🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 26, 4:56 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Another extremely weird feature from iE6
>
> I have a site, whose predominant colors are green background with white
> writing.
>
> There is a style sheet with many styles, of which all either specify a
> green background, or don't specify any. Body defaults to green.
>
> At the customer site, some <INPUT type="TEXT"> elements showed up with a
> white background on one machine running IE6. I didn't have a chance to
> investigate further. Highlighting the white on white entered text showed
> it was there, just invisible
>
> Further madness occurred when on this machine a form containing about 10
> of such inputs, that as far as I know were identical HTML, showed up
> with some white and some green background.

IE changes background colors of text inputs to indicate it has auto-
fill choices available.

Regardless, white text on a green background is a bad idea for text
inputs.

>
> My own test machine running AFAICT the same IE6 version does NOT display
> this problem.
>
> Her is a code snippet that gave some fields white, some green:-
>
> <TABLE width=90% border="0">
>   <TR><TD align="right">Name:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> maxlength="32"name ="name"  value=""></td>
>
>   <TD align="right">Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text" name=
> "phone" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   </TR><TR>
>   <TD align="right">Address 1:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="address1" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Mobile Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
> type="text" name=" phone2" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
>   </TR><TR>
>   <TD align="right">Address 2:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="address2" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Fax:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="fax" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>
>   </TR><TR>
>   <TD align="right">Address 3:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="address3" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Email:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="email" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   </TR><TR>
>   <TD align="right">Town:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="town" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Web:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> name="web" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   </TR><TR>
>
>   <TD align="right">County/state:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
> type="text" name="county" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Credit Limit:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
> type="text" name="credit_limit" maxlength="32" value="0"></td>
>   </TR><TR>
>   <TD align="right">Post/ZIP code:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
> type="text" name="postcode" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>   <TD align="right">Status:</TD>
>   <TD align="left">
>   Cash<input type="radio" name="credit_status"  value="cash" checked>
>
>   Credit<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="credit" >
>   On Hold<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="hold" >
>   </td>

Why the sudden change of case?

>   </TR>
>

Regardless of colors, this is an inaccessible mess.  Lose the table,
add labels, etc.  Try tabbing through it and you will get the idea.

> At the least I would have thought that this would override any other
> styles - from the relevant stylesheet.
>
> INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT, OPTION {
>         font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
>         padding: 2px;
>         color: white;
>         font-size: 12px;
>         background-color: #60a060;
>

Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
be legible at 12px.  When missing, its replacement will invariably be
a smaller font, which is less likely to be legible at 12px.
Regardless of the font, never size text with pixel units (IE won't
scale it.)

> }
>
> No HTML errors or warnings are given: No errors are shown..

The HTML doesn't look valid to me.  And none of this has anything to
do with JavaScript.  You should submit your deezyne to CSS and/or HTML
groups for further assistance.

In article <1193392329.536778.128210@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> be legible at 12px. 

Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for 
legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even 
at small sizes.

David Mark wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:56 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> Another extremely weird feature from iE6
>>
>> I have a site, whose predominant colors are green background with white
>> writing.
>>
>> There is a style sheet with many styles, of which all either specify a
>> green background, or don't specify any. Body defaults to green.
>>
>> At the customer site, some <INPUT type="TEXT"> elements showed up with a
>> white background on one machine running IE6. I didn't have a chance to
>> investigate further. Highlighting the white on white entered text showed
>> it was there, just invisible
>>
>> Further madness occurred when on this machine a form containing about 10
>> of such inputs, that as far as I know were identical HTML, showed up
>> with some white and some green background.
> 
> IE changes background colors of text inputs to indicate it has auto-
> fill choices available.
> 

Hmm.

> Regardless, white text on a green background is a bad idea for text
> inputs.
> 

Why? It looks great and has good contrast..

