Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Paragraph tags different in Mozilla

Reply
Thread Tools

Paragraph tags different in Mozilla

 
 
Joel Shepherd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2005
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> Joel Shepherd wrote:
> > Toby Inkster wrote:
> >>
> >> They dip *cheeseburgers* in *coffee* over there?

> >
> > Yeah, and we put ketchup on our doughnuts. It's a weird country, if
> > you haven't already glommed onto that fact.

>
> I use mustard on my doughnuts, and dip my cheeseburgers in *Pepsi*!


Okay: now _that_ is _weird_.

That's it! I'm moving to Canada!

--
Joel.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tshad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dd6he.19139$(E-Mail Removed)...
> tshad wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> message news:CfOge.27169$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Your 8pt font is also unreadable. We discuss why not to use
>>> Verdana, and not to use px or pt for font every day here. Surely,
>>> you've read a few of those threads?

>>
>> Again, this is what FP puts out there.

>
> Sounds like a good reason to dump it.
>
>> I actually do use fixed sized fonts, but they are all in my style
>> sheets that I can change later. I just found that relative sizes
>> caused me no end of problems when dealing with data input screens
>> and getting things to line up.
>>
>> I actually use 10px, 12px and 14px:

>
> I always use 100% and have no problems at all. You must be doing something
> else wrong. Or, rather of course, FrontPage is doing something else wrong.
>
> Have we mentioned that IE users will not be able to resize your fonts if
> they have vision problems?
>
>> I also have them set at the same size as the graphic images I am
>> using that have the text in them to make them consistant. How do
>> you use a relative size font in a graphic image?

>
> A graphic image of text? Why not just use text? Unless you're showing
> mathematical formulae, or need a particular emphasized header, there is
> little reason to use a graphic of text.
>
>> Using standard out of the box browsers (IE, netscape, firefox) all
>> look fine. I have my screen at 1024.

>
> Screen size is unimportant. Browser window size is. My 1024 monitor
> usually has a browser window around 750-850px wide.
>
>> We have had multiple people look at some of the pages without
>> telling them how to set their browsers and they use different size
>> screen resolutions and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

>
> Again, screen resolution is not important.
>
>> I did figure out my problem, however.
>>
>> My example was missing the <p> tag, so it wasn't showing the
>> problem correctly. Now it does.
>>
>> It was the DOCTYPE that was causing the problem.
>>
>> In http://www.payrollworkshop.com/Sampl...graphTest1.htm you
>> can see this at the dop
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>>
>> As soon as I took the 2nd line out it works fine in all browsers.
>> As you can see in
>> http://www.payrollworkshop.com/Sampl...graphTest1.htm
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

>
> The page still has the complete doctype. In fact, I think I recall that an
> incomplete doctype will still toss browsers into quirks mode.
>
>> I found that not only did it have a large box around it, but the
>> first example doesn't indent the text and the 2nd one does.

>
> ..and there are still no units on your paragraph margin.
> Still 15 cheeseburgers.
>
> --
> -bts
> -This space intentionally left blank.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tshad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dd6he.19139$(E-Mail Removed)...
> tshad wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> message news:CfOge.27169$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Your 8pt font is also unreadable. We discuss why not to use
>>> Verdana, and not to use px or pt for font every day here. Surely,
>>> you've read a few of those threads?

>>
>> Again, this is what FP puts out there.

>
> Sounds like a good reason to dump it.
>
>> I actually do use fixed sized fonts, but they are all in my style
>> sheets that I can change later. I just found that relative sizes
>> caused me no end of problems when dealing with data input screens
>> and getting things to line up.
>>
>> I actually use 10px, 12px and 14px:

>
> I always use 100% and have no problems at all. You must be doing something
> else wrong. Or, rather of course, FrontPage is doing something else wrong.
>
> Have we mentioned that IE users will not be able to resize your fonts if
> they have vision problems?
>
>> I also have them set at the same size as the graphic images I am
>> using that have the text in them to make them consistant. How do
>> you use a relative size font in a graphic image?

