Tom Livingston wrote:
On 6/10/06 4:50 AM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I cracking up?
Is it better now?
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
[thanks Francky]
Seems fine now!
--
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
On 6/10/06 4:50 AM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I cracking up?
Is it better now?
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
[thanks Francky]
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph:
518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
Title: Re: [WSG] Jello variation
On 6/10/06 8:52 AM, "Gunlaug Sørtun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The logic behind the use of an _expression_ to fix IE's lack of
> 'max-width' when dealing with 'em-width' scaled layouts, should
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
Designer wrote:
How strange - it fits on mine down to 800 by 600, but if I have the
font-size set at anything but 'smallest', it doesn't! And once it's
'gone wrong it's hard to get it right again! I'm talking about
IE6/winXP, viewed via the 'vi
Tom Livingston wrote:
On 6/9/06 1:29 PM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry Tom, but the layout doesn't fit in IE6 at 1024 by 768. (WinXP).
At least, not on my machine.
A little more info please. What doesn't fit? I just checked on mine and it
fits - even with fonts at large
Tom Livingston wrote:
Can't recall how to switch it to quirks mode...
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>
That comment will keep IE6, and also IE7, in quirks mode. Not a good
thing to do IMO, but that's another matter :-)
I prefer using an XHTML doctype in such cases, because I can do
Makes sense, thank you :)
Bruce Prochnau
bkdesign
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Livingston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Jello variation
On 6/9/06 3:01 PM, "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/9/06 3:01 PM, "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BTW...why is it html4.01 and not xhtml transitional or something?
It is 4.01 Strict.
No holy wars please, but I liked the idea that if you are serving text/html
then leave it as html. As opposed to serving XHTML as text/html instead of
t: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Jello variation
On 6/9/06 1:29 PM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry Tom, but the layout doesn't fit in IE6 at 1024 by 768. (WinXP).
At least, not on my machine.
A little more info please. What doesn't
On 6/9/06 1:29 PM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry Tom, but the layout doesn't fit in IE6 at 1024 by 768. (WinXP).
> At least, not on my machine.
A little more info please. What doesn't fit? I just checked on mine and it
fits - even with fonts at largest.
--
Tom Livingston | S
Tom Livingston wrote:
Hello list,
I am playing with a variation of Mike Purvis' jello layout (a variation for
me anyway - you may have seen/done this) to make the entire layout scale
proportionally (as opposed to just allowing for the text to get
bigger/smaller).
Can you take a peek - beat on i
On 6/9/06 12:14 PM, "Gunlaug Sørtun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll have to tweak the expression a bit for IE6, or run
> it in quirks mode.
Can't recall how to switch it to quirks mode...
Best way?
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph:
518.456.3015x231 | fx
Tom Livingston wrote:
In IE6, when the page approaches it's intended max-width, there is a
weird jump in the width. A minor thing, but would like to fix it if
possible. Got any ideas?
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
Looks like the old, unreliable, "quirks mode" expression, an
Hello list,
I am playing with a variation of Mike Purvis' jello layout (a variation for
me anyway - you may have seen/done this) to make the entire layout scale
proportionally (as opposed to just allowing for the text to get
bigger/smaller).
Can you take a peek - beat on it - and let me know what
14 matches
Mail list logo