>> My own test machine running AFAICT the same IE6 version does NOT display
>> this problem.
>>
>> Her is a code snippet that gave some fields white, some green:-
>>
>> <TABLE width=90% border="0">
>>   <TR><TD align="right">Name:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> maxlength="32"name ="name"  value=""></td>
>>
>>   <TD align="right">Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text" name=
>> "phone" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>   <TD align="right">Address 1:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="address1" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Mobile Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
>> type="text" name=" phone2" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>   <TD align="right">Address 2:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="address2" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Fax:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="fax" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>   <TD align="right">Address 3:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="address3" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Email:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="email" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>   <TD align="right">Town:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="town" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Web:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>> name="web" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>
>>   <TD align="right">County/state:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
>> type="text" name="county" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Credit Limit:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
>> type="text" name="credit_limit" maxlength="32" value="0"></td>
>>   </TR><TR>
>>   <TD align="right">Post/ZIP code:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
>> type="text" name="postcode" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>>   <TD align="right">Status:</TD>
>>   <TD align="left">
>>   Cash<input type="radio" name="credit_status"  value="cash" checked>
>>
>>   Credit<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="credit" >
>>   On Hold<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="hold" >
>>   </td>
> 
> Why the sudden change of case?

Why not?

I use different cases to help debug actually - useful when PHP 
generation is spewing out a load of similar items.

It makes <TaBlE> or <tR> a bit easier t spot than making it all look the 
same.

> 
>>   </TR>
>>
> 
> Regardless of colors, this is an inaccessible mess.  Lose the table,
> add labels, etc.  Try tabbing through it and you will get the idea.
> 

Why? it works the way I want it to..

>> At the least I would have thought that this would override any other
>> styles - from the relevant stylesheet.
>>
>> INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT, OPTION {
>>         font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
>>         padding: 2px;
>>         color: white;
>>         font-size: 12px;
>>         background-color: #60a060;
>>
> 
> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> be legible at 12px.  When missing, its replacement will invariably be
> a smaller font, which is less likely to be legible at 12px.
> Regardless of the font, never size text with pixel units (IE won't
> scale it.)
> 

I noticed that ;-)

However it looks OK to me.


>> }
>>
>> No HTML errors or warnings are given: No errors are shown..
> 
> The HTML doesn't look valid to me.  And none of this has anything to
> do with JavaScript.  You should submit your deezyne to CSS and/or HTML
> groups for further assistance.
> 

MM. No errors shown tho.
Not HTML./CS or anything.

Espen Koht wrote:
> In article <1193392329.536778.128210@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>  David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
>> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
>> be legible at 12px. 
> 
> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for 
> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even 
> at small sizes.

Exactly.

When looking for a legible small no serif font, we went through a load 
of options testing against IE5,6,7 Firefox and safari, and that 
particular one came up looking decent.

On Oct 26, 6:56 am, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <1193392329.536778.128...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>  David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> > appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> > be legible at 12px.
>
> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> at small sizes.

It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
as this is off-topic here.

On Oct 26, 6:58 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 4:56 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> Another extremely weird feature from iE6
>
> >> I have a site, whose predominant colors are green background with white
> >> writing.
>
> >> There is a style sheet with many styles, of which all either specify a
> >> green background, or don't specify any. Body defaults to green.
>
> >> At the customer site, some <INPUT type="TEXT"> elements showed up with a
> >> white background on one machine running IE6. I didn't have a chance to
> >> investigate further. Highlighting the white on white entered text showed
> >> it was there, just invisible
>
> >> Further madness occurred when on this machine a form containing about 10
> >> of such inputs, that as far as I know were identical HTML, showed up
> >> with some white and some green background.
>
> > IE changes background colors of text inputs to indicate it has auto-
> > fill choices available.
>
> Hmm.
>
> > Regardless, white text on a green background is a bad idea for text
> > inputs.
>
> Why? It looks great and has good contrast..
>

Dark on light is harder to read than light on dark.  Also, the cursor
is normally a dark color.

Your particular choices are sub-standard in terms of contrast (color
and brightness.)

