See fixed bug description below.

Dne Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:30:53 +0700 (JAVT), Eko Priono napsal:

> When there's any <PRE></PRE> construct within a HTML page,
> should the preformated text's width within it affecting
> any paragraph's (<P>) width after it?

No.

> If there's any preformated text that rendered wider than
> screen resolution (mostly noticeable in 640x480 res),
> Arachne displaying all paragraphs following it with the
> preformated text's width, not screen width (which it should
> be, IMHO).

> For example (view with monospaced font):

> |-- Screen Width ---|--- Off screen --- >
> +-------------------+
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP  < - paragraph(s) rendered correctly
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP      (equal or less than screen width)
> PPPP

> TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT  <- Preformated text section
> TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT     wider than screen width
> TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP  <- Paragraph(s) rendered the
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP     same width as the latest
> PPPPPPPPP                     preformated text section

> TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT  <- An even wider single
>                                 line preformated text

> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP  <- More wider paragraph
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> +-------------------+

This was fixed in 1.66.


> An so on...  Off course you'll have to scroll a lot to
> view this page with Arachne...  Horizontally! x(

> AFAIK in the same case, mainstream browsers (MSIE, etc.)
> rendered all paragraphs in consistent width, wich is equal
> or less than screen width.  Only those lengthly preformatted
> text sections rendered partially off screen.

> So, which is the correct one? Comments? Confirmations?

Comment: Fixed. And not only for <PRE>, but also for <TABLE> and
<NOBR> tags. (But not if these tags are nested - this may be a little
problem in future, because ALL possible combination of tags appear
on some page, sooner or later. Webmasters are like Infinite Monkeys...

Good news for people on SurvPC mailing list: two alternative 1.66 APMs
were published on Arachne website, one called 256c166.apm saves 9 KB
of conventional memory, and it is for PCs without Hicolor cards, second
called mmem166.apm saves ~30 KB of DOS memory, and it is for machines
without XMS memory configured (no virt. screens - no anim. GIFs).
Problem is, that CORE.EXE in 256c166.apm is not really latest 1.66
APM, so the <PRE> bug isn't acutally fixed in this one, but I am going
to upload "real" 1.66 alternative APMs tomorrow from office (mmem166
is already final 1.66...).

--
Michael Polak: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arachne Labs: http://arachne.cz/
My mobile phone - up to 160 characters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to