iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 19:02:05 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 20:35:53 von dorayme

In article ,
richard wrote:

> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html

Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
representation.

--
dorayme

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 21:04:12 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 21:28:30 von Disco Octopus

On Jan 4, 5:02 am, richard wrote:
> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
>
> This will be my home page. What I was thinking of doing was to leave
> the page as is, then change only the center division as needed.
> How would I best approach this using iframes or is there another way
> to get around that?

Instead of an iframe you could consider using some kind of scripting
language/tool that includes you content directly into the page. eg.
ssi or php

Could be content from database or from another flat file.

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 21:44:04 von Nik Coughlin

"richard" wrote in message
news:idfqn3pgshitbc3qdekfumdsiqt21ukreh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
> wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>> richard wrote:
>>
>>> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
>>
>>Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
>>representation.
>
> Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
> can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?
> IE plays hell with an em. What am I supposed to do then? Create a page
> for a specific browser? Like hell I will. Then a page for each
> resolution? Bullshit.
>
> The way I see it, if those are choices, then if we're not supposed to
> use them, then why are they choices?

Because CSS allows you to have different stylesheets for different media.
Points and inches are appropriate for a print stylesheet.

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 21:56:14 von dorayme

In article ,
richard wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
> wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> > richard wrote:
> >
> >> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
> >
> >Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
> >representation.
>
> Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
> can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?
> IE plays hell with an em. What am I supposed to do then? Create a page
> for a specific browser? Like hell I will. Then a page for each
> resolution? Bullshit.
>
> The way I see it, if those are choices, then if we're not supposed to
> use them, then why are they choices?

Every damn screen can't agree on how many pixels fill an inch or
how big a pixel is - so hang onto your shirt!

If you say nothing at all about font-sizes anywhere in your html
or css, you will do fine. There is a lot of intelligence in the
default styles that are used by browsers. Clever people whose
business it is to know things made these styles. A lot of this
work is already done to a reasonably high standard. That is first
point.

If you really want to set font-sizes because you do not like the
ones that are provided by default, then tread lightly and set the
body to font-size: 100%; and a few other important ones like
headings at what you like; e.g. an h1 to 180%, a footnote to 85%
etc.

--
dorayme

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 23:25:59 von TravisNewbury

On Jan 3, 1:02 pm, richard wrote:
> Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
> This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 1:02 pm).

Richard, you came to this news group seeking information. Why do you
want to take that away from someone else by setting your post to be
removed in 6 days, thus removing the possibility someone might find
the answer based on searching for key words that were in your post.

I think it is kind of rude that's all.

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 23:32:14 von TravisNewbury

On Jan 3, 3:04 pm, richard wrote:
> >Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
> >representation.
> Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
> can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?

Nice way to reply. You do know that dorayme is a recovering
tourette's patient and your swearing probably knocked her off the
wagon! Great job there richard!

The group can do without your posts can you set them to be removed in
a day rather than 6?

Re: iframe or what?

am 03.01.2008 23:43:57 von Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:02:05 GMT
richard scribed:

> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
>
> This will be my home page. What I was thinking of doing was to leave
> the page as is, then change only the center division as needed.
> How would I best approach this using iframes or is there another way
> to get around that?

Before I'd use an iframe I'd use javascript, but the best way is probably
server-side with php or something similar, reloading the same page with new
content. (Javascript, of course, would effectively render the page useless
to non-j/s-enabled browsers.)

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 00:06:15 von dorayme

In article
<0fd54666-5068-4bab-9674-ba5003746b44@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 3, 3:04 pm, richard wrote:
> > >Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
> > >representation.
> > Then what the fuck am I supposed to use when every damn browser around
> > can't agree on what an em or a pixel is?
>
> Nice way to reply. You do know that dorayme is a recovering
> tourette's patient and your swearing probably knocked her off the
> wagon! Great job there richard!
>
> The group can do without your posts can you set them to be removed in
> a day rather than 6?

Well, thanks Travis. But my attitude is actually rather different
on this one. Until I hear otherwise, I rather think of Richard's
language and protest as earthy and heartfelt. If everyone else
here was prepared to indulge in same, I would happily throw out
the civilised version of the international English dictionary and
use the dinkiest of dinky die old fashioned working class inner
city Australian pub one. But I fancy it would be just too much
for delicate international ears.

The real trouble with allowing this kind of earthiness is that it
attracts bad types, that is, people with base motives, low
breeding, mean sob resentments towards life and fellows and like
that. So reluctantly, I suppose, we must be a bit straight-laced.

Please excuse me Travis but I have to pop into my sound-proof
room now to tap and tap and tap the special tourette-absorption
device I built myself... and ... well... to scream.

--
dorayme

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 03:00:20 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 03:06:09 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 04:09:47 von dorayme

In article <9q4rn399taav8f4c9e1dhsjhi6e3tiv0q3@4ax.com>,
richard wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
> wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> > richard wrote:
> >
> >> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
> >
> >Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
> >representation.
>
> Another thing, the way I see it, a screen is nothing more than a fancy
> sheet of paper. Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
> around well before electronics came into the world.

OK. You complained about waiting 7 day for replies in another
post. Reply to this:

Did you read the urls I gave you?

Do you know that the percentage of area taken up by a square inch
on one monitor is no indication of the percentage area taken up
on another screen?

