61  9586 
Have you tried experimenting with CSS "margin" and "padding" also?
As these aren't always treated consistently across browsers.
<mi**@youell.net> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Have you tried experimenting with CSS "margin" and "padding" also?
As these aren't always treated consistently across browsers.
Sorted now, thanks. used negetive margins and the underscore hack in the
end.
Paul Watt wrote:
used negetive margins and the underscore hack in the end.
Sounds very much like you are treating the symptoms, not the problem.
That is surely the wrong way to go about it.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:49************@individual.net... Paul Watt wrote:
used negetive margins and the underscore hack in the end.
Sounds very much like you are treating the symptoms, not the problem.
That is surely the wrong way to go about it.
What would you suggest?
"Paul Watt" <pa**********@wattio.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:49************@individual.net... Paul Watt wrote:
used negetive margins and the underscore hack in the end.
Sounds very much like you are treating the symptoms, not the problem.
That is surely the wrong way to go about it.
What would you suggest?
If it's an IE only issue (make sure that it really is) then you don't use
hacks, you use "conditional comments":
<http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only>
Hacks are ugly.
--
John
Net::Google and Perl: http://johnbokma.com/perl/net-google.html
Paul Watt wrote:
i've placed a table within a <div> to dispay some data.
All is well in FF, but in MSIE the table starts inline with the bottom of
the <div> to the left. I've set the css div to vertical align: top, but this
hasn't made a differance.
http://www.paulwatt.info/test/calendar.htm
IE does not always correctly flow blocks. I'm a little vague on the
specifics but IIRC it miscalculates the available horizontal space
thinking there is not enough for, say, a table whose width is 100%.
A couple of things to try:
1. Float the .content div
2. Set the table's width to less than 100%, or do not use a width at all
BTW "vertical-align: top" is meaningless for a div.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
In article <Xn*************************@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote: If it's an IE only issue (make sure that it really is) then you don't use
hacks, you use "conditional comments":
<http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only>
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste... on reflection, are hacks
per se ugly, and does it matter? What matters objectively is that
something relatively simple works, that it is not going to be a
nuisance later. This latter possibility is a serious one.
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder on this one, I don't find them
that ugly, they have been cleverly found and work and I am
reminded of this when I see them and I look on admiringly. They
are simpler in many ways than making separate style sheets just
for this IE or that IE and IE in common.
I am not advocating them here. I just think it is a bit precious
to refrain from fighting something ugly (IE rendering standards)
in too prim and proper a manner. There is an argument here that
the remedy rather nicely fits the cause.
And really, when push comes to shove, they are broadly
conditional defences against specific nuisances.
--
dorayme
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.au> wrote: In article <Xn*************************@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
[..] Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment, do
it with a conditional comment.
--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Textpad quick reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/
In article <Xn*************************@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote: dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <Xn*************************@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
[..]
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
--
dorayme
And lo, John Bokma didst speak in
alt.html,alt. http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets: dorayme wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[..]
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment, do
it with a conditional comment.
IIRC, IE/Mac does not support IE conditional comments. If you are
comfortable with excluding that (small and shrinking) market share, then
yesh, conditional comments are preferable to IE hacks.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search - PHP/MySQL site
search engine
GreyWyvern wrote: And lo, John Bokma didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets:
dorayme wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[..]
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment, do
it with a conditional comment.
IIRC, IE/Mac does not support IE conditional comments. If you are
comfortable with excluding that (small and shrinking) market share,
then yesh, conditional comments are preferable to IE hacks.
It (IE/Mac) doesn't suffer the same CSS bugs as IE/windows, does it? So
the lack of conditional comment support might be a good thing in this case.
--
Ian Collins.
In article <49************@individual.net>, Paul Watt took the
hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh wow"... Hi,
i've placed a table within a <div> to dispay some data.
All is well in FF, but in MSIE the table starts inline with the bottom of
the <div> to the left. I've set the css div to vertical align: top, but this
hasn't made a differance.
vertical-align:top
You need the dash in there.
http://www.paulwatt.info/test/calendar.htm
Thanks guys
--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
NP: "Rhythm From A Red Car" -- Hardline
"Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
Jim Moe wrote: A couple of things to try:
1. Float the .content div
2. Set the table's width to less than 100%, or do not use a width at all
I decided to look at this more closely.
Change the table's width to 99%.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
John Bokma wrote: dorayme wrote: John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment, do
it with a conditional comment.