>
> A graphic image of text? Why not just use text? Unless you're showing
> mathematical formulae, or need a particular emphasized header, there is
> little reason to use a graphic of text.
>

Buttons, for one thing.

>> Using standard out of the box browsers (IE, netscape, firefox) all
>> look fine. I have my screen at 1024.

>
> Screen size is unimportant. Browser window size is. My 1024 monitor
> usually has a browser window around 750-850px wide.
>

I build all my screens using 1024 and the text looks fine. As I mentioned,
we have ours screens set up to mimic government forms or just to get as much
information on one screen as possible without cluttering it. Some take 2 or
3 columns with text followed by text boxes. We have enough problems getting
the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font. If you
make the fonts bigger, the whole page will look wrong. We spend a lot of
time just getting a particular look to the screen (much of it data entry
screens), if the browsers start mucking with it - the look is gone.

I know I am in the minority here and may take a different approach later but
when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser and
a mess in others. We have have no end of problems just trying to deal with
the differences between the browsers. On some pages we have to use
transitional and others strict to get the screens to look the same in
Mozilla vs IE, as some others here have pointed out.

>> We have had multiple people look at some of the pages without
>> telling them how to set their browsers and they use different size
>> screen resolutions and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

>
> Again, screen resolution is not important.
>
>> I did figure out my problem, however.
>>
>> My example was missing the <p> tag, so it wasn't showing the
>> problem correctly. Now it does.
>>
>> It was the DOCTYPE that was causing the problem.
>>
>> In http://www.payrollworkshop.com/Sampl...graphTest1.htm you
>> can see this at the dop
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>>
>> As soon as I took the 2nd line out it works fine in all browsers.
>> As you can see in
>> http://www.payrollworkshop.com/Sampl...graphTest1.htm
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

>
> The page still has the complete doctype. In fact, I think I recall that an
> incomplete doctype will still toss browsers into quirks mode.


That my be the case, but it worked as expected once I dropped the loose.dtd
designation. Again it worked fine in one browser and not in the other when
loose.dtd was there.
>
>> I found that not only did it have a large box around it, but the
>> first example doesn't indent the text and the 2nd one does.

>
> ..and there are still no units on your paragraph margin.
> Still 15 cheeseburgers.


Again, FP. Am slowly getting rid of that. Also, moving all font sizing to
css to allow me the option of going to relative sizes later on, when I have
a chance to really look at the impact on the site.

Tom


 
Reply With Quote
 
kchayka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
tshad wrote:
>
> We have enough problems getting
> the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font. If you
> make the fonts bigger, the whole page will look wrong.


Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?

> when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser and
> a mess in others.


Then your design is broken.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tshad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
"kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> tshad wrote:
>>
>> We have enough problems getting
>> the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font. If
>> you
>> make the fonts bigger, the whole page will look wrong.

>
> Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
> as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?


No.

I can always make it only one column long and make a real long form. Of
course, it won't look like the original form we were trying to replicate.

>
>> when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser
>> and
>> a mess in others.

>
> Then your design is broken.


My design is wrong?

Of course, the different browsers not working the same is not the problem !

I could make my boxes only 10 columns long for addresses, then it won't
matter what the font ends up being.

For example on one line I might have (x's are the boxes) - 1st column is a
line from High School information, 2nd column is from References. I have a
window set with an outside border of about 1/16 inch of shading. So
everything has to fit in that window.

Name: Address: Business name:
Phone:
Type of Degree/Diploma Received? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

This is off a form and just fits the screen when set to 10px. If you set it
to 12px, either it will shove the left part of the from to the right, or it
will move the Phone box to the next line.

Forms are forms. Space is space. If you can wrap content, then changing
the font size is no big deal. But if you are limited to making the Form
look like the original, I'm not sure how you can free form the size of the
text and make it fit in a limited space.

