Re: Force split of unique long word in a narrow TD

Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Oh, you're from the Real World, Inc.? And shouting that
your boss or customer requires you to construct a
perpetuum mobile magically implies that those who tell it
_cannot_ be done (as separate from "it should not be
done") are academic nerds, right.

The problem with saying that something cannot be done is
that you can only ever be proven wrong.

Nonsense. There are lots of things that provably cannot be
done.



--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk

In article <wfsl6bki0l.fsf (AT) calligramme (DOT) charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk> wrote:

Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Oh, you're from the Real World, Inc.? And shouting that
your boss or customer requires you to construct a
perpetuum mobile magically implies that those who tell it
_cannot_ be done (as separate from "it should not be
done") are academic nerds, right.

The problem with saying that something cannot be done is
that you can only ever be proven wrong.

Nonsense. There are lots of things that provably cannot be
done.

Like... a male electrician at a nunnery expecting to be able to
get away with demonstrating the Lambada to some novice nuns
without being ticked off by senior nuns that are watching?

--
dorayme

Jon Fairbairn wrote:

Nonsense. There are lots of things that provably cannot be
done.

Such as proving to you the fallacy of that statement.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Nonsense. There are lots of things that provably cannot be
done.

Such as proving to you the fallacy of that statement.

True enough. For seconds, how about giving me two positive
non-unit whole numbers that multiply together to give
seventeen?

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> writes:

In article <wfsl6bki0l.fsf (AT) calligramme (DOT) charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk> wrote:

Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:
The problem with saying that something cannot be done is
that you can only ever be proven wrong.

Nonsense. There are lots of things that provably cannot be
done.

Like... a male electrician at a nunnery expecting to be able to
get away with demonstrating the Lambada to some novice nuns
without being ticked off by senior nuns that are watching?

:-), no, that's more open-ended than the kind of thing I had
:in mind...

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk

In article <wfir77zco7.fsf (AT) calligramme (DOT) charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk> wrote:

Like... a male electrician at a nunnery expecting to be able to
get away with demonstrating the Lambada to some novice nuns
without being ticked off by senior nuns that are watching?

:-), no, that's more open-ended than the kind of thing I had
:in mind...

I dunno, it is an open and shut case, I would bet against it with
the same odds given as your two positive non-unit whole numbers
that multiply together to give seventeen. But don't worry, I know
what you mean. I think you are almost certainly right. <g>

--
dorayme

Jon Fairbairn wrote:

True enough. For seconds, how about giving me two positive
non-unit whole numbers that multiply together to give
seventeen?

Not having used my degree-level mathematicsâ€* since 1981 I'm not up to
this challenge, because I don't recognise the term "non-unit". I'm sure
the problem would be trivial in non base-10 though. Also, they're
probably teaching mathematics capable of answering your question in
primary schools these days; have you hear Bob Newhart's "New Math"? :-)

However, this is out of context - we are talking about things that can
be done with a computer, and how effects can be achieved with
HTML/CSS/JavaScript etc.

If I say "x cannot be done" then its only a matter of time before
someone more skilled than I comes up with a solution. That's why I'm
learning "C" at this late stage, so that I too can do the impossible.

â€* My degree was in Physics, which included a very substantial proportion
of (old) mathematics.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Jon Fairbairn wrote:
True enough. For seconds, how about giving me two positive
non-unit whole numbers that multiply together to give
seventeen?

Not having used my degree-level mathematicsâ€* since 1981 I'm
not up to this challenge, because I don't recognise the term
"non-unit".

As a physicist you would have been taught, and been
proficient in certain areas of mathematics (the ones useful
to your subject), but probably not number theory or proof
theory... non-unit just means "not 1"¹ in this context.

I'm sure the problem would be trivial in non
base-10 though.

No. We're not talking about the representation, so the base
is completely irrelevant. Unless you think that it's
possible for two positive whole numbers bigger than 17 to
multiply together to give 17, there are only sixteen
possible candidates for each of the two numbers, so you can
go through all the possible cases.

Also, they're probably teaching mathematics capable of
answering your question in primary schools these days;

Maybe they are; if they're being tought mathematics, the
answer they'll come up with is "no".

However, this is out of context - we are talking about
things that can be done with a computer,

But things that can be done with a computer are exactly the
type of thing to which this sort of argument can apply.

and how effects can be achieved with HTML/CSS/JavaScript
etc.

Leaving aside Javascript (as off topic), the point of the
argument is that effects cannot be achieved with HTML+CSS.
I could froth at the mouth at considerable length about the
vacuity of and lack of formal definition² in the CSS
"standards", but the relevant sentence from the CSS 2.1
document is this:

6. The UA must allow the user to turn off the influence
of author style sheets.

If anyone was hoping for a particular effect, that's "game
over", even before we consider the question of whether any
"conforming user agents" actually exist.

If I say "x cannot be done" then its only a matter of time
before someone more skilled than I comes up with a
solution. That's why I'm learning "C" at this late stage, so
that I too can do the impossible.

A bit of computation theory wouldn't hurt. No one who does
not understand the proof of the halting theorem can really
call themselves a programmer. C doesn't allow one to do the
impossible; it just allows one to be impossible.


[1] or anything that behaves like 1 as far as multiplication
is concerned

[2] which, I admit, neatly prevents any real proofs about
CSS

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk

px --> em

I began changing the font size to EM, by multiplying the values of
the font size for 1 / 16, and using 3 maximum decimals, and removing
"px".
[I am leaving other things alone for the moment]

I do not get the same layout. The fonts are much bigger.

What's wrong here ?


-P

On 23 Aug, 16:48, pamela fluente <pamelaflue... (AT) libero (DOT) it> wrote:

px --> em

I began changing the font size to EM,

Set the font-size to
body { font-size: 1em; }

DON'T CHANGE THIS. Don't EVER set font-sizes to anything other than
this one default for the whole page, unless you know all the
accessibility issues involved in doing so (this ng is a good
resource). You just don't need to modify this: if you think you do
then you're probably wrong, if you really do, then you should still
only change it by a small fraction.

Remove all the attempts to set the height of elements. Just let the
browser deal with it. Change some padding or margin settings if you
need to make tables clearer to read.

Convert the width settings you currently have in px into ems, using a
ratio of 12 or maybe 16. Then adjust the actual values to fit.

Don't worry that things "look different", because this is only a
starting point, and they already looked different anyway - you just
hadn't realised it. "Pixel perfect" web design is a misleading goal.