Conditional comments *are* a hack. They're more reliable than many other
hacks, but hacks all the same.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> declaimed: John Bokma wrote: dorayme wrote: John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment,
do it with a conditional comment.
Conditional comments *are* a hack. They're more reliable than many
other hacks, but hacks all the same.
One could say they're a heck of a hack...
--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Toby Inkster <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote: John Bokma wrote: dorayme wrote: John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
Hacks are ugly.
Well, maybe it is a matter of taste...
No it isn't. If you can do the same thing with a conditional comment,
do it with a conditional comment.
Conditional comments *are* a hack.
Yeah, sure Toby, whatever you call it.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Installing and configuring Apache on Windows XP (virtual hosting): http://johnbokma.com/windows/apache-...-hosts-xp.html
John Bokma wrote: "Paul Watt" <pa**********@wattio.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:49************@individual.net...
Sounds very much like you are treating the symptoms, not the problem.
That is surely the wrong way to go about it.
What would you suggest?
If it's an IE only issue (make sure that it really is) then you don't use
hacks, you use "conditional comments":
I wouldn't leave it to this particular OP to determine it really is an
IE only issue. He isn't adept enough at CSS to know. Given time, maybe.
Looking at his test page <http://www.paulwatt.info/test/calendar.htm>
I'd say he is definitely going about it wrong.
Hacks are ugly.
As someone else pointed out, conditional comments are indeed a hack, but
cluttering up the HTML instead of the CSS. Personally, I'd rather have
that kind of clutter in one CSS file instead of embedded on every page.
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I have
found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and applies
the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful. :)
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jim Moe wrote: Jim Moe wrote: A couple of things to try:
2. Set the table's width to less than 100%, or do not use a width at all
I decided to look at this more closely.
Change the table's width to 99%.
Better is to set no width at all, methinks. He set a 10px left margin on
the table. When added to 99%, it comes out to something more or less
than 100%. I get a horizontal scrollbar with IE.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, kchayka wrote: BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I
have found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and
applies the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful. :)
I seem to recall reading somewhere that we were urged to show no mercy
to IE7, but to treat it as if it were a real WWW browser. If that's
the official policy, I'm only too happy to stick to it ;-)
[yes, I know it still has lots of non-standard features, including
some cases where it violates mandatory requirements of the relevant
specifications. But if we're supposed to treat it like a WWW browser,
so be it. Or perhaps that was only the beta? ]
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that we were urged to show no mercy
to IE7, but to treat it as if it were a real WWW browser.
LOL
<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/10/12/480242.aspx>
I don't agree with their approach, but no matter.
As far as rendering goes, IE7 (beta 2) is not without problems, but is
miles ahead of IE6. The UI is still ghastly, though, so I can't say how
many people will actually want to use it. ;)
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote: As someone else pointed out, conditional comments are indeed a hack,
No: a hack is relying on a flaw or side effect in a parser that might be
not present in a future version.
A conditional comment is a well documented addition. You can already
create a conditional comment for version 7.1 of Internet Explorer. You
can't do that with a hack.
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I have
found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and applies
the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful. :)
With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you had to
wait for a beta to test it.
--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Perl RSS Builder: http://johnbokma.com/perl/rss-web-feed-builder.html
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote:
[...] With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you
had to wait for a beta to test it.
Your point is well taken. However, the fact that there's one
notorious browser-like object that repeatedly fails to behave like a
WWW browser leads me to express the opinion that any attempt to make
that thing seem like one, has every right to be called a "hack".
Even when that's a vendor-supported "hack". I would much prefer the
vendor to supply a specification-conforming implementation (and
upgrade paths for all of their users [1]), than to supply ways of
circumventing their implementation's misbehaviours.
[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote:
[...] With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you
had to wait for a beta to test it.
Your point is well taken. However, the fact that there's one
notorious browser-like object that repeatedly fails to behave like a
WWW browser leads me to express the opinion that any attempt to make
that thing seem like one, has every right to be called a "hack".
All browsers that are as old as IE 6 suffer from similar problems.
[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.
For those there are plenty of alternatives. Lets also not forget that MS
is one (if not the only one) that supports outdated OSes as long as they
do. By the time Vista is released XP is over 5 years old.
Yes, MS did quite some things wrong, but other browsers have flaws too or
keep flaws in existence. Ditto for the holy "standards organization" W3C.