Maybe, I am wrong here, but I don't see how you can do it. I don't want it
running of the screen to the right. That just drives people crazy that have
to use the form (to scroll left and right constantly when inputing).

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



 
Reply With Quote
 
kchayka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
tshad wrote:
> "kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> tshad wrote:
>>>
>>> We have enough problems getting
>>> the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font.

>>
>> Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
>> as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?

>
> No.


Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.

> I can always make it only one column long and make a real long form. Of
> course, it won't look like the original form we were trying to replicate.


Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper

If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task. Regardless, a web
version of a paper form does not have to look identical to the original.
Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how
the web works.

>>> when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser
>>> and a mess in others.

>>
>> Then your design is broken.

>
> My design is wrong?


Yup.

> Name: Address: Business name:
> Phone:
> Type of Degree/Diploma Received? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
>
> This is off a form and just fits the screen when set to 10px.


Maybe for you it does. You are presuming the visitor will have both a
viewport large enough to fit that in one line, and be able to read a
10px font. So what happens when either or both of those assumptions turn
out to be false? Is the content still usable for those visitors?

By your counts, it gets totally hosed up. That's a sign of poor web
design. People *will* need different text sizes and *will* use different
window sizes. It's a fact. You can't control it. It is your
responsibility as a web developer to account for it, not try to prevent
it (which you can't do, anyway).

> But if you are limited to making the Form look like the original,


That is a bogus limitation. Was that requirement made by a clueful web
designer, or some management or marketing type? I can already guess the
answer.

> I'm not sure how you can free form the size of the
> text and make it fit in a limited space.


I'll repeat: web != paper

Adaptability to different browsing environments, which includes varying
text and window sizes, is a fundamental property of the web. If you stop
trying to force a web page do something against its very nature, you'll
have much more success and much less frustration.

Free yourself of the print mindset, eh?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
kchayka wrote:
> If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
> poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task. Regardless, a web
> version of a paper form does not have to look identical to the original.
> Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how
> the web works.


Or just has a different viewpoint than you do.

--
-=tn=-
 
Reply With Quote
 
tshad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005

"kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> tshad wrote:
>> "kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> tshad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have enough problems getting
>>>> the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font.
>>>
>>> Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
>>> as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?

>>
>> No.

>
> Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
> importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.


Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
people as possible. If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
try to make it work for the other 10%. Would be counter productive.

Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every possible
version of every possible web Browser.

>
>> I can always make it only one column long and make a real long form. Of
>> course, it won't look like the original form we were trying to replicate.

>
> Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper


No.

I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another tool
to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT paper,
doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
clients as possible.

>
> If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
> poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task.


You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can tell
you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine if
you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different matter
if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.

>Regardless, a web version of a paper form does not have to look identical
>to the original.


It does, if the client wants it that way.

> Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how the
> web works.


Only one way, huh?

Tom
>
>>>> when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser
>>>> and a mess in others.
>>>
>>> Then your design is broken.

>>
>> My design is wrong?

>
> Yup.
>
>> Name: Address: Business
>> name:
>> Phone:
>> Type of Degree/Diploma Received? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
>>
>> This is off a form and just fits the screen when set to 10px.

>
> Maybe for you it does. You are presuming the visitor will have both a
> viewport large enough to fit that in one line, and be able to read a
> 10px font. So what happens when either or both of those assumptions turn
> out to be false? Is the content still usable for those visitors?
>
> By your counts, it gets totally hosed up. That's a sign of poor web
> design. People *will* need different text sizes and *will* use different
> window sizes. It's a fact. You can't control it. It is your
> responsibility as a web developer to account for it, not try to prevent
> it (which you can't do, anyway).
>
>> But if you are limited to making the Form look like the original,

>
> That is a bogus limitation. Was that requirement made by a clueful web
> designer, or some management or marketing type? I can already guess the
> answer.
>
>> I'm not sure how you can free form the size of the
>> text and make it fit in a limited space.

