On 24 Dec 2002 at 11:41, Andrew Rodland wrote: > On Tuesday 24 December 2002 09:28 am, Erendil at aol.com wrote: > > > > > Also, the "iframeish" boxes are due to the fact that CSS does not restrain > > text well, whearas tables do, and I didn't use 1 single table in the whole > > goshdarned thing. > > > That's not really true at all. > > > If you want to have them dissapear, it will look kind of lopsided, and it > > will use tables, which display differently on different browsers, whearas > > the CSS used cannot, as it is specified per pixel. > > > Don't specify anything per-pixel, and use a lot less position:absolute, and a > lot of your text-layout problems will go away. > > > Any more comments? If we really don't like this design, I'll kill it. But I > > think it's an excellent design, both in code, usability, and in looks. > The code is nice. Usability is so-so. Looks, I personally can't stand. :) > > > > Alabaster > > Cheers > --hobbs > > > _______________________________________________ > devl mailing list > devl at freenetproject.org > http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > >
Yes we could use position: relative; But without overflow: auto; it gets hidden, or it comes out of the specified area, making it worse. Now as for looks, we can change the colors easily. We can move things around. We can do lots of things like making it darker. Just tell us exactly what you want instead of "well i don't like it" Specifics people! Specifics! Alabaster _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
