Posts by MidiMagic

Of course -- for the right price. Bill Gates would probably sell Microsoft too if the price was right. Shoot -- I would even sell my mother-in-law for $$$ if you want her :mrgreen:

I don't think he would. I thinkl he loves to drive people crazy when their stuff doesn't work anymore because he changed Windows again.

Can we get back to my problem?

It would be nice if the watermark were removed and the message placed above the posting window. It is extremely annoying to have to put blank lines in, and then remove them later.

I am on DSL, so dial-up isn't the issue.

I think it was a "greedy" ad (the kind that doesn't want you to leave the page) being displayed in the ad section.

The ads are different now, and the effect is gone now. I think it was the Microsoft ad, which also caused similar troubles on other websites.

Actually, I just found out that embed was never standard code.

Only IE and Netscape ever supported it, nd they did it in different ways.

Use the object tag instead.

The fact that CSS3 will have it is another incompatibility between new browsers and old.

We need to remember the following when assuming that everyone can upgrade to the latest technology:

1. Many conmputer users don't have the money to upgrade operating systems every three years as Microsift demands.

2. Many computer users don't have the money to replace the computer every few years, to keep up with Microsoft enlarging the Windows operating system.

3. People in some foreign countries have to make do with older operating systems, because of one or more of the following:
- The US technology export embargo to some countries
- Their networks can't handle the latest material
- There is limited availability of hardware in that country
- Their government restricts what can be sent over the networks

4. Many people have legacy systems having nothing to do with the Internet that they have to keep running, often for scientific research purposes. The change to Windows has deprecated some types of time-dependent precision process control (Microsoft designed the system timing with business users in mind). This is why some users still have Lynx, Gopenr, or other text-only browsers. They need to be able to collect data with their legacy systems and transfer it over the net.

The problem is that the deprecators in W3C took away the center tag, and left us with nothing easy to replace it with in CSS. They are thinking in terms of newspaper-style publishing, where the text is important, and the image is an obstruction the text must wrap around.

There is a way to do it. You have to be sneaky.

In the style section or style sheet:

.cenimg {text-align: center;
         margin-top: 0px;
         margin-bottom: 0px;
         padding: 0px;}
.centim {clear: both;}

At the point where the image belongs:

<div class="cenimg">
<img src="picture.jpg" alt="a picture" class="centim" />
</div>

The sneaky trick is that the div doesn't know (or care) whether its contents are text or image. It centers everything. The clear is needed to keep the image from seeking the left or right edge, and the rest is there to keep the div from otherwise messing things up.

You can also put a p block above or below the image with a caption.

Inches and centimeters DO work across different displays, making the final display the same height on any screen. The resolution of the rendering changes to make the display fit the screen.

Pixels makes the final display take up different portions of the screen with different screen settings.

The reason there is no "100 percent" is that some older laptop computers have a scroll function (independent of the browser scroll bar) which allows the screen to have a larger total height than the displayed portion.

I wasn't too clear on this before.

div is a block tag.

a (anchor) is an inline tag.

Block tags are not supposed to be inside inline tags. Some browsers allow this illegal use, while others don't.

You might try using span instead of div. Span is the inline version of div.

Not when you have superiors or clients demanding the "latest code".

And how long do you expect W3C to allow HTML to remain on the Internet? We are being forced to change to HDTV in two years. What makes you think that this will be any different?

The whole problem is that they won't keep things compatible.

We HAD a system where most web code was compatible. But then the elitists pounced, and decided that web code had to be more "elegant." Now we have a bifurcation between the newest browsers and the old ones.

There should be either a criminal penalty for introducing incompatibilities into a system that already works, or the person who introduced the incompatiblity should be forced to pay for the upgrade for everyone in the world.

Normally you have to explicitly make a slave hard disk bootable before it can be used as a master drive. You have not written the boot sector on the hard disk yet.

What SOFTWARE are you using to receive the video?

