Hanging indents for links separated by <br>

[Shannon Jacobs]

Maybe there is a simple trick here, and I'm not spotting it... Is there a
guru of CSS hanging around here who can help out?

The page in question has a multi-column table with a list of links in each
column. Because links are added and deleted separately in each column, it
would be exceedingly awkward to use a separate table row for each link.
Therefore, within each column the links are separated by <br> tags. However,
the automatic line wrap for long link descriptions causes them to appear to
be two or more separate links. This makes it hard to pick out the proper
links. A natural solution would be to use a hanging indent so that the first
line of each actual link will stick out to the left.

I thought I could do that with the usual hanging indent trick of a left
margin and a negative text indent in the CSS, though it seems to be a bit
unusual to do it to the A tag. However, what actually happens is that the
first A tags in each TD do the right thing, but the later A tags ignore it.
It seems like I can't associate the left indent with each A tag separately?

Because this is an intranet page, I can't link directly to it, but this is a
(sanitized) version of the links in one column.

<TD valign="top">
<DL>
<DT>Category1 Description
<DD>links
<DT>Category2 Description
<DD><A href="http://server1.com/link1">1st link description</A><BR>
<A href="http://server2.com/link2">2nd link description</A>
<DT>Category3 Description
<DD><A href="http://server3.com/link3">3rd link description</A>
<DT>Category4 Description
<DD><A href="http://server4.com/link4">4th link description</A>
<DT>Category5 Description
<DD>links
</DL>
</TD>

Here is the CSS snippet that fails:

<STYLE type="text/css">
<!--
A{
text-indent : -1pc;
left : 1pc;
}
-->
</STYLE>

Suggestions or explanations will be greatly appreciated... However, now that
I've written it out, I suspect the real problem may be that you can't get
away with that kind of manipulation within the scope of a DL.

There's probably a completely different and much better way to do it?

[Spartanicus]

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

left : 1pc;

I've no idea what you are trying to do as you've made it particularly
difficult for us to find out, but this may help:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#position-props
Pay particular attention to the "Applies to" information.

Upload an example if you want further help (substitute the data if
needed).

--
Spartanicus

[Els]

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

The page in question has a multi-column table with a list of links in each
column. Because links are added and deleted separately in each column, it
would be exceedingly awkward to use a separate table row for each link.
Therefore, within each column the links are separated by <br> tags. However,
the automatic line wrap for long link descriptions causes them to appear to
be two or more separate links. This makes it hard to pick out the proper
links. A natural solution would be to use a hanging indent so that the first
line of each actual link will stick out to the left.

I thought I could do that with the usual hanging indent trick of a left
margin and a negative text indent in the CSS, though it seems to be a bit
unusual to do it to the A tag. However, what actually happens is that the
first A tags in each TD do the right thing, but the later A tags ignore it.
It seems like I can't associate the left indent with each A tag separately?

Because this is an intranet page, I can't link directly to it, but this is a
(sanitized) version of the links in one column.
[snip code]
Here is the CSS snippet that fails:

<STYLE type="text/css">
<!--
A{
text-indent : -1pc;
left : 1pc;
}
-->
</STYLE>
That snippet fails even before I try it out:
<!-- --> is for remarks, not for style rules.
What is a pc?
And what is 'left' supposed to do?

If you can't show the real page, why don't you upload a working
example to some server somewhere?
Without seeing the rest of the CSS it's difficult to guess what is
happening.

Suggestions or explanations will be greatly appreciated... However, now that
I've written it out, I suspect the real problem may be that you can't get
away with that kind of manipulation within the scope of a DL.
A lot of manipulation is possible within a DL.
There's probably a completely different and much better way to do it?

Have link descriptions that don't need wrapping? ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Human League - Together in Electric Dreams

[Johannes Koch]

Els wrote:

What is a pc?

pica <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

[Els]

Johannes Koch wrote:

Els wrote:

What is a pc?

pica <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>

I did think of pica, but I never knew it could be used in HTML/CSS.
Learned something new :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Fleetwood Mac - Need Your Love So Bad

[Steve Fulton]

Els wrote:

That snippet fails even before I try it out:
<!-- --> is for remarks, not for style rules.

Only in XHTML. In HTML, the content of style elements is CDATA[1], not
PCDATA. Since they're not parsed, <!-- and --> do not delimit comments
inside <style> (and <script>[2]) tags. Only clients that do not recognize
<style> tags will continue to parse the contents and treat <!-- --> as
comment delimiters.

