XPost: alt.discuss.html, alt.html.dynamic, alt.www.sites
XPost: alt.comp.software.thunderbird, news.software.readers
What's the new limit for X-posting in TB (ES) ?
-------- ok, this is the Limit (max)
2008 !
was Re: Looking for a wysisyg html editor for linux
On 9/8/2008 4:49 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:C4EAF7EC.D540C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com
"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
Jrfxk.29037$bx1.7567@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 9/8/08 1:00 PM:
* Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> stated in post
70uac41dvd4fnj2k3vfv9dap8g33nanj35@4ax.com on 9/8/08 12:08 PM:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Nope. It is not just *my* preferences.
You are trampling on the preferences of a *lot* of people with
such a design. You are forcing *your* preferences on others.
Extremely bad design
Maybe not bad from Shit's perspective. He loves to annoy people,
you know...
Just for fun I decided to Google fixed-with vs. liquid. The
prevailing wisdom *clearly* agrees with me and not Peter (surprise
surprise, LOL!). Here is a sampling:
<http://www.webreference.com/authoring/style/sheets/css_mastery2/>
-----
Fixed-width layouts are very common as they give the
developer more control over layout and positioning. If you
set the width of your design to be 720 pixels wide, it will
always be 720 pixels. If you then want a branding image
spanning the top of your design, you know it needs to be 720
pixels wide to fit. Knowing the exact width of each element
allows you to lay them out precisely and know where
everything will be. This predictability makes fixed-width
layout by far the most common layout method around.
-----
However, the original intent of HTML was /not/ to produce fixed
layouts.
Irrelevant to how it is used today.
It was to produce readable web sites under a wide variety of
conditions, and to encourage sites that could be understood by those
who had to rely on hearing alone.
The rest of your quotes were simply opinions, and opinions that do
not take into account the needs of all people.
What is good or bad design is, largely, opinion... though there are
specific goals that can be looked at and how well or how poorly a
specific design meets those goals can be measured. And, of course,
there is a benefit to doing things in ways that a user will be
familiar with (such as my navigation on the left hand side... very
common).
For Peter to say it is "extremely bad web design" is just silly...
He exaggerates. However, fixed width web sites are gauche and
impolite.
What do you base this on? Looking for opinions of different
designers I certainly do not find this to be the case.
and shows
off how little he knows in the areas of web design. Seriously, is
there *any* technical topic he is not amazingly ignorant on?
Trolling sign-off noted.
Peter - again - lashed out at me on a technical issue and stuck his
foot in his mouth. Pointing out how he repeatedly does this is a
fair response to his BS.
You troll everyone you know is better than you. And that means everyone. Maybe you should stop hating yoruself so much.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)