IEEEE 1284 is a parallel interface, but IEEE 1394 is a serial firewire bus.

There are two kinds of fire wire, firewire 1 and firewire 2. Firewire 2 is much faster. Firewire 2 cards can do firewire 1, but firewire 1 cards can not do firewire 2.

An IRQ error usually means a PC card is unseated, a drive connector is loose, or two devices are fighting over the bus. It is not a hard disk problem (unless the controlle cardr has failed or the cable is loose).

Try reinstalling the program. The program is trying to access memory it does not own.

First, I would reinstall the offending player. It may not be closing properly.

Next, I would check to see if some software is usiing a sound event wrong. It could be that a custom sound file was used, and is corrupt.

Finally, check what is open in the system tray and in Task Manager. Some program may either be in an error state, not responding. There might also be malicious software.

One weird possibility is that it might be looking for a printer which was used at home. My wacky Lexmark printer driver doesn't play the error sound until AFTER the error is already corrected. But it grabs the soundcard before the error is fixed.

That's a reserved function which opens a menu.

I had that problem, and had a bad link in the allocation table that crosslinked two files on the hard disk. I ran the disk checker from Windows Explorer:

[+] My Computer / (rightmouse) Local Disk C / Properties / Tools / Error Checking.

It separated the two files, copying its common tail to both files.

One of the files was a system file, but it was undamaged.

The other was a .gif file I had been editing when the power failed about a month earlier. If I had tried to edit that file again before I did the check, it would have destroyed the system file.

Trade drive assignments.

3 places to check:

1. Dumb question, but do you have speakers attached? I bought a used computer, and ran it for two days before I realized I didn't get any speakers with it.

2. Volume Control (found in Start / Programs / Accessories / Entertainment). It's a small screen audio mixer with sliders for various sources on the soundcard.

3. Enter Control Panel / Sound and Audio Devices / Hardware and make sure your hardware is installed.

Quick time got too greedy again. It grabbed a file type it can't play. I won't even let it on my system because it is so grabby.

Open Quick Time and set it so it does not make itself the default player.

Go into Windows Explorer and select Tools/Folder Options/File Types.

Then scroll down through the file types, looking for the types the Quick Time icon is on. Reset them to the players you want to play them.

You may have to do this again the next time Quick Time upgrades itself.

Give it an attention-getting swift kick:

Boot with the USB keyboard unplugged, then plug it in when the login screen appears. This gives Plug-n-play a whack, and it will recognize the keyboard for one boot.

If you get control, go into Control Panel/ Keyboard/Hardware and change the setting.

You would have been able to do this with just the mouse if you didn't have login enabled.

It's possible you broke a trace on the circuit board.

Some ISPs require SP2 for security reasons.

Somebody may have reported a hotmail account as spam, and Yahoo blocked all connections to that server again.

I am on Yahoo too, and sometimes can not access eBay because someone reported one of those phake eBay emails as spam again. For some reason, the spam reporting software can't tell the difference between a phaked or spoofed email address and the real website.

There are several possibilities:

1. They changed the site to include something your security settings disallow.

2. Your particular section of the site was down.

3. You have bookmarked a page other than the home page, and they changed the url for that page (often happens when a site upgrades itself).

4. Your ISP was too busy with web traffic to handle your request.

5. You used up your download quota (if your account is restricted).

6. The site locked you out for some reason.

7. An internet node between your ISP and the site's ISP started garbaging requests because it was glitched.

8. Your computer needed a reboot due to a power line glitch.

IE doesn't follow the standards for browser response to certain tags or CSS attributes.

For example, the width attribute is supposed to include any margins, borders, and padding, so the entire size of the object and its accessories fits inside the width. IE puts these attachments outside the width, making the object wider than specified.

My number one thought is security settings.

The site is probably trying to do something that violates your settings for the level of trust the browser finds.

Your son may have weakened his security settings to be able to get into a site.

It could also be that the site wants something (such as Java) which you have shut off.