It's funny how a "flawed" company like MS did create a nice way to do
things conditionally, in an early stage admitting that things could change
drastically. IIRC, at that time CSS was draft, and unclear.
--
John isa Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html
Fox G Bar: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/google-...stomizing.html
John Bokma wrote: With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7.
Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There is
no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would be
much more useful.
xpost and f'up2 comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets
--
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
(Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)
Johannes Koch wrote: John Bokma wrote:
With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7.
Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There is
no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would be
much more useful.
THat's my biggest problem with conditional comments - I would much
rather be able to keep that sort of logic in my ONE stylesheet rather
than in many HTML / PHP / whatever else files
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.
For those there are plenty of alternatives.
Oh, one doesn't have to be on an *old* version of Windows to
appreciate the benefits of a real WWW browser!
Lets also not forget that MS is one (if not the only one) that
supports outdated OSes as long as they do. By the time Vista is
released XP is over 5 years old.
You seem to be tacitly assuming the truth of the testimony that MSIE
is an operating system component. I would rather have a WWW browser,
leaving the OS component to be used for applying the vendor's own
fixes.
Yes, MS did quite some things wrong, but other browsers have flaws
too or keep flaws in existence. Ditto for the holy "standards
organization" W3C.
Oh, sure. But deliberate violation of a mandatory requirement of an
IETF standards-track protocol (RFC2616) can hardly be laid at the door
of the W3C alone - even if the RFC in question was authored with W3C
participation.
It's funny how a "flawed" company like MS did create a nice way to
do things conditionally, in an early stage admitting that things
could change drastically. IIRC, at that time CSS was draft, and
unclear.
The CSS specification mandates clients to ignore CSS syntax which they
don't understand. But no: MSIE had to know better, and overrule that
mandatory requirement, and screw up when doing it. Things have only
changed superficially since then.
I suppose it's nice, in a perverse sort of way, that they've granted
us a non-standard feature to defeat their non-standard features. I
still prefer a specification-conforming WWW-compatible browser myself,
but as an author I need to be aware of users out there who wouldn't
recognise a specification-conforming browser if it bit them in the
bottom, sadly.
Not that the Mozilla-family, or Opera, or Lynx or whatever, are
entirely free of bugs, but at least one can have reasonable confidence
that their developers have some commitment to remedying those bugs
when they are identified, instead of (as appears to be the MS policy)
replacing known bugs with unknown bugs, and requiring those who desire
specification-conforming behaviour to research obscure workarounds.
sigh
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote:
Lets also not forget that MS is one (if not the only one) that
supports outdated OSes as long as they do. By the time Vista is
released XP is over 5 years old.
You seem to be tacitly assuming the truth of the testimony that MSIE
is an operating system component. I would rather have a WWW browser,
leaving the OS component to be used for applying the vendor's own
fixes.
I consider making an application work on an outdated OS supporting that
OS, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, MS did quite some things wrong, but other browsers have flaws
too or keep flaws in existence. Ditto for the holy "standards
organization" W3C.
Oh, sure. But deliberate violation of a mandatory requirement of an
IETF standards-track protocol (RFC2616) can hardly be laid at the door
of the W3C alone - even if the RFC in question was authored with W3C
participation.
RFC is *not* a standard. Several RFCs have been "violated" by several
companies, IIRC Apache has still a fix for a fu by Netscape on board.
It's funny how a "flawed" company like MS did create a nice way to
do things conditionally, in an early stage admitting that things
could change drastically. IIRC, at that time CSS was draft, and
unclear.
The CSS specification mandates clients to ignore CSS syntax which they
don't understand. But no: MSIE had to know better, and overrule that
mandatory requirement, and screw up when doing it. Things have only
changed superficially since then.
How does a conditional comment "screw" up? MS foresaw issues, issues
that now require to exploit parser flaws for other browsers.
I suppose it's nice, in a perverse sort of way, that they've granted
us a non-standard
There we go again: CSS is a recommendation, *not* a standard.
feature to defeat their non-standard features. I
still prefer a specification-conforming WWW-compatible browser myself,
Then download and install Amaya and join the happy few who have done so
already :-D.
but as an author I need to be aware of users out there who wouldn't
recognise a specification-conforming browser if it bit them in the
bottom, sadly.
standard, now specification: get it right: w3c recommendation, or w3c
draft, or maybe even RFC depending on what exactly you're talking about.