Of course, anyone using clients that don't recognize <style> and
<script> tags to browse today's web shouldn't be surprised to see their
contents rendered.

---
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html#StyleSheet>

[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html#Script>

--
Steve

There is a foolish corner in the brain of the wisest man. -Aristotle

[Els]

Steve Fulton wrote:

Els wrote:

<!-- --> is for remarks, not for style rules.

Only in XHTML. In HTML, the content of style elements is CDATA[1], not
PCDATA. Since they're not parsed, <!-- and --> do not delimit comments
inside <style> (and <script>[2]) tags. Only clients that do not recognize
<style> tags will continue to parse the contents and treat <!-- --> as
comment delimiters.

Right, I keep learning new stuff :-)
I didn't know of the existence of clients that don't recognize <style>
and <script> element tags.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Shannon Jacobs]

I don't mind your requests for additional information. I don't mind your
complaints that you find my description of the problem too difficult to
follow. I don't mind your ignorance, though it means your comments are
unlikely to be helpful. I do mind your rudeness.

[Shannon Jacobs]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

left : 1pc;

I've no idea what you are trying to do as you've made it particularly
difficult for us to find out, but this may help:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#position-props
Pay particular attention to the "Applies to" information.

Upload an example if you want further help (substitute the data if
needed).

My apologies, though I felt that I had made some effort to describe the
problem clearly... I thank you for your reference, though it is well known.
I'm not quite clear why you felt the "Applies to" might be a key here, but I
am not using positioned elements here, so it seems inapplicable. (I may have
included some incorrect results from an earlier experiment?)

Not sure if this will help clarify the problem, but upon reflection, I had a
different idea around this slightly different statement of the problem: My
goal is to increase the separation between the listed links, while leaving
the separation within a link unchanged when the long link description is
wrapped to a new line. This approach does not require a hanging indent, but
only tinkering with the leading. Specifically, I tried this combination of
styles:

<STYLE type="text/css">
<!--
BODY{
line-height : 200%;
}
A{
line-height : 100%;
}
-->
</STYLE>

This actually works quite a bit better than the previous attempts with
hanging indents. The general leading of the page is spread out to 200%, and
within the links, the leading is back to 100%. Unfortunately, the line break
represented by a <br> tag is still not recognized as a place to insert the
non-A leading of 200%. The two consecutive A tags are given the normal
leading of 100%.

Anyway, thanks for your attempt (and the other attempts from other posters)
to be helpful. While I still believe there is probably an elegant CSS method
for achieving the desired results, I was able to get an acceptable
approximation of the desired effect by adding another level of list with a
<UL style="list-style-type : none"> tag, treating each of the links as a
list element. Unfortunately, this has frequently been my experience with
CSS, in that the time required to find a good solution is too long relative
to the time for a rough-and-ready approximate solution...

[Els]

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

I don't mind your requests for additional information. I don't mind your
complaints that you find my description of the problem too difficult to
follow. I don't mind your ignorance, though it means your comments are
unlikely to be helpful. I do mind your rudeness.

Without quoting the parts of my message that you are replying to, it's
hard for me to understand which bit you found rude.

I just read my reply again, and I honestly don't see any rudeness in
it. WRT ignorance: I asked what a pc was, cause I didn't know pica was
an option. So, not knowing one thing makes me too ignorant to be
helpful? Can you please explain what you mean?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Spartanicus]

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

left : 1pc;
I've no idea what you are trying to do as you've made it particularly
difficult for us to find out, but this may help:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#position-props
Pay particular attention to the "Applies to" information.

Upload an example if you want further help (substitute the data if
needed).

My apologies, though I felt that I had made some effort to describe the
problem clearly... I thank you for your reference, though it is well known.
I'm not quite clear why you felt the "Applies to" might be a key here, but I
am not using positioned elements here, so it seems inapplicable. (I may have
included some incorrect results from an earlier experiment?)

Only you can know, it's your code. The point is that specifying box
offsets as in the code you posted doesn't work on non positioned
elements.

We need a url to a minimised test case with actual content so that we
can check if you are using appropriate markup. Only then can we supply
proper advice on the css to use to get the desired presentation.
Unfortunately, this has frequently been my experience with
CSS, in that the time required to find a good solution is too long relative
to the time for a rough-and-ready approximate solution...