>
> I'll repeat: web != paper
>
> Adaptability to different browsing environments, which includes varying
> text and window sizes, is a fundamental property of the web. If you stop
> trying to force a web page do something against its very nature, you'll
> have much more success and much less frustration.
>
> Free yourself of the print mindset, eh?
>
> --
> Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
> Please reply to the group so everyone can share.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
Previously in alt.html, tshad <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> "kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
>> importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.

>
> Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
> people as possible.


As many people as possible = 100%

> If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
> try to make it work for the other 10%.


Then you are not achieving your aim as stated above.

> Would be counter productive.


How so?

> Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every possible
> version of every possible web Browser.


Learn from the lemmings.

>> Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper

>
> No.
>
> I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another tool
> to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT paper,
> doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
> clients as possible.


No one is saying that at all. What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.

>> If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
>> poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task.

>
> You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can tell
> you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine if
> you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different matter
> if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.


kchayka is talking about reproducing a paper layout in HTML. It simply
cannot be done. So you can either use PDF to recreate that layout, or
you can use HTML and it will look however it looks according to the
settings on your visitor's browser. You can't have it both ways.

>>Regardless, a web version of a paper form does not have to look identical
>>to the original.

>
> It does, if the client wants it that way.


Then PDF is the best tool for the job. If it needs to be done in HTML,
it is your job to explain to the client that it won't look identical to
the paper version.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
tshad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2005

"Mark Parnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:10b6qno9eoe2k.1321zjtg2kr3n$.mark@markparnell .com.au...
> Previously in alt.html, tshad <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> "kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
>>> importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.

>>
>> Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
>> people as possible.

>
> As many people as possible = 100%


So you program for Netscape 1 or 2 or 3 and IE 2 or 3 and all the Javascript
and Jscript differences?

>
>> If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
>> try to make it work for the other 10%.

>
> Then you are not achieving your aim as stated above.


I guess not. Possible is defined as reasonable, in my perception (obviously
not yours)
>
>> Would be counter productive.

>
> How so?


As I mentioned above, trying to get every possible Browser (and versions),
scripts (and versions) - would be difficult. Even trying to get it right
for all the variations between just the current Browsers with the different
Doctypes (strict, Transitional, loose etc). When, as people have pointed
here, browsers tend to follow some standards but not others, etc.

>
>> Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every
>> possible
>> version of every possible web Browser.

>
> Learn from the lemmings.
>
>>> Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper

>>
>> No.
>>
>> I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another
>> tool
>> to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT
>> paper,
>> doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
>> clients as possible.

>
> No one is saying that at all. What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
> impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
> different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.
>


I agree. But that doesn't mean you have to toss it out altogether.

>>> If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
>>> poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task.

>>
>> You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can
>> tell
>> you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine
>> if
>> you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different
>> matter
>> if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.

>
> kchayka is talking about reproducing a paper layout in HTML. It simply
> cannot be done. So you can either use PDF to recreate that layout, or
> you can use HTML and it will look however it looks according to the
> settings on your visitor's browser. You can't have it both ways.
>


Probably true.

>>>Regardless, a web version of a paper form does not have to look identical
>>>to the original.

>>
>> It does, if the client wants it that way.

>
> Then PDF is the best tool for the job. If it needs to be done in HTML,
> it is your job to explain to the client that it won't look identical to
> the paper version.
>


If you don't have the interactive version of adobe, as most people don't (at
least not that I know of), how do you do interactive forms in PDF?

Tom
> --
> Mark Parnell
> http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
> alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph? dorayme HTML 112 03-30-2009 10:56 PM
striping HTML tags from string, but leaving paragraph formatting Kevin Blount ASP General 2 12-06-2005 09:49 PM
All style tags after the first 30 style tags on an HTML page are not applied in Internet Explorer Rob Nicholson ASP .Net 3 05-28-2005 03:11 PM
RegEx to find CFML tags nested in HTML tags Dean H. Saxe Perl 0 01-03-2004 06:11 PM
Custom Tags within Custom Tags. Ranganath Java 2 10-21-2003 06:14 AM



Advertisments