Hello all,
I have the following simple html how can I display the second table
content like the first one. As i have add the
| [history | payment] |
| [history | ] |
kaiwin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have the following simple html how can I display the second table
> content like the first one. As i have add the
| [history | payment] |
| [history | payment] |
| [history | ] |
This is a quck fix though it would be better to have all your style
sheet code in a seperate css file
change
On Oct 17, 11:09 pm, kaiwin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have the following simple html how can I display the second table
> content like the first one. As i have add the
| [history | payment] |
| [history | ] |
> change
>
On 2007-10-22, pidipady
> Place the closing '' at the bottom of your web page just before
> the '' tag
No, always place the closing where it belongs. Remove the
spacing by setting margin-bottom on the form element to 0.
Steve Swift wrote:
>> It is like making a casserole really, anything goes eh?
>
> Precisely! And if, on occasions, you make a mistake (as my mother
> frequently did), and the result is tastier, that becomes your new
> recipe! http://www.swiftys.org.uk/wiz?106
Funny. Posting on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html some invalid code
that displays correctly because of bugs in specific HTML renderers is as
ridiculous as posting on talk.grammar.english an awful grammar error,
claiming that it's fine because Microsoft Word's grammar check feature
doesn't find it.
> Remember, the only "standard" that I'm designing to (in my commercial
> activity, at least) is "Must work in IE6 and the current Firefox"
What will happen when FF and IE6 will upgrade?
> As far as Microsoft and the Firefox developers are concerned, I should
> imagine one of their highest priorities is "Mustn't screw up legacy
> pages with new releases otherwise the customers will switch to the
> competition"
Wrong.
For FF, it's: "Respect standards better".
Standards are hard enough to respect. Respecting cr*p code is secondary,
especially when a parser change increase the standards support but affects
cr*p code (as any parser change does).
Even if there're a few cr*ppy tricks that are well known and that browsers
try to respect, your FORM thing is surely not in this list.
If would be foolish to think that any tester will ever notice that your
cr*p is broken by the new version of FF or IE, unless your site is in of
the top 50 of all web sites.
If your site was in the top 50, then, maybe, IE (but probably not FF)
would try to keep compatibility with your cr*p, at the cost of good
insults aimed at your person, in Microsoft's labs (you can imagine them
yourself), and maybe other tradeoffs in IE, such as reduced performances
and standards conformance.
Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks in
browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative browsers
from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from user
point of view by displaying stupid messages "You must have IE 6.01 beta
3.4 + beta patch 1 or FF 1.5 beta 8 to see this site, but you've IE 6.01
beta 3.5".
> so I'm happy they're looking after me.
They're not. They cannot review all the cr*p code in the world. Actually,
they cannot even manage to get a perfect standards conformance, which is
orders of magnitude easier than maintaining compatibility with all the
cr*p that exist in the world.
--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article
still me
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:12:44 +0200, "André Gillibert"
>
>
> >Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
> >standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks in
> >browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative browsers
> > from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from user
> >point of view by displaying stupid messages
>
>
> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
> form tags? That's some serious power!
No, I think Andre meant that websites that the poster makes, and
those from like minded authors, have the unwanted effect. That
might be a fair point, no? It is like burning coal in private
house chimneys, one house is no likely to cause trouble, but like
minded occupants in lots of other houses doing the same will have
a bad effect.
--
dorayme
On 2007-10-26, still me
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:12:44 +0200, "André Gillibert"
>
>
>>Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks in
>>browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative browsers
>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from user
>>point of view by displaying stupid messages
>
>
> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
> form tags? That's some serious power!
The problem is that even after it was explained to him why misplacing
form tags is a bad idea, he continued to attempt to defend it (with the
usual bad arguments).