Web authoring used to be something that many people did by trial and
error, and copying and pasting. The bar has been raised substantially,
both in the technical correctness of the technologies used, and in the
available options. Not something to complain about imo. Unavoidably
modern web authoring does now require investing time to master the
skills.

--
Spartanicus

[Shannon Jacobs]

Spartanicus wrote:
<snip>

Unfortunately, this has frequently been my experience with
CSS, in that the time required to find a good solution is too long
relative to the time for a rough-and-ready approximate solution...

Web authoring used to be something that many people did by trial and
error, and copying and pasting. The bar has been raised substantially,
both in the technical correctness of the technologies used, and in the
available options. Not something to complain about imo. Unavoidably
modern web authoring does now require investing time to master the
skills.

I'm not really disagreeing with you on this, but I am actually using a
"high-powered" HTML editor that is supposed to make the capabilities of
styles more available at any level. I was using the default, which is at the
page level, but the same tool easily supports external CSS files or
individual items through a reasonably intuitive interface that has allowed
it to remain as the top HTML editor in Japan for many years. I admit that
I'm only a dabbler (though I've been dabbling for many years), but I still
feel like CSS is beyond the point of diminishing returns when you consider
the amount of effort required to achieve the desired effects. That's
probably "aggravated" by my strong focus on content over format, even though
I think the basic idea of separating content from the visual representation
is a good one... (As a prevert (sic) of sorts, I perhaps naturally tend to
JavaScript-based solutions.)

As it actually turned out, I rethought the problem yet one more time, and
came up with a much better solution without the extra level of <UL> that
required the repositioning. I had forgotten that you can have multiple <DD>
tags under each <DT>, and one link per <DD> works very well for my purpose
here. Another nice side effect is the elimination of the unpleasant <BR>
tags, but now I'm completely out of the CSS domain. I think (hope) this is a
minimal solution:

<DL>
<DT>Cat 1 Description
<DD>Link 1 [<A> tags omitted for clarity]
<DD>Link 2
<DT>Cat 2 Description
<DD>Link 3
<DD>Link 4
<DD>Link 5
...
</DL>

[Spartanicus]

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, this has frequently been my experience with
CSS, in that the time required to find a good solution is too long
relative to the time for a rough-and-ready approximate solution...
Web authoring used to be something that many people did by trial and
error, and copying and pasting. The bar has been raised substantially,
both in the technical correctness of the technologies used, and in the
available options. Not something to complain about imo. Unavoidably
modern web authoring does now require investing time to master the
skills.

I'm not really disagreeing with you on this, but I am actually using a
"high-powered" HTML editor that is supposed to make the capabilities of
styles more available at any level. I was using the default, which is at the
page level, but the same tool easily supports external CSS files or
individual items through a reasonably intuitive interface that has allowed
it to remain as the top HTML editor in Japan for many years. I admit that
I'm only a dabbler (though I've been dabbling for many years), but I still
feel like CSS is beyond the point of diminishing returns when you consider
the amount of effort required to achieve the desired effects.

Although css makes a lot of sense from a technical perspective, it is to
difficult to use for design oriented folk. Current authoring tools do a
poor job at shielding the aforementioned from the technical aspects of
web authoring in general, and css in particular. Until that changes
quality web authoring requires a technical expertise.
That's
probably "aggravated" by my strong focus on content over format, even though
I think the basic idea of separating content from the visual representation
is a good one... (As a prevert (sic) of sorts, I perhaps naturally tend to
JavaScript-based solutions.)
HTML, CSS and client side scripting should have very little overlap in
what they are used for.
As it actually turned out, I rethought the problem yet one more time, and
came up with a much better solution without the extra level of <UL> that
required the repositioning. I had forgotten that you can have multiple <DD>
tags under each <DT>, and one link per <DD> works very well for my purpose
here. Another nice side effect is the elimination of the unpleasant <BR>
tags, but now I'm completely out of the CSS domain. I think (hope) this is a
minimal solution:

<DL>
<DT>Cat 1 Description
<DD>Link 1 [<A> tags omitted for clarity]
<DD>Link 2
<DT>Cat 2 Description
<DD>Link 3
<DD>Link 4
<DD>Link 5
...
</DL>

It's not possible to say for sure given that you continue to use bogus
content instead of supplying a url showing the real content and context,
but I suspect use of incorrect markup to achieve a certain
presentational effect, not the way to go.

