions about image scaling asked in several places elsewhere in this
NG recently.

Quote:

I *should* have explained, of course. Please be more alert Jonathan and
help me out with stuff like:

"In case anyone does not realise it, the pic is there as a place holder
for real mark up. dorayme has talked itself hoarse on that thread and
forgot to add this explanation.

Again, it's okay, wasn't really addressing your example directly.
Although if I where going to build a demo I would represent tblocks of
text with dummy text...

Quote:

In other words, cover my back please. I will send regular payments.

Oh, sure. To OP, listen to dorayme... (psst...okay?)

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com