>
>
>
>
> >> My own test machine running AFAICT the same IE6 version does NOT display
> >> this problem.
>
> >> Her is a code snippet that gave some fields white, some green:-
>
> >> <TABLE width=90% border="0">
> >>   <TR><TD align="right">Name:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> maxlength="32"name ="name"  value=""></td>
>
> >>   <TD align="right">Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text" name=
> >> "phone" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   </TR><TR>
> >>   <TD align="right">Address 1:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="address1" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Mobile Phone:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
> >> type="text" name=" phone2" maxlength="30" value=""></td>
> >>   </TR><TR>
> >>   <TD align="right">Address 2:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="address2" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Fax:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="fax" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
>
> >>   </TR><TR>
> >>   <TD align="right">Address 3:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="address3" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Email:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="email" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   </TR><TR>
> >>   <TD align="right">Town:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="town" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Web:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
> >> name="web" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   </TR><TR>
>
> >>   <TD align="right">County/state:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
> >> type="text" name="county" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Credit Limit:</TD><TD align="left"><INPUT
> >> type="text" name="credit_limit" maxlength="32" value="0"></td>
> >>   </TR><TR>
> >>   <TD align="right">Post/ZIP code:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT
> >> type="text" name="postcode" maxlength="32" value=""></td>
> >>   <TD align="right">Status:</TD>
> >>   <TD align="left">
> >>   Cash<input type="radio" name="credit_status"  value="cash" checked>
>
> >>   Credit<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="credit" >
> >>   On Hold<input type="radio" name="credit_status" value="hold" >
> >>   </td>
>
> > Why the sudden change of case?
>
> Why not?
>

It is silly to have opening tags that don't match their closing
counterparts.

> I use different cases to help debug actually - useful when PHP
> generation is spewing out a load of similar items.
>
> It makes <TaBlE> or <tR> a bit easier t spot than making it all look the
> same.
>

If you must do that, make the closing tags the same.

>
>
> >>   </TR>
>
> > Regardless of colors, this is an inaccessible mess.  Lose the table,
> > add labels, etc.  Try tabbing through it and you will get the idea.
>
> Why? it works the way I want it to..

You don't design pages based on what you want.  And do you really want
to enter a name, then a phone number, then address 1, then another
phone number, then address 2, etc.?

Furthermore, screen reader users will never be able to make sense of
that table.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> At the least I would have thought that this would override any other
> >> styles - from the relevant stylesheet.
>
> >> INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT, OPTION {
> >>         font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
> >>         padding: 2px;
> >>         color: white;
> >>         font-size: 12px;
> >>         background-color: #60a060;
>
> > Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> > appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> > be legible at 12px.  When missing, its replacement will invariably be
> > a smaller font, which is less likely to be legible at 12px.
> > Regardless of the font, never size text with pixel units (IE won't
> > scale it.)
>
> I noticed that ;-)
>
> However it looks OK to me.

What looks okay on your monitor is of no concern (unless you are to be
the sole user.)

>
> >> }
>
> >> No HTML errors or warnings are given: No errors are shown..
>
> > The HTML doesn't look valid to me.  And none of this has anything to
> > do with JavaScript.  You should submit your deezyne to CSS and/or HTML
> > groups for further assistance.
>
> MM. No errors shown tho.

That would depend on your DOCTYPE.  I assume you are using HTML
transitional.  Why would you use that for a new page?

> Not HTML./CS or anything.

Try an HTML or CSS group for further assistance.

On Oct 26, 7:00 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Espen Koht wrote:
> > In article <1193392329.536778.128...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >  David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> >> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> >> be legible at 12px.
>
> > Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> > legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> > at small sizes.
>
> Exactly.

Off the mark actually.

>
> When looking for a legible small no serif font, we went through a load
> of options testing against IE5,6,7 Firefox and safari, and that
> particular one came up looking decent.

On Windows of course.  Users of other operating systems will likely
see a different font, which will be smaller than you intended as you
based your deezyne on 12px Verdana.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snip>

>>> Her is a code snippet that gave some fields white, some green:-
>>>
>>> <TABLE width=90% border="0">
>>>   <TR><TD align="right">Name:</td><TD align="left"><INPUT type="text"
>>> maxlength="32"name ="name"  value=""></td>
>>>

Hi,

Small typo there.
I doubt it will solve your problem, but you misplaced the space between 
maxlength="32"name ="name".

Regards,
Erwin Moller

"Espen Koht" <ehk20@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 
news:ehk20-118365.11563726102007@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <1193392329.536778.128210@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
>> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
>> be legible at 12px.
>
> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> at small sizes.

Google will help you here. Search newsgroups. 

David Mark wrote:
> On Oct 26, 6:56 am, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article <1193392329.536778.128...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>  David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
>>> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
>>> be legible at 12px.
>> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
>> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
>> at small sizes.
> 
> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
> as this is off-topic here.
> 
> 
thats why its not the only font specified.