--
Spartanicus

[Shannon Jacobs]

Spartanicus wrote:
<snip>

It's not possible to say for sure given that you continue to use bogus
content instead of supplying a url showing the real content and
context, but I suspect use of incorrect markup to achieve a certain
presentational effect, not the way to go.

Okay, I have to ask why you think it's incorrect markup? Insofar as it is
quite reasonable for a term to have several definitions, it seems to make
perfect sense to allow multiple <DD> tags under one <DT>, and the browsers
clearly know how to lay them out appropriately.

Having said that, I'll admit that I don't like the way this particular HTML
editor implements it. You either have to switch to the HTML view and work
directly on the tags, or you have to put a temporary <DT> element before
each to-be-adjacent <DD> tag and then delete the temps. It seems like the
natural implementation would be a sticky mode for <DL> input, and two
consecutive <Enter>s would result in consecutive <DD> tags (with a third
closing the DL).

On the other hand, it's a pretty minor nit, considering that I'm pretty sure
that most people don't use DLs in the first place...

[Spartanicus]

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

It's not possible to say for sure given that you continue to use bogus
content instead of supplying a url showing the real content and
context, but I suspect use of incorrect markup to achieve a certain
presentational effect, not the way to go.

Okay, I have to ask why you think it's incorrect markup?

Instead of me guessing the nature of your content, prove me wrong and
supply a url with some real content.

--
Spartanicus

[Shannon Jacobs]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

<snip>

Okay, I have to ask why you think it's incorrect markup?

Instead of me guessing the nature of your content, prove me wrong and
supply a url with some real content.

Why is it that common courtesy seems so rare in the contemporary newsgroups?
(I actually suspect some of it has to do with excessive anonymity.)

You (Spartanicus) have a funny way of trying to be helpful. You are trying
to be helpful, aren't you? And yet for some strange reason, I don't feel
motivated to prove anything to you. It's not that I think you are wrong, but
you do seem to be socially inept, and possibly fixated on CSS as your
ultimate tool of choice. For today's specific purpose, I reject CSS, so
perhaps the rejection of your tool makes you feel a need to become so
defensive? Reminds me of the joke about the kid with the new hammer who
suddenly sees everything as a nail.

And why did you cut away the following relevant part of the original?

"Insofar as it is quite reasonable for a term to have several definitions,
it seems to make perfect sense to allow multiple <DD> tags under one <DT>,
and the browsers clearly know how to lay them out appropriately."

Was it too unclear for you? Or are you really (somewhat rudely) asking for a
semantic justification? If so, easy enough. In this situation, the links can
be regarded as definitions of the category by way of example. In that
approach, multiple definitions of each categorical term are quite natural,
and it is nice that the implementation of HTML agrees.

Anyway, I've already stated that it's an intranet page. Perhaps your company
is different, but my employer's intranet pages are not to be transferred to
public Internet places. Or perhaps you have no intranet? I did go to a fair
bit of trouble to prepare a sanitized version of the key HTML, but you
apparently regard that as unsatisfactory. Well, there's just no satisfying
some people.

In conclusion, I think you have no actual reason for regarding my markup as
"incorrect". I would ask you if you do have such a reason, but at this point
the question would have to dismissed as rhetorical.

On more relevant technical aspects, I found two of my colleagues who use
Dreameaver, but neither of them use DLs. However, one of them let me test it
on her machine to see how it worked there. Turns out that it requires the
same kludgy approach to achieve the same results. I think Dreamweaver is the
dominant HTML editor for English, and I do know HPB is dominant here, so it
seems this is not an editorial issue per se.

[Els]

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

Why is it that common courtesy seems so rare in the contemporary newsgroups?
(I actually suspect some of it has to do with excessive anonymity.)
Don't count on it. Speaking for myself only of course, I'm as
ill-mannered in real life as I am here :-)
You (Spartanicus) have a funny way of trying to be helpful. You are trying
to be helpful, aren't you?
You (Shannon) have a condescending tone right there in that sentence.
Are you socially inapt? (SCNR)
And why did you cut away the following relevant part of the original? Was it too unclear for you?

