468,530 Members | 1,551 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,530 developers. It's quick & easy.

Does Firefox not understand COLGROUP and COL?

Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,
<TABLE border="1">
<COLGROUP>
<COL>
<COL align="char" char=".">
</COLGROUP>
<THEAD>
<TR><TH>Vegetable <TH>Cost per kilo
<TBODY>
<TR><TD>Lettuce <TD>$1
<TR><TD>Silver carrots <TD>$10.50
<TR><TD>Golden turnips <TD>$100.30
</TABLE>

should cause the numeric values to align themselves
vertically with the decimal point all at the same
horizontal location. Neither Firefox or Safari do this.

Is this a case of the browsers in question simply not
following the standard, or is there some twist in the
documentation that I've missed?

Can't get this to work using stylesheets either - if
I want anything other than default text alignment in a
specific column, I have to apply it separately for each
td element in that column.

The page I'm actually trying to get to work is this
one:

http://www.chem.utoronto.ca/courseno...7/outline.html

which validates fine, but stubbornly refuses to centre the
entries in the "Section" column no matter what I do _unless_
if I align each td individually. I was hoping not to do that...
Jun 6 '06 #1
33 18304
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,


Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs. Given that the problems
I enountered were raised in a bug report several years ago, and are
still not fixed, I'm going to assume that they likely never will be.

This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and
Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.

So if you want entries in a column to be centred, and you want
that to be rendered in Mozilla-based browsers, you have to
apply the alignment to each cell individually _regardless_ of
whether you use html/css or just plain html.

The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P
Jun 6 '06 #2
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,
Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs.


Indeed. It was discussed on usenet only a few days ago, and is
reportedly the oldest non-fixed bug in Moz-family browsers. Hmmm, ok,
the discussion was in alt.html
This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and /few\ Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.
OK so far...
So if you want entries in a column to be centred, and you want
that to be rendered in Mozilla-based browsers, you have to
apply the alignment to each cell individually _regardless_ of
whether you use html/css or just plain html.
Not quite true. Since Mozilla-based browsers understand enough of
CSS2, you can do this via a stylesheet, as was recently discussed
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...b2a487ec8e02b4
The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P


Nevertheless, it doesn't pay off in the long-term to keep relying on
browser bugs. In this case, you just need two sets of
specification-conforming settings, and you'll pretty much cover the
field.

Jun 6 '06 #3
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,
Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs. Given that the problems
I enountered were raised in a bug report several years ago, and are
still not fixed, I'm going to assume that they likely never will be.


A reasonable assumption.
This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and
Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.


The spec is unsound at that point.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Jun 7 '06 #4
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc87.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,
Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs.


Indeed. It was discussed on usenet only a few days ago, and is
reportedly the oldest non-fixed bug in Moz-family browsers. Hmmm, ok,
the discussion was in alt.html
This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and

/few\
Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.

See my earlier post about applying a border to an object (in my
case, a Flash object). That doesn't work correctly in Moz-family
browsers either.

OK so far...
So if you want entries in a column to be centred, and you want
that to be rendered in Mozilla-based browsers, you have to
apply the alignment to each cell individually _regardless_ of
whether you use html/css or just plain html.
Not quite true. Since Mozilla-based browsers understand enough of
CSS2, you can do this via a stylesheet, as was recently discussed
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...4b2a487ec8e02b
4


I looked at that. It's a bit more work than I care for with my particular
table instance. Curiously enough, the background colour of a COLGROUP
is one of the things that has supposedly been fixed, at least for the
current build. (Well, as near as I can understand what bugzilla seems
to be saying: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4510)

I ended up adding a class declaration to each td that needed
special formatting. One of the articles in the cited thread suggests
selecting the entire column in dreamweaver and then setting the
desired attributes. When I tried this, dreamweaver inserted a styled
div into each td which, IMO, is even worse.
The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P


Nevertheless, it doesn't pay off in the long-term to keep relying on
browser bugs. In this case, you just need two sets of
specification-conforming settings, and you'll pretty much cover the
field.


I don't see how I'm "relying on browser bugs"? I found a standards-
compliant solution that works on all the browsers I tested. My biggest
beef is that I wasted over 3 hours trying to figure why FF wouldn't do
what it was supposedly meant to do...
Jun 7 '06 #5
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
<TR><TH>Vegetable <TH>Cost per kilo


"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

Jun 7 '06 #6
David Stone wrote:
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc87.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:

Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,
Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs.

Indeed. It was discussed on usenet only a few days ago, and is
reportedly the oldest non-fixed bug in Moz-family browsers. Hmmm, ok,
the discussion was in alt.html
This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and

/few\
Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.


