Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:50:26 -0600
From:      "W. D." <WD@US-Webmasters.com>
To:        freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Logo idea and FreeBSD.com concept
Message-ID:  <5.1.0.14.2.20050302124137.0f2ad860@209.152.117.178>
In-Reply-To: <cd08a04c050302103018b184e7@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B5B@mvaexch01.acuson.com> <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B5B@mvaexch01.acuson.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:30 3/2/2005, Warren Myers, wrote:
>I always trim my pages to 750 pixels. It gives a small border on each
>side (except in the retardedly stupid css rendering in IE), and makes
>it very readable. I run high res at home (1280x1024, because I only
>have a 17"), and like to have multiple windows open simultaneously,
>and if I could run 1600 or higher, I most certainly would. Having
>multiple windows open is nearly a necessity anymore, and sizing the
>site to fit in a common size of 750 wide (to allow for the window
>borders and such) is a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion..

It's reasonable if you are lazy.  Go over your HTML code and
replace=20

  WIDTH=3D"750"=20

with

  WIDTH=3D"100%"

You will have a page that looks the same in your browser, but
will auto-size for other configurations.  If you have nested
tables, those will also need to be converted from fixed pixels
to percentages as well.

Most HTML on the Web is just plain sloppy.  This is one
of the reasons browsers have to be bulky--they need to=20
make allowances for crappy HTML.  Are you valid?

http://www.HTMLvalidator.com/
http://www.HTMLhelp.com/tools/validator/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html




Start Here to Find It Fast!=99 ->=
 http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
$8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.0.14.2.20050302124137.0f2ad860>