You're starting to sound like the rest of us - be careful not to get
sucked in ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Twarres - Little Sister

[Spartanicus]

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

You (Spartanicus) have a funny way of trying to be helpful. You are trying
to be helpful, aren't you?
This is a discussion group, not a help desk. Post something here and we
discuss it's implications, if that turns out to be helpful then that's a
bonus.
For today's specific purpose, I reject CSS
Then there is no reason to discuss it here.
And why did you cut away the following relevant part of the original?
I'm not going to waste my time second guessing the nature of your data
when you can clear the issue up definitively by providing a sample of
it.
I've already stated that it's an intranet page.
Then strictly speaking it is off topic here. Usually it is an irrelevant
distinction since the requirements for a quality intranet document are
typically no different from a www document.
my employer's intranet pages are not to be transferred to
public Internet places.

A sample of the content would suffice, substitute the content by a
semantic equivalent if every scrap is considered sensitive. "Definition"
doesn't cut it since it doesn't allow scrutiny of your markup.

--
Spartanicus

[Peter]

Els wrote:

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

Why is it that common courtesy seems so rare in the contemporary newsgroups?
(I actually suspect some of it has to do with excessive anonymity.)

Don't count on it. Speaking for myself only of course, I'm as
ill-mannered in real life as I am here :-)

Els, I´ve never seen you here as ill-mannered! You made me love you
being so helpful.

You (Spartanicus) have a funny way of trying to be helpful. You are trying
to be helpful, aren't you?

You (Shannon) have a condescending tone right there in that sentence.
Are you socially inapt? (SCNR)

probably

And why did you cut away the following relevant part of the original?

Was it too unclear for you?

You're starting to sound like the rest of us - be careful not to get
sucked in ;-)

Peter

[Michael Stemper]

In article <42********@news1.prserv.net>, Shannon Jacobs writes:

Spartanicus wrote:

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote:

Okay, I have to ask why you think it's incorrect markup?
Instead of me guessing the nature of your content, prove me wrong and
supply a url with some real content.

Why is it that common courtesy seems so rare in the contemporary newsgroups?

Well, the most common form of discourtesy that I see in this newsgroup is
people who come in and act like it's a help desk that obligated to answer
their questions. These people tend to be arrogant oafs that won't even
let those who *do* try to help them either see their code or address the
root causes of their problems.
For today's specific purpose, I reject CSS, so
Then maybe you should go to a group that isn't intended specifically
for discussion of the use of style sheets.
Anyway, I've already stated that it's an intranet page.
Then maybe you should go to a group that isn't intended specifically
for discussion of the writing of style sheets for the WWW.
public Internet places. Or perhaps you have no intranet? I did go to a fair
bit of trouble to prepare a sanitized version of the key HTML, but you
apparently regard that as unsatisfactory.
Possibly because of the number of times that replication has either
introduced or eliminated an error. Possibly because of the number of
errors that have their root cause in the way a server is serving up
some file.
Well, there's just no satisfying
some people.
Like those people who want free help but aren't willing to cooperate
with those who try to provide it.
In conclusion, I think you have no actual reason for regarding my markup as
"incorrect".
Since Sparticanus can't see your markup, there's no reason to regard it
as correct, either.
I would ask you if you do have such a reason,

Possibly the number of error-ridden pages seen in the past.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

[Shannon Jacobs]

I'm ignoring your rude tripe except for one comment. The reason this thread
started in this particular newsgroup was because I was attempting to use a
cumbersome CSS-based solution. The first response "contribution" was
actually from a total n00b who might have several weeks of experience,
though his helpless enthusiasm was nicer than your mindless rudeness. If you
are so concerned about courtesy, perhaps you could begin by looking at the
full context.

In spite of the waste of resources, I'm leaving the rest of your comment
intact below as a kind of memorial. You might wise up and decide to cancel
your own pompous and blathersome post, but you can't cancel the memorial,
and I actually find it rather amusing as yet another example of why the
newsgroups have gone to heck these years. Having nothing to say, you'd have
been better off saying nothing.

Michael Stemper wrote:

In article <42********@news1.prserv.net>, Shannon Jacobs writes:

Spartanicus wrote:

"Shannon Jacobs" <sh****@cashette.com> wrote: Okay, I have to ask why you think it's incorrect markup?

Instead of me guessing the nature of your content, prove me wrong
and supply a url with some real content.

Why is it that common courtesy seems so rare in the contemporary
newsgroups?

Well, the most common form of discourtesy that I see in this
newsgroup is people who come in and act like it's a help desk that
obligated to answer their questions. These people tend to be arrogant
oafs that won't even let those who *do* try to help them either see
their code or address the root causes of their problems.