Not quite true. Since Mozilla-based browsers understand enough of
CSS2, you can do this via a stylesheet, as was recently discussed
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...4b2a487ec8e02b
4


I looked at that. It's a bit more work than I care for with my particular
table instance. Curiously enough, the background colour of a COLGROUP
is one of the things that has supposedly been fixed, at least for the
current build. (Well, as near as I can understand what bugzilla seems
to be saying: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4510)


I agree that col align & valign should be implemented, but now that you
can use, eg, td:first-child+td+td+td+td to select the 5th column, how is
that too much work ? If you wanted the 95th column it would be a bit
clunky, but doable. Add to that a table id or class, if you need to
distinguish between tables, and you're all set - no need for html td
attributes.

Two standards compliant solutions: one for ie, and one for the gecko
family - each one or two lines of code.

There seems to be some suggestion that the bug is (finally) being worked
on: see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915
(and if you care, vote for it).

Chris
Jun 7 '06 #7
In article
<Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
<TR><TH>Vegetable <TH>Cost per kilo


"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/


Don't tell me, tell the authors of the W3C HTML 4 spec!

Although "kilo" is a very common abbreviation of kilogram.
If you insist on being pedantic, you will also have to take
up your argument with the Oxford English Dictionary - good
luck!
Jun 7 '06 #8
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Not quite true. Since Mozilla-based browsers understand enough of
CSS2, you can do this via a stylesheet, as was recently discussed
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...4b2a487ec8e02b
4
I looked at that. It's a bit more work than I care for with my
particular table instance.


Seems quite a modest amount of work.
Curiously enough, the background colour of a COLGROUP is one of the
things that has supposedly been fixed, at least for the current
build. (Well, as near as I can understand what bugzilla seems to be
saying: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4510)


But that's easy to fix: it only needs for the background colour to be
established on the col or colgroup element, and then allowed to "shine
through" all the elements (tr, td, whatever) which come later. And
that's their natural inclination, if their b.g colour is not
explicitly styled.

Whereas, getting HTML attributes of col and colgroup to percolate down
to the cells calls for some kind of action at a distance, and the
specification is very much at odds with the concepts of CSS, so you
have two different languages trying to pull in different directions.
It's frankly a mess, and I have some sympathy with the implementers
here.
The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P


Nevertheless, it doesn't pay off in the long-term to keep relying
on browser bugs. In this case, you just need two sets of
specification-conforming settings, and you'll pretty much cover
the field.


I don't see how I'm "relying on browser bugs"?


I don't see how I was suggesting that you *were*. You were talking
about blowing some *future* raspberry at the specifications, and I was
cautioning against the consequences of doing that.

ttfn
Jun 7 '06 #9
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
<TR><TH>Vegetable <TH>Cost per kilo


"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers. "Kilo" as a
standalone word means "kilogramme".
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/kilo

--
Jack.
Jun 7 '06 #10
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc20.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, David Stone wrote:
> The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
> I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P

Nevertheless, it doesn't pay off in the long-term to keep relying
on browser bugs. In this case, you just need two sets of
specification-conforming settings, and you'll pretty much cover
the field.


I don't see how I'm "relying on browser bugs"?


I don't see how I was suggesting that you *were*. You were talking
about blowing some *future* raspberry at the specifications, and I was
cautioning against the consequences of doing that.


Well, that's how I interpreted your first sentence in the paragraph
cited above. Not to worry! And, I fully intend to blow big fat
raspberries, not at the standards, but at those who insist that
$BROWSER_DU_JOUR should be used because it's "fully standards compliant"
- I'll consign that to the same folklore bin as "you should never use
tables"!
Jun 7 '06 #11
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Jack wrote:
"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/
You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.


And grocer's are expert's.
"Kilo" as a standalone word means "kilogramme".


The legal spelling in the UK has been "kilogram" for some
30 years.

Jun 7 '06 #12
Els
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Jack wrote:
"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/


You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.


And grocer's are expert's.


There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.
"Kilo" as a standalone word means "kilogramme".


The legal spelling in the UK has been "kilogram" for some
30 years.


Legal is still not what the grocers use.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...3678&dict=CALD
Same as in Dutch really, I don't go to market to buy a kilogram of
anything - just a kilo will do :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: - Track 2
Jun 7 '06 #13
In article
<Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.


And grocer's are expert's.


My fave is the grocer who sold Golden Deliciou's apples!! Yup, true!!

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jun 7 '06 #14
In article <gc****************************@40tude.net>, Els
<el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
And grocer's are expert's.


There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.


It was a joke. In the UK, there is a very widespread tendency amongst
greengrocers to add an apostrophe before the "s" on the end of a plural
word. Andreas was being sarcastic ;-)

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jun 7 '06 #15
In article <e6*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Sharman <ch***********@sorry.nospam> wrote:

[snip]

Two standards compliant solutions: one for ie, and one for the gecko
family - each one or two lines of code.
I guess my personal preference is for one solution that works
(reasonably well) for any of the most common browsers, but doesn't
generate errors when parsing through the W3C validator.
There seems to be some suggestion that the bug is (finally) being worked
on: see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915
(and if you care, vote for it).