Not that the Mozilla-family, or Opera, or Lynx or whatever, are
entirely free of bugs, but at least one can have reasonable confidence
that their developers have some commitment to remedying those bugs
when they are identified, instead of (as appears to be the MS policy)
replacing known bugs with unknown bugs,
That's normal in software development: when you fix one bug, you often
introduce new code or change existing code, and hence new bugs might pop
up. The code base of an application rarely gets smaller. I am sure you
can find reintroduced bugs in all browsers you named, or bugs that went,
and introduced new ones.
Opera is core business for the company that produces it.
Lynx, Mozilla, whatever are Open Source. The latter, Mozilla & Co, still
suffer from the gigantic shitty code Netscape produced some time ago.
Have a look at the history format for example (or better: don't).
and requiring those who desire
specification-conforming behaviour to research obscure workarounds.
Even if MS dropped dead today your problem wouldn't go. The reason why
things slowly seem to settle is that IMO there is hardly any progress in
the web development.
--
John Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html
TextPad+TortoiseSVN: http://johnbokma.com/textpad/textpad-subversion.html
Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote: John Bokma wrote: With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7.
Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There
is no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would
be much more useful.
True. But it's way better compared to relying on exploits in parsers that
are discovered. The cc's are documented by the *maker* of the browser.
Exploits can stop working with a minor update.
Worse, if such an exploit is very popular, a browser developer might feel
obliged to keep such an exploit working, using some kind of automatic
detection system, which complicates the parser.
xpost and f'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
ignored.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Firefox Keywords: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-explained.html
John Bokma wrote: kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
As someone else pointed out, conditional comments are indeed a hack,
No: a hack is relying on a flaw or side effect in a parser that might be
not present in a future version.
I don't see it that way. To me, hacks are anything extra to accommodate
browser bugs or other deficiencies. Some hacks do rely on parsing
errors, but not all. IE's zoom property, for example, is such a hack.
Sometimes I want a hack to work around moz's poor <col> styling support. BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I have
found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and applies
the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful. :)
With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you had to
wait for a beta to test it.
No, I had to wait for the beta in either case. What MS says IE7 will or
won't do is irrelevant. It needed testing with my particular CSS to
determine if any work-arounds were required to begin with. That first
public beta was a mess. If MS hadn't cleaned it up... well, I'm just
glad I don't have to worry about it much any more.
The *html hack has worked marvelously for applying work-arounds to
IE5-6, and leaving IE7 alone. That is exactly what I want now. Why would
I want to pollute the html with conditional comments, when I'd still
have to have polluted CSS for other IE kludges, or hacks for other
browsers? Sounds like more work to me.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
John Bokma wrote:
Worse, if such an exploit is very popular, a browser developer might feel
obliged to keep such an exploit working,
Hmmm... IE is the only browser still in widespread use that has any
amount of "popular" exploits, and MS has felt obliged to do away with
them all. ;)
The only browser that really needs hacks with any regularity any more is
IE5-6. Hacks or kludges for other browsers are few and far between,
especially since browser makers have all gotten on the standards
bandwagon. This is A Good Thing.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
John Bokma wrote: Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There
is no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would
be much more useful.
True. But it's way better compared to relying on exploits in parsers that
are discovered. The cc's are documented by the *maker* of the browser.
Then why didn't the MS people invent and document CCs for CSS?
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net... John Bokma wrote: "Paul Watt" <pa**********@wattio.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...erbostader.php
今天二零零*年四月十二日
星期三
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote: "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net...
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt. http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets: Luigi Donatello Asero wrote: "kchayka" wrote...
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the groin
comes to mind...
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net... Luigi Donatello Asero wrote: "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net...
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
Are you dogmatic?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...erbostader.php
今天二零零*年四月十二日
星期三
In article <Ti*******************@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <ja**************@telia.com> wrote: "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net... Luigi Donatello Asero wrote: "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net...
> BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
Are you dogmatic?
Luigi! You are back! With a quintessential Luigism!
--
dorayme
GreyWyvern wrote: And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets:
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
"kchayka" wrote...
BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the
groin comes to mind...
Hmm -
I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...
"Tony" <to****@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com... GreyWyvern wrote: And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets:
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
"kchayka" wrote...
> BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the
groin comes to mind...
Hmm -
I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...
I see that you do not explain why.