For today's specific purpose, I reject CSS, so

Then maybe you should go to a group that isn't intended specifically
for discussion of the use of style sheets.

Anyway, I've already stated that it's an intranet page.

Then maybe you should go to a group that isn't intended specifically
for discussion of the writing of style sheets for the WWW.

public Internet places. Or perhaps you have no intranet? I did go to
a fair bit of trouble to prepare a sanitized version of the key
HTML, but you apparently regard that as unsatisfactory.

Possibly because of the number of times that replication has either
introduced or eliminated an error. Possibly because of the number of
errors that have their root cause in the way a server is serving up
some file.

Well, there's just no satisfying
some people.

Like those people who want free help but aren't willing to cooperate
with those who try to provide it.

In conclusion, I think you have no actual reason for regarding my
markup as "incorrect".

Since Sparticanus can't see your markup, there's no reason to regard
it as correct, either.

I would ask you if you do have such a reason,

Possibly the number of error-ridden pages seen in the past.

[Els]

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

I'm ignoring
You are ignoring the bottom-posting standard of this group. Why?
your rude tripe
Michael wasn't rude.
The first response "contribution" was
actually from a total n00b who might have several weeks of experience,
though his helpless enthusiasm was nicer than your mindless rudeness.
The first response was by Spartanicus, who is anything but a 'n00b'.
The second response was by myself, and regardless of what you may
think, I'm not a 'n00b' either.
If you
are so concerned about courtesy, perhaps you could begin by looking at the
full context.

In spite of the waste of resources, I'm leaving the rest of your comment
intact below as a kind of memorial. You might wise up and decide to cancel
your own pompous and blathersome post, but you can't cancel the memorial,
and I actually find it rather amusing as yet another example of why the
newsgroups have gone to heck these years. Having nothing to say, you'd have
been better off saying nothing.

I'll leave that bit in for future generations to judge your attitude.
<g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Shannon Jacobs]

Excuse me, but if you (Els) have NOTHING worth saying, why don't you shut
up? If you're not a n00b, my condolences on your slowness, and in any case
your childish enthusiasm, though briefly refreshing, is no excuse for your
tedious rudeness.

Anyway, I actually do have one tiny technical tidbit to contribute to the
solution of the actual layout problem, even though the original hanging
indents with CSS approach was a wild goose chase. (Considering the
essentially broken nature of the despicable and deprecated <br> tag, I
should have suspected as much.) I found an alternative input method in my
HTML editor to avoid the need to create and delete null <DT> tags. You can
just return to the end of the current <DT> tag and press <Enter> to create a
sequential <DD> tag. The residual catch is that you need to input your
definitions backwards from your desired sequence. (However, I still find
working directly on the HTML the most convenient method for this particular
purpose.)

My coworker with Dreamweaver was busy when I visited, so I couldn't test it
with that popular program, but we can leave that as an exercise for the
reader.

For the rest of it, you (Els) are just making me laugh. I still remember the
old days when the only users of the newsgroups were a tiny technical elite.
Very polite, competent, and quick witted. Many completely unboxable and
original thinkers, and many excellent problem solvers, even when the problem
was not clearly described. In my contrary way and not thinking of myself as
an elitist, I eagerly looked forward to the future when everyone would be
able to contribute to the collective wisdom of mankind. Now look at the mess
paved by those good intentions--but at least the elite has almost entirely
disappeared. I don't know which is more amusing, my youthful naivete or your
defensive mumblings. I'd say the future belongs to the wiki, but Wikipedia
has its problems, too, and I've mostly been cured of my naive optimism.

FYI: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Now THERE's an incurable optimist--but rather infamously rude, too.

Els wrote:

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

I'm ignoring

You are ignoring the bottom-posting standard of this group. Why?

your rude tripe

Michael wasn't rude.

The first response "contribution" was
actually from a total n00b who might have several weeks of
experience, though his helpless enthusiasm was nicer than your
mindless rudeness.

The first response was by Spartanicus, who is anything but a 'n00b'.
The second response was by myself, and regardless of what you may
think, I'm not a 'n00b' either.

If you
are so concerned about courtesy, perhaps you could begin by looking
at the full context.

In spite of the waste of resources, I'm leaving the rest of your
comment intact below as a kind of memorial. You might wise up and
decide to cancel your own pompous and blathersome post, but you
can't cancel the memorial, and I actually find it rather amusing as
yet another example of why the newsgroups have gone to heck these
years. Having nothing to say, you'd have been better off saying
nothing.