I care; I did. Although you have to wonder how long it will take
_after_ the problem has been fixed, before the number of pre-fix
browsers still in use drops below the significance threshold. There
are still quite a number of IE 5 installations locally, for example!
Jun 7 '06 #16
Els
Alan Silver wrote:
In article <gc****************************@40tude.net>, Els
<el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
And grocer's are expert's.
There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.


It was a joke. In the UK, there is a very widespread tendency amongst
greengrocers to add an apostrophe before the "s" on the end of a plural
word.


:-)
Didn't know that!
They do in Holland too though, but here it's correct grammar ;-)
Andreas was being sarcastic ;-)


It did 'sound' sarcastic, but I couldn't find any reference for it
(not knowing much about British grocers)...

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
Jun 7 '06 #17
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> writes
Although you have to wonder how long it will take
_after_ the problem has been fixed, before the number of pre-fix
browsers still in use drops below the significance threshold. There
are still quite a number of IE 5 installations locally, for example!


Yeah, but the FF situation is notably different for two reasons. First,
FF users tend to be far more technosavvy than IE users, and so are far
more likely to upgrade. Second, IE (to my amazement) doesn't encourage
the user to upgrade at all. FF has quite an arrogant attitude to this
and will nag you incessantly when a new version is available. Put both
of these together and you find that FF users are far more likely to be
using the latest (or a very recent) version than IE users.

Ta ra

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jun 7 '06 #18
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Jack wrote:
"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.


And grocer's are expert's.
"Kilo" as a standalone word means "kilogramme".


The legal spelling in the UK has been "kilogram" for some
30 years.

ACK. My misteak.

--
Jack.
Jun 7 '06 #19
Els wrote:
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Jack wrote:
"Kilo" means 1000. I think you mean "kilogram".
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/
You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.

And grocer's are expert's.


There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.


Tho's are known as grocers apostrophe's.

--
Jack.
Jun 7 '06 #20
Els wrote:
Alan Silver wrote:
In article <gc****************************@40tude.net>, Els
<el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
And grocer's are expert's.
There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.

It was a joke. In the UK, there is a very widespread tendency amongst
greengrocers to add an apostrophe before the "s" on the end of a plural
word.


:-)
Didn't know that!
They do in Holland too though, but here it's correct grammar ;-)
Andreas was being sarcastic ;-)


It did 'sound' sarcastic, but I couldn't find any reference for it
(not knowing much about British grocers)...

Eats Shoots And Leaves by Lynn Truss has a whole chapter on the misuse
of apostrophes. Example:

Carrot's 59p/kilo

--
Jack.
Jun 7 '06 #21
Alan Silver wrote:
In article
<Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
You think wrong. SI Units are for scientists, not grocers.


And grocer's are expert's.


My fave is the grocer who sold Golden Deliciou's apples!! Yup, true!!

My fave is the grocer with sign saying "Carrot's", whose name was Mr.
Carrot.

--
Jack.
Jun 7 '06 #22
In article <e6*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, Jack
<mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> writes
Carrot's 59p/kilo


Eh up, no self respecting English grocer would price in kilos!! We still
stick proudly to lbs and ozs mate!!

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jun 7 '06 #23
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:00:27 +0100, Alan Silver
<al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Eh up, no self respecting English grocer would price in kilos!! We still
stick proudly to lbs and ozs mate!!


Not if you want to avoid being hanged from Villeneuve's column you don't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/584931.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/845427.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1269043.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1826503.stm

The best you get in shops these days is the price in pounds written in
small print underneath the metric prices. Many traders did this at first,
but since 2000 most have given up because it's too much hassle. And while
many market stalls will silently serve you "a pound of apples" when you
ask, if you look carefully they actually weigh up 454 grammes and record
that in the paperwork (well, al least there wive's do because as we all
no, British greengrocer's can not reed and wright).

And have you noticed how the new pound coin is a clone of the Euro? They
even changed the base metal to match and use Euroesque artwork on the face
(albeit one of Brunel's bridges though no doubt that will change to the
Eiffel Tower in the next revision).
Jun 7 '06 #24
In article <op***************@eudaemonic.com>, Bert Lancaster
<no****@yahoo.com> writes
And have you noticed how the new pound coin is a clone of the Euro?
They even changed the base metal to match and use Euroesque artwork on
the face (albeit one of Brunel's bridges though no doubt that will
change to the Eiffel Tower in the next revision).


I'm glad to say I've never actually seen a Euro!!

Sad that the old lbs and ozs went though. We still use them at home, and
I reckon we aren't alone. Mind you, my wife uses one of those
old-fashioned pan scales with metal weights!!