Would it not be safer and more sensible, even when thinking of
designing for visual users, to go for relative dimensions? Like,
for example, % widths and heights?

Do you know that by fixing widths in inches for boxes, even
though you specify pts for font sizes, many modern browsers will
allow users to enlarge the text size and that when this happens,
text can break out of the fixed size boxes?

Or that one excellent way of avoiding the latter is to specify
both font sizes and boxes in em units?

Have you ever seen print on a piece of paper that a reader can
alter the actual size of?

Have you ever heard of Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles which
has corollaries that say in effect that the more things differ,
the less they can be the same?

When you respond to this, we will go further. But please reflect
on this first.

You may continue to use really foul language as long as it is not
personally insulting.

--
dorayme

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 07:34:46 von Michael Fesser

..oO(richard)

>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +1100, dorayme
>
>>Don't use inches and pts in your css instructions for screen
>>representation.
>
>Another thing, the way I see it, a screen is nothing more than a fancy
>sheet of paper. Inches and points are defined by a standard that was
>around well before electronics came into the world.

Correct. But screens don't work with points or inches, they work with
pixels. Now the problem is, that in order to correctly calculate the
corresponding length in pixels for a given pt or in value, the operating
system has to be configured to a correct dpi/ppi value. But most systems
simply run with the default values of 72 or 96 dpi, which means that the
results are completely unpredictable and never the same on different
platforms with different monitor sizes. A pixel will (almost) always be
a pixel, but an inch or point may result in quite different pixel sizes.

Micha

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 08:02:36 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: iframe or what?

am 04.01.2008 10:03:52 von Andy Dingley

On 3 Jan, 18:02, richard wrote:
> http://oldies.littleworldofours.com/home.html
>
> What I was thinking of doing was to leave
> the page as is, then change only the center division as needed.

Use SSI, not a dynamic client-side Use % units for text sizing, if IE's bugs with ems are a problem to you. Limit the use of pixels to horizontal sizing around fixed-width images, otherwise use ems. </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 04.01.2008 10:59:31 von Michael Fesser ..oO(richard) >On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:34:46 +0100, Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de> >wrote: > >>Correct. But screens don't work with points or inches, they work with >>pixels. Now the problem is, that in order to correctly calculate the >>corresponding length in pixels for a given pt or in value, the operating >>system has to be configured to a correct dpi/ppi value. But most systems >>simply run with the default values of 72 or 96 dpi, which means that the >>results are completely unpredictable and never the same on different >>platforms with different monitor sizes. A pixel will (almost) always be >>a pixel, but an inch or point may result in quite different pixel sizes. > >Which is why I decided to use inches and pts. >Comparing positioning in both IE and FF, it is the only way in which >both show the same locations for the same information. Nope. That would be px. A 50px margin will always be 50px. But a 2in margin can be nearly anything on the user's screen. For example a 2in width as defined in the CSS appears as 4.5cm on my 19" screen at a 1600 resolution, since I use the default setting of 96ppi. >Practically everything else is a variable. In the WWW nearly everything is variable. But this is feature, not a bug. >That is, it has no distinct >properties other than what the screen tells it. >An inch is a fixed standard. It can only be represented one way. Nope. You don't know how many pixels an inch defined in your CSS will be on the user's screen, since it depends on the OS configuration. Micha </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 04.01.2008 11:54:00 von TravisNewbury On Jan 3, 9:00 pm, richard <I.dont.c...@do.you> wrote: > >I think it is kind of rude that's all. > I have my reasons for doing so. > In some groups, such as this that is highly active, after 7 days and > you've had no replies, you may as well repost a new thread. So lets say this second thread results in the answers to your questions. Because you have marked it for deletion you have successfully removed it for future searching. Since you don't know if someone is going to answer you or not, the fact that you have the message removed is still rude and thoughtless to others that use this group. </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 04.01.2008 15:13:57 von Bergamot richard wrote: > > An inch is a fixed standard. It can only be represented one way. That's making the bold assumption that the user's screen is properly calibrated. Most are probably not. -- Berg </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 10.01.2008 01:25:54 von Andy Dingley On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:06:09 -0500, richard <I.dont.care@do.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. </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 10.01.2008 02:55:06 von dorayme In article <qepao3pibo8paf7lueb70th9mrphljkaui@4ax.com>, Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:06:09 -0500, richard <I.dont.care@do.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 </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 10.01.2008 04:41:07 von Sherm Pendley richard <I.dont.care@do.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 </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 10.01.2008 05:35:09 von dorayme In article <m1zlveqre4.fsf@dot-app.org>, Sherman Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote: > richard <I.dont.care@do.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 </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 10.01.2008 18:16:09 von Andy Dingley On 10 Jan, 01:55, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.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. </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 11.01.2008 11:57:50 von Andy Dingley On 10 Jan, 04:35, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.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. </article> <article> <h2>Re: iframe or what?</h2>am 11.01.2008 21:11:28 von dorayme In article <3424a0a0-b73d-4420-8bc9-f5d3d76b88a1@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote: > On 10 Jan, 04:35, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.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 </article> <footer> <a href="/">Index</a> | <a href="/impressum.php">Impressum</a> | <a href="/datenschutz.php">Datenschutz</a> | <a href="https://www.xodox.de/">XODOX</a> </footer> </main> </body> </html>