converting to div was easy

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

As before, it validates with a few warnings I'll clean up later.

In FF it is presented nearly the way I expected.
In IE, however, the output is less than equal.

So what tricks can I apply to make IE display nearly the same as FF?

BTW, happy new year all y'all.

Re: converting to div was easy

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Looks about the same in both. Why do you want it to look this
way? What way do you want it to look?

O my... I feel so seedy today... your colours and layout are not
helping... <g>


Re: converting to div was easy

richard wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You do know that to use CSS does *not* mean *never* use tables. One
could argue that your page contains tabular data that would best be
served in a table.

Take care,


Re: converting to div was easy

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:43:22 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I have been doing this project with the aid of "Liberty Basic", I
mainly wanted to see which way was easier.
With divisions, it is a lot easier to code. Specially where you see
mutliple artists listed. I kind of like the look a bit better.

"Liberty Basic" is a programming language based upon the "BASIC"
language, but has a lot more options built into it and runs within

Re: converting to div was easy

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed. I'd strongly suggest <table> for this. The generator language
should cope perfectly well with either approach. A bit of colspan, if
you wish.

Richard could also lose the <hr> elements in favour of using a border
from CSS (top, bottom or both)

Some padding (left and right) would improve readability too. It's hard
to read text that runs right into a vertical border line.

The double curly quote characters are also incorrectly represented by
the numeric entities &#147; & &#148;   They ought to be &#8220; and
&#8221; instead.

The reason for this is a little obscure. The "keyboard code" to enter
them is indeed 147 or 148 decimal, and those are valid character
references in the Windows 1252 codepage. This web page is even being
served as Windows-1252 (Not something I'd do, but it's perfectly
correct to do so). However the rule for numeric entities in HTML is
that the numbers _always_ refer to the Unicode codepoint, no matter
what the page's encoding. 147 & 148 aren't correct in Unicode, thus
aren't correct in HTML.

Site Timeline