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jun 7 '06 #25
Els
Bert Lancaster wrote:
And have you noticed how the new pound coin is a clone of the Euro?


Not to mention the introduction of the 2 pound coin which resembles
the two Euro coin. (Or did I overlook its existence in the pre-Euro
days?)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Dr. Feelgood - Back In The Night
Jun 7 '06 #26
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Els wrote:
It did 'sound' sarcastic, but I couldn't find any reference for it
(not knowing much about British grocers)...


They are green.
http://www.google.com/search?q=greengrocer+apostrophe

Jun 8 '06 #27
Els
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Els wrote:
It did 'sound' sarcastic, but I couldn't find any reference for it
(not knowing much about British grocers)...


They are green.
http://www.google.com/search?q=greengrocer+apostrophe


Second result even mentions the Dutch!
<quote>
Is there an apostrophe in the plural of pizza?
No. (No, no, no!) In Dutch maybe, but not in English.
</quote>

Never thought Dutch grammar would make it into an Oxford Dictionary,
even if it's AskOxford.com :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
Jun 8 '06 #28
I just tried doing a table with colgroup and col and a few other things
I had read about on the W3C site, only to discover that they didn't
appear to work in Safari either. Given up in disgust.

Gone back to using align="left" on the th elements and align="right" on
the td elements, since the W3 validator doesn't complain about that.
Since I usually generate a table with a shell script, having the
attributes in the html is easier than worrying about whether any
specific style sheet has the style I want for a particular table. I only
have a half dozen very simple tables on my site, so using simple markup
seems a lot easier than sticking in theader and tbody and that sort of
stuff.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Jun 9 '06 #29

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eric Lindsay wrote:
I just tried doing a table with colgroup and col and a few other things
I had read about on the W3C site, only to discover that they didn't
appear to work in Safari either.
I think you need to be more discerning in your evaluation of "does not
appear to work". col and colgroup are specified to do quite a number
of things in HTML, and to have a small number of properties applied to
them in CSS. MSIE implements some extra CSS properties that it isn't
supposed to; Mozilla fails to support some HTML attributes that,
according to the spec, it ought to. So it's not ideal, but it isn't
that col and colgroup don't work.
Gone back to using align="left" on the th elements and align="right"
on the td elements, since the W3 validator doesn't complain about
that.


That's an unfortunate way to put it. The validator is only calling
attention to features of what the specification says. It would be
better to follow the specification, as far as possible, rather than
merely doing things because of what the validator does or doesn't
"complain about".

But yes, alignment attributes are still available on table cells, even
in "strict" HTML. That can tend to bloat the HTML, though, if you
have a lot of it.

Jun 9 '06 #30
In article <qL**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, Alan Silver write:
In article <gc****************************@40tude.net>, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
And grocer's are expert's.


There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.


It was a joke. In the UK, there is a very widespread tendency amongst
greengrocers to add an apostrophe before the "s" on the end of a plural


This is entirely too common in the US, as well.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.

Jun 9 '06 #31
Michael Stemper wrote:
In article <qL**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, Alan Silver write:
In article <gc****************************@40tude.net>, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
And grocer's are expert's.
There are two apostrophes too many in that sentence.

It was a joke. In the UK, there is a very widespread tendency amongst
greengrocers to add an apostrophe before the "s" on the end of a plural


This is entirely too common in the US, as well.


It's also common to see: "She sat between him and I."

Common usage is not necessarily correct usage. Instead, it merely
indicates how common illiteracy is.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jun 9 '06 #32
David Stone wrote:
In article <no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>,
David Stone <no******@domain.invalid> wrote:
Been trying to specify text alignment within specific
columns in an html 4 strict page. According to the
w3c specs,


Never mind - after poking around the bugzilla pages, it appears
to be the case that NONE of the Mozilla-based browsers implement
COLGROUP and COL as per html 4.01 specs. Given that the problems
I enountered were raised in a bug report several years ago, and are
still not fixed, I'm going to assume that they likely never will be.

This is one of the things where IE follows the standard, and
Mozilla/Firefox/etc don't.

So if you want entries in a column to be centred, and you want
that to be rendered in Mozilla-based browsers, you have to
apply the alignment to each cell individually _regardless_ of
whether you use html/css or just plain html.

The next time someone tells me I should be standards-compliant,
I think I shall just blow a big fat raspberry at them :P


For those who might be interested, it's bug #915. See
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915>.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jun 9 '06 #33
In message
<Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
The legal spelling in the UK has been "kilogram" for some 30 years.


Yes, but who weighs their lawyers?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jun 11 '06 #34

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

4 posts views Thread by Bart Heinsius | last post: by
reply views Thread by Brian | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Daniel Haude | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by ShadowMan | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Rob Meade | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Martínez | last post: by
36 posts views Thread by Roedy Green | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by fmendoza | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.