In article <fBkUi.5547$CN4.684@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
 "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:

> 
> "Espen Koht" <ehk20@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ehk20-118365.11563726102007@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> > In article <1193392329.536778.128210@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> >> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> >> be legible at 12px.
> >
> > Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> > legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> > at small sizes.
> 
> Google will help you here. Search newsgroups. 

All that google appears to bring up are pages like this: 
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html> which are 
similarly incoherent and manages to summarising the argument for "Why 
you should avoid the Verdana font" as "web-authors are recommended to 
avoid using Verdana, at least for the main text of the page". How 
enlightening, but how about some reasoning before you draw your 
conclusion? That said, at least it doesn't make the original claim that 
Verdana may not be legible at these sizes, which simply isn't correct.

On Oct 26, 10:00 am, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <fBkUi.5547$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ehk20-118365.11563726102007@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> > > In article <1193392329.536778.128...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> > >> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> > >> be legible at 12px.
>
> > > Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> > > legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> > > at small sizes.
>
> > Google will help you here. Search newsgroups.
>
> All that google appears to bring up are pages like this:
> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html> which are
> similarly incoherent and manages to summarising the argument for "Why
> you should avoid the Verdana font" as "web-authors are recommended to
> avoid using Verdana, at least for the main text of the page". How
> enlightening, but how about some reasoning before you draw your
> conclusion? That said, at least it doesn't make the original claim that
> Verdana may not be legible at these sizes, which simply isn't correct.

Go back and re-read my original statement on the subject.  You
completely missed the point, perhaps due to the fact that you snipped
half of the argument.  If you have further questions about fonts, try
a CSS group.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:08:04 -0700, David Mark wrote:
>> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
>> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
>> at small sizes.
> 
> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
> as this is off-topic here.

Isn't that true of *any* font? I thought the only real guarantee was that
a browser will have available at least on serif font, one sans-serif, and
one fixed-width. Beyond that, it's all guesswork...

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:28:52 -0700, David Mark wrote:
> On Windows of course.  Users of other operating systems will likely
> see a different font, which will be smaller than you intended as you
> based your deezyne on 12px Verdana.

Will 12px Verdana be bigger than 12px anything else, then?

On Oct 26, 11:49 am, Jules <julesrichardso...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:08:04 -0700, David Mark wrote:
> >> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> >> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> >> at small sizes.
>
> > It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
> > as this is off-topic here.
>
> Isn't that true of *any* font? I thought the only real guarantee was that

It is more true of Verdana.  And *any* font will not have the same
issues as Verdana.  Google for "Verdana font Web."

> a browser will have available at least on serif font, one sans-serif, and
> one fixed-width. Beyond that, it's all guesswork...

Guesswork has nothing to do with it.

On Oct 26, 11:51 am, Jules <julesrichardso...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:28:52 -0700, David Mark wrote:
> > On Windows of course.  Users of other operating systems will likely
> > see a different font, which will be smaller than you intended as you
> > based your deezyne on 12px Verdana.
>
> Will 12px Verdana be bigger than 12px anything else, then?

Bigger than most.

The Natural Philosopher a �crit :
> Another extremely weird feature from iE6
> 
> I have a site, whose predominant colors are green background with white 
> writing.

Perhaps not the best for an easy reading ?

> There is a style sheet with many styles, of which all either specify a 
> green background, or don't specify any. Body defaults to green.
> 
> At the customer site, some <INPUT type="TEXT"> elements showed up with a 
> white background on one machine running IE6. I didn't have a chance to 
> investigate further. Highlighting the white on white entered text showed 
> it was there, just invisible
(snip)
> At the least I would have thought that this would override any other 
> styles - from the relevant stylesheet.
>     
> INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT, OPTION {
>     font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
>     padding: 2px;
>     color: white;
>     font-size: 12px;
>     background-color: #60a060;
> }

My iCab doesn't accept to style forms's elements ...

-- 
sm

In comp.lang.javascript message <472219B7.7090508@PointedEars.de>, Fri,
26 Oct 2007 18:45:43, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
posted:
>
>Please stop this mindless crossposting over hierarchies.
>

That may be a local German rule; but AFAIK it is not a Usenet or cam.*
rule.