It's therefore quite reasonable for André to point out some more of the
consequences.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
GMT still me scribed:
>>Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>browsers
>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from
>> user
>>point of view by displaying stupid messages
>
>
> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
> form tags? That's some serious power!
e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
> GMT still me scribed:
>
>>> Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>> standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>> in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>> browsers
>>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from
>>> user
>>> point of view by displaying stupid messages
>>
>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>
> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>
I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as
I like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the
second equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same
value by itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have
different values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
If toast always lands butter-side-down, and a cats always land on their
feet, what would happen if you strapped a piece of toast on the back of
a cat & dropped it?
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
>> GMT still me scribed:
>>
>>>> Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>>> standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>>> in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>>> browsers
>>>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from
>>>> user
>>>> point of view by displaying stupid messages
>>>
>>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>>
>> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>>
>
> I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as
> I like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
> version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the
> second equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same
> value by itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have
> different values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
>
> Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
> this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
> for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
It's elegant in that even though the two c constants aren't the same,
they are both seven-letter words that only differ by their penultimate
characters. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
>>> GMT still me scribed:
>>>
>>>>> Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>>>> standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>>>> in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>>>> browsers
>>>>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from
>>>>> user
>>>>> point of view by displaying stupid messages
>>>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>>>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>>>
>>> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>>>
>> I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as
>> I like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
>> version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the
>> second equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same
>> value by itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have
>> different values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
>>
>> Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
>> this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
>> for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
>
> It's elegant in that even though the two c constants aren't the same,
> they are both seven-letter words that only differ by their penultimate
> characters. :)
>
>
Well, I guess I'm square with that.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Do unto others, then run like hell.
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
>>>> GMT still me scribed:
>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>>>>> standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>>>>> in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>>>>> browsers
>>>>>> from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the Web from
>>>>>> user
>>>>>> point of view by displaying stupid messages
>>>>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>>>>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>>>>
>>>> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>>>>
>>> I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as
>>> I like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
>>> version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the
>>> second equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same
>>> value by itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have
>>> different values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
>>>
>>> Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
>>> this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
>>> for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
>>
>> It's elegant in that even though the two c constants aren't the same,
>> they are both seven-letter words that only differ by their penultimate
>> characters. :)
>
> Well, I guess I'm square with that.
Time to celebrate, then, with a nice piece of pi.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:52:24 GMT
Ed Mullen scribed:
>>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>>
>> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>>
>
> I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as
> I like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
> version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the
> second equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same
> value by itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have
> different values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
>
> Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
> this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
> for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
As John Nash (sort of) indicated, "I never said it was rational."
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
"Ed Mullen"
news:xuCdnamWZsQkvbjanZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:46:17
>> GMT still me scribed:
>>>> Overall, you're specifically the type of guy who slow down the
>>>> standardization of browsers, increase the number of patches and hacks
>>>> in browsers, destroy the Web's openness by preventing alternative
>>>> browsers from having any chance of displaying your cr*p, breaks the
>>>> Web from
>>>> user point of view by displaying stupid messages
>>>
>>> Wow, he had all that effect just by posting a web page with misplaced
>>> form tags? That's some serious power!
>> e = mc² (error = meaning x context x content)
>>
>
> I'm no mathematician but I think you got the translation wrong (much as I
> like it!). c(squared) would mean that "c" is the same value in each
> version. Whereas, you've assigned "c" two different values in the second
> equation and simply multiplied them, not multiplied the same value by
> itself. The variables "context" and "content" could have different
> values, and, by the gist of your suggestion, probably would.
>
> Still, the whimsy in your answer struck a chord here. I think I'll use
> this as an excuse to write an old friend who IS a mathematician and ask
> for a suggested transmutation of the original. ;-)
>
> --
> Ed Mullen
> http://edmullen.net
> http://mozilla.edmullen.net
> http://abington.edmullen.net
> If toast always lands butter-side-down, and a cats always land on their
> feet, what would happen if you strapped a piece of toast on the back of a
> cat & dropped it?
Odd, I thought of it more like text abv.
error = messy squared ?