Several possibilities:

1. The vertical scroll bar appeared when enough of the paged loaded to make it longer than the screen, and it knocked objects around or shortened line lengths (causing text to wrap).

2. An image finished loading, and it is larger or smaller than the initial space the browser left on the screen for it.

3. You have code with the text fill-in cursor jumping to a place which is not on the screen. The screen scrolls so the cursor appears.

4. There is an ad on the page, and it is "selfish", scrolling the page to be visible.

5. A flash, script, or other slideshow has images of different sizes.

100 percent of WHAT???? I don't know! I'm just a browser. But he's on third.

Web pages don't come in standard heights, and neither do browser windows. Computers with different screen resolutions will have different maximum visible heights (in pixels), and the browser can't know what you mean by 100 percent.

Remember that some LCD screens have lower maximum resolutions than the latest CRTs.

If you want a certain display heignt, you have to set it in inches or centimeters.

The problem is that you can't have other container tags inside anchor (a) tags. Put the divs outside the anchors.

<div class="stuff">
<a href="pootwattle.htm">Feitlebaum's wins</a>
</div>

Actually, this is a place where tables work better than divs.

The correct form of the br tag is:

<br />

Note the space before the /. This makes the tag work (actually fail invisibly) on older browsers.

Single tags without closing tags or closing slashes are deprecated (a fancy word meaning they plan to discontinue it shortly).

So we either have to have tags in pairs:

<li>This is a list element.</li>

Or we have to show that the tag has no closing tag with a slash before the closing angle broket.

<hr />
<img src="toon.jpg alt="cartoon of clown with stuffed helicopter" />

I think they did this so they could write code checking software which is not ambiguous.

You say that but it does exactly the opposite like you said early on in your post, it makes the other browsers look bad.

I write the code standard, so the real culprit looks bad.

Netscape 8.1.2

It also does it in Firefox. I haven't tried it in IE, because IE changes some settings I need set differently right now.

And when it does this, the BACK dropdown menu shows all identical entries in it. Normally the dropdown menu shows the different pages. The only time this happens on other sites is when I see the Microsoft ad with the bouncing ball in it.

Going back beyond the end of the BACK list shouldn't close the browser either. It should make the BACK arrow turn gray instead.

I am sick of code which changes the back button entries.

I consider websites and software which exhibit the following behaviors as "greedy":

- Opening pop-up windows
- Changing browser settings without asking permission
- Making it so you can't use the BACK button
- Making it so you can't leave a web page
- Saving unwanted files on the user's computer
- Putting malicious software on the user's computer
- Changing the user's file opening preferences without express permission
- Forcing you to watch an ad before you can do the intended action
- Changing settings on the user's cpmputerwithout express permission

How do I post a screenshot without a url? I don't have much memory or download bandwidth left on my website, and doing this would kill both off.

You can see it in the "HTML" forum under "web development". It doesn't happen in this forum, so I would like the other pages to be like this one.

I have always had this trouble with text printed over a photo. It's not an eye problem, but a visual processing problem.

My visual cortex has always treated text printed over an image as being similar to looking outside through a window screen. It removes the text or the window screen and reconstructs the image behind. I hate magazines and websites which get cute by putting text on top of an image. I have to use a piece of paper with a slot cut in it to read the text of several magazines I have.

The problem is that IE does things differently than other browsers. If the page displays correctly on IE, it usually glumps up on other browsers. If it works on other browsers, it does something weird on IE.

As an example, the width style is supposed to include the padding and margins, so the total width the object occupies is counted. But IE excludes the padding and margins, so the object takes up more space than the declared width indicates. So when I make a page which shows two equally-wide columns, IE displays them as unequal, makes them too wide and adds a scroll bar, or puts one column above the other in single column form.

Something tells me that Microsift does it on purpose. Since most developers use IE to test their work, it will look like the other browsers are the ones which malfunction. But the other browsers are the ones following the standard.