--
Luigi Donatello Asero https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...erbostader.php
今天二零零*年四月十三日
星期四
Tony <to****@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote in news:123stsghv4u2g30
@corp.supernews.com: I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...
It shouldn't take that long to remember ... I've replaced my IE icon with a
skull and crossbones. I have to leave it installed on my computer for the
occasional jerk-ass .gov site I have to access and because my roommates
have all their passwords stored in IE. I'll take a kick to the groin any
day.
Judy
--
Trippy Triangle: http://www.technohippie.com
Bring Them Back: http://www.bringthembackfromiraq.com/btb/
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au... In article <Ti*******************@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <ja**************@telia.com> wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:4a************@individual.net... Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> skrev i meddelandet
> news:4a************@individual.net...
>
>> BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
>
> Better than Firefox?
Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
Are you dogmatic?
Luigi! You are back! With a quintessential Luigism!
How are you?
Everything okay on Mars?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...erbostader.php
今天二零零*年四月十三日
星期四
In article <th*******************@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <ja**************@telia.com> wrote: "Tony" <to****@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com... GreyWyvern wrote: And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets:
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>
>> "kchayka" wrote...
>>
>>> BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
>>
>> Better than Firefox?
>
> Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the
groin comes to mind...
Hmm -
I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...
I see that you do not explain why.
Why he was kicked in the groin? Perhaps he was rude to a lady, it
is a sensitive area, and an effective rejoinder.
--
dorayme
In article <eF*******************@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <ja**************@telia.com> wrote: "dorayme kchayka Luigi Donatello Asero" wrote in some order or other:
?
? BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,
? Better than Firefox?
? Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.
? Are you dogmatic?
? Luigi! You are back! With a quintessential Luigism!
How are you?
Everything okay on Mars?
Yes, fine, I was there for part of my Xmas holidays. Lovely to
get into the warmth for a while... Nice surprise when I got back:
my men had tracked down one of your German attackers. I have his
little finger in a jar on my mantlepiece. I assume you do not
want it as a little revenge-memento (you do not believe in such
satisfactions?).
--
dorayme
To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster <usenet200604
@tobyinkster.co.uk> declaimed: dorayme wrote: Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
Everything okay on Mars?
Yes, fine, I was there for part of my Xmas holidays. Lovely to
get into the warmth for a while.
If it was warm, then you were probably in the northern hemisphere, which
is currently experiencing Spring.
Ditto Earth. Maybe she took a wrong turn at the second asteroid on the
left.
Due to the lack of "temperature smoothing factors", like the oceans on
Earth, Mars' Spring is much like its summer; so in late Spring,
temperatures can climb to almost 20°C.
Too bad for Blinky the Shark. If he went to Mars, he'd flop.
--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
dorayme wrote: In article <th*******************@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <ja**************@telia.com> wrote:
Hmm -
I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...
I see that you do not explain why.
Why he was kicked in the groin? Perhaps he was rude to a lady, it
is a sensitive area, and an effective rejoinder.
Actually, it was in karate class. I didn't guard low enough...
On 13 Apr 2006 16:54:57 GMT, TechnoHippie
<te***************@gmail.com> wrote: I'll take a kick to the groin any day.
Would you like fries with that. madam?
Matt
--
Odi profanum vulgus
In article <4k************@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote: dorayme wrote: Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
Everything okay on Mars?
Yes, fine, I was there for part of my Xmas holidays. Lovely to
get into the warmth for a while.
If it was warm, then you were probably in the northern hemisphere, which
is currently experiencing Spring.
Due to the lack of "temperature smoothing factors", like the oceans on
Earth, Mars' Spring is much like its summer; so in late Spring,
temperatures can climb to almost 20°C.
Yes, just nice. I see you study travel destinations in detail,
planning a holiday yourself?
--
dorayme This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. Similar topics
8 posts
views
Thread by F. Da Costa |
last post: by
|
61 posts
views
Thread by Toby Austin |
last post: by
|
7 posts
views
Thread by Herbman |
last post: by
|
2 posts
views
Thread by listaction |
last post: by
|
3 posts
views
Thread by Josef K. |
last post: by
|
7 posts
views
Thread by pamelafluente |
last post: by
|
2 posts
views
Thread by Nikolai Onken |
last post: by
|
13 posts
views
Thread by Mark |
last post: by
|
5 posts
views
Thread by Agix |
last post: by
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