I'll leave that bit in for future generations to judge your attitude.
<g>

[kchayka]

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

your childish enthusiasm, though briefly refreshing, is no excuse for your
tedious rudeness.

This seems to be quite the case of the pot calling the kettle black,
though I can't recall Els *ever* being anything other than courteous and
helpful.

Biting off the hands that are most qualified to help you is a strange
way to win friends and influence people, not to mention getting help
with a particular problem. Note that just because you don't like a
response you get doesn't mean it has no value.

Good luck getting any assistance in the future. With your attitude,
you'll surely need it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Shannon Jacobs]

Near as I can tell, the following detail effectively exhausts the
substantive technical topic:

Dreamweaver (taken as the de facto standard professional HTML editor for
English) also works the same way. In summary, you can easily create
consecutive <DD> tags in (at least) three ways, by working directly in the
HTML window, by creating null (actually at least one character is required)
<DT> tags and deleting them later, or by returning to the end of the current
<DT> tag and hitting <Enter>.

Onwards to the meta-comments:

The bulk of the content in this thread is useless and irrelevant, mixed in
with some unprovoked dull rudeness. The only point you (kchayka) actually
manage to make is why it's usually a waste of time to look for answers to
difficult (technical) questions in the newsgroups these years. I'm not
criticising the (relative) n00b for his enthusiasm, and I'm not even denying
he is probably helpful for other newbies. Actually, I would make the
stronger argument that by teaching what he has just learned to other
newbies, he reinforces his own learning, which is mutually beneficial. It's
a kind of positive learning cycle and easy enough to ignore--as long as the
n00b doesn't make a nuisance of himself. (However, it's also helpful if some
non-newbies keep an eye out for neophyte mistakes and offer some corrective
guidance--but I (obviously) don't have the free time or patience.)

The other primary "contributor" to this thread is probably what they call a
"Newsgroup Charlie". I usually get the impression that the chief motivation
of such a person is to demonstrate his "dazzling" superiority to us
benighted heathens--and a Newsgroup Charlie is typically quick to take
offense when he fails to dazzle. Newsgroup Charlies usually tour widely and
visibly in many newsgroups. The only remaining mystery is why such technical
mastery is apparently so lacking a real life. Had this been an actual life,
you'd think they'd spend more of it elsewhere, eh?

Anyway, as already noted, my main problem is an excessively strong memory.
Funny how I didn't really really appreciate those days of the polite and
competent elite until they were gone. In those years, you could ask a
difficult question with a realistic hope of getting a useful answer--and
even if your original formulation of the question was less than perfect.
These years, my main reason for posting in a typical public technical
newsgroup is because I've decided that describing and analyzing the problem
carefully for the sake of a public post might lead to a solution--which is
exactly what happened in this case. Sorry, but no thanks to the other
"contributors". These years, even when they do manage to write something
helpful, it's just as likely to be an accident.

kchayka wrote:

Shannon Jacobs wrote:

your childish enthusiasm, though briefly refreshing, is no excuse
for your tedious rudeness.

This seems to be quite the case of the pot calling the kettle black,
though I can't recall Els *ever* being anything other than courteous
and helpful.

Biting off the hands that are most qualified to help you is a strange
way to win friends and influence people, not to mention getting help
with a particular problem. Note that just because you don't like a
response you get doesn't mean it has no value.

Good luck getting any assistance in the future. With your attitude,
you'll surely need it.

[Steve]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:26:52 +0900, Shannon Jacobs in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets wrote:

Near as I can tell, the following detail effectively exhausts the
substantive technical topic: Dreamweaver (taken as the de facto standard professional HTML editor for
English) also works the same way. In summary, you can easily create
consecutive <DD> tags in (at least) three ways, by working directly in the
HTML window, by creating null (actually at least one character is required)
<DT> tags and deleting them later, or by returning to the end of the current
<DT> tag and hitting <Enter>. Onwards to the meta-comments: The bulk of the content in this thread is useless and irrelevant,

I'm still interested in why you're ignoring the conventions of this
newsgroup and top posting, after being implored not to ? Is that because
you're just a rude person, or you simply have to prevail in every
situation, as the one that's always right ?

Either way, you're the individual coming off as being the arrogant one.

--
marathon
Never trust anyone who says money is no object.