I code with Firefox and Netscape, then check to see that IE doesn't mess it up too badly. If IE is going to mess up a little, I just let it, just to show how goofy IE is.

There is no </br> ending tag. The new tag is <br /> instead of <br>. All self-closing tags must have the slash at the end in the new standards. The space before the slash supposedly allows older browsers to fail gracefully with it.

It's the same way for link, hr, and img.

One problem is that there is no agreement among sources on what proper code is. The previous post indicates that. One book I have shows a unary <li /> tag, instead of the <li> </li> pair.

The problem I have is that some web-grand-masters are demanding that "only the latest code" be allowed on their sites, without allowing that some users want to cater to people using older equipment. Every page must pass XHTML 1.0 strict before they will enable it. I need to know how messed up the site will be to my site users with older equipment if I use such a service.

In my opinion, they shouldn't be allowed to change a standard in a way to make existing code quit running. But they did it anyway.

When I hit the BACK button on my browser after posting, the following sometimes happens:

- The posting window and the completed post appear multiple times as I keep hitting BACK.

- The browser closes and I am on the Windows Desktop.

I don't come to the page containing the list of topics (my intended destination). in the process.

What I need are specific examples of what certain older browsers do wrong.

I know how Lynx behaves, because it is on the MS-DOS computer. But I can't load every browser known into one computer to try it.

Why not just put an anchor tagged link on the page. If I want the extra page, I will click it. I don't need bamboozlers popping up to attract me to the link.

I agree. This sounds like a security setting.

And I would keep it as it is. Software which logs you in when your toddler plays with the mouse I don't want. I want to be prompted for username and password each time I log in to a server.

for the person with MS-DOS I have no idea, I have only if you willing to buy him new pc :mrgreen:

That doesn't solve his problem (and I don't have the money anyway). Instead, I keep finding old computers people are getting rid of for him.

A new computer with Windows means he can't use his time-dependent application. In fact, new computers with MS-DOS can't do it either, because Intel changed the bus timing.

No new computers support read-modify-write I/O in real time, because Windows doesn't support it. This has set back scientific research.

The problem with your solution is that all users see the same file properties. But some users have followed the link, while others have not.

There are two ways to mark links as "visited"

- The browser can keep track of visits. This is the normal way of doing it. The browser has a list of visited links, and an adjustable time limit on the period of life for each link.

- This is what cookies are for. The website keeps a cookie on each user's browser. This can be as simple as noting the last time the user logged out, or as complicated as keeping a set of links to visited links.

The problem with both of these is that they don't work across different computers. In both cases, the information is saved on the user's computer. A database for this on a server with a large client base would be prohibitively huge.

One other possibility for keeping the user straight on multiple computers is to use a briefcase system, and put the browser's history and cookie files in the user's briefcase.

It would help to know what kind of host you are using, because the host determines what kind of scheduling you can do.

Maybe what you need is a script that activates when you log on, rather than at specific times.

Failing all else, you can drag the folder of the directory to a duplicate before you start. That's what I do.

.
.
.
.

I can't read the first few lines of what I am posting, because there is already text in the background in the posting window. So I have to put the text down here to read it. Is there any way to get rid of this?

I also wish webmasters would realize that some people can't read their text if there is an image behind it.

I have the problem that some people want me to have the "latest" web coding, while others want backward compatibility. I need to know how the following changes affect older browsers:

- Adding the closing tags to li list elements.

- Adding the space and slash to the ends of the br, hr, and img tags.

- Replacing the center tag with the CSS equivalent (It seems totally DUMB that they deprecated this tag). I know the text won't be centered on older browsers, but will it affect things in other ways.

The reason I need backward compatibility is that I have several users with older computers, including one user who has MS-DOS due to having an appliction which Windows ruins the timing of.

If I turn the popup blocker on, it's because I don't want popups.

I think that indicates that you are trying to use code which myspace prohibits. Check the rules.

Be aware that different browsers will treat the exact