On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toma wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>>> d
2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>> design.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Dan
>
> no one cares. e u
The file attached ...
http://watchwolf.fr/public/Eyelight/eyelight_item_height_bug.png
2009/6/22 Atton Jonathan
> hey,
>
> In eyelight I use some vertical layout but I don't get what I want. The
> items are not set to the top but are placed to fill all the box. It seems
> than the layout does:
hey,
In eyelight I use some vertical layout but I don't get what I want. The
items are not set to the top but are placed to fill all the box. It seems
than the layout does:
the layout height / number of items = height of an item, each item has the
same height !
My items are created from an edje
Looks this way on ie8 maybe that's what he meant?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2009, at 12:55 PM, andres wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has
>> looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/im
Look
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 22, 2009, at 12:55 PM, andres wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has
>> looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg
>> since the
>> new des
On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the
> new design.
>
Does this happen with http://enlightenment.org/dev/?
It does not in the ie7 ver
On Monday, 22 June 2009, at 19:48:31 (+0200),
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> perhaps. but that could lead to even more messed-up layout
Not if it's done correctly.
Coding for Firefox and ignoring IE simply because it's what the
majority of us use is just as wrong and tyrannical as web developers
cod
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:17 +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:17 +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> >> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> >> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>> design.
>
> no one cares. e users
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> design.
about that, I suggest to the website maintainers to run the HTML and CSS
validators on t
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> design.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dan
no one cares. e users will not be using IE anytime soon.
Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
design.
Cheers
Dan
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 09:25:59PM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > Is it really usefull to unmap ? can't we trust the kernel to drop it
> > when under presure ?
>
> unmapping should help give a hint... it also looks better in top/ps :)
The first part is already done by using madvise. It doesn'
15 matches
Mail list logo