CAM : TL is the local CLJ control freak.  IIRC, he went to a mere
technical college, and has learned no humanity.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk  Turnpike 6.05.
 Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
 Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> :  about usage of News.
 No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

In comp.lang.javascript message <pan.2007.10.26.15.49.23.975521@remove.t
his.yahoo.co.uk>, Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:49:24, Jules <julesrichardsonuk@re
move.this.yahoo.co.uk> posted:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:08:04 -0700, David Mark wrote:
>>> Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
>>> legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
>>> at small sizes.
>>
>> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
>> as this is off-topic here.
>
>Isn't that true of *any* font? I thought the only real guarantee was that
>a browser will have available at least on serif font, one sans-serif, and
>one fixed-width. Beyond that, it's all guesswork...

I'd be surprised to find any browser on any normalish system that did
not have a monospace font available.  Both monospace and fantasy, in
addition to the above, should work, with monospace giving at least
monospacing; but fantasy may not give anything fantastic.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ.  See below.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   IE 6
 news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
 <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
 <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

The Natural Philosopher a �crit :
> David Mark wrote:
> 
>> Regardless, white text on a green background is a bad idea for text
>> inputs.
> 
> Why? It looks great and has good contrast..

Depends of :
- the setting of your monitor
- Windows or Mac (I think it is lighter on Mac)
- the browser
   (green is what ? #00FF00 or #008F21 ? my browser displays : #60A060
    why not to code one exact color ? ie: #316F30)
- colour-blind persons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
http://wellstyled.com/tools/colorscheme2/index-en.html

>> Regardless of colors, this is an inaccessible mess.  Lose the table,
>> add labels, etc.  Try tabbing through it and you will get the idea.
>>
> 
> Why? it works the way I want it to..

Think there are some persons who see anything or bad, in this case using 
table doesn't help them ...
http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/video/
<http://www.google.com/search?&q=html+tables+blinds+and+voice+reader>

-- 
sm

The Natural Philosopher a �crit :
> David Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Verdana
(...)
>> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
>> as this is off-topic here.
>>
> thats why its not the only font specified.

and do you expect arial will be so big as verdana (with same rule's size 
12px) ?

SAM wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher a �crit :
>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Verdana
> (...)
>>> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
>>> as this is off-topic here.
>>>
>> thats why its not the only font specified.
> 
> and do you expect arial will be so big as verdana (with same rule's size 
> 12px) ?

"De browserii, semper disputandum est"

(with apologies to 'Winnie Ille Pu')

Wow.  I ask a simple question and two sets of pedants start a font war.

An NO ONE has answered the question.

I think this is probably a record.

On Oct 28, 5:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> SAM wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> >> David Mark wrote:
>
> >>>>> Verdana
> > (...)
> >>> It is not available on all platforms.  Ask about this in a CSS group
> >>> as this is off-topic here.
>
> >> thats why its not the only font specified.
>
> > and do you expect arial will be so big as verdana (with same rule's size
> > 12px) ?
>
> "De browserii, semper disputandum est"
>
> (with apologies to 'Winnie Ille Pu')
>
> Wow.  I ask a simple question and two sets of pedants start a font war.

No, you cross-posted an OT question to comp.lang.javascript and
cam.misc.  What did you expect?

>
> An NO ONE has answered the question.
>

Actually, I answered your question in the first reply.

> I think this is probably a record.

Yes, you have topped yourself with this one.

Follow-ups to alt.test.

In comp.lang.javascript message <47239574.10008@PointedEars.de>, Sat, 27
Oct 2007 21:45:56, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> posted:
>>> Please stop this mindless crossposting over hierarchies.
>>
>> That may be a local German rule; but AFAIK it is not a Usenet or cam.*
>> rule.
>
>Quite the contrary, read RFC 1855 and e.g.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosspost

Removing a cross-posting without noting so in the body is bad manners;
it is akin to adding cross-posting.  See RFC1855 on that.  XP restored.

Wikipedia has no authority.  For all I know, the entry might have been
edited by yourself.  However, that page says nothing about hierarchies,
and has an example of posting to two different hierarchies.  It does not
currently support your assertion.

Neither does RFC 1855.

But it does describe signatures, and yours is not compliant.


If you are hoping to be employed in the future, you should heed what the
RFC has to say about that.  Employers won't want an arrogant misfit.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk  Turnpike 6.05.
 Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
 Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> :  about usage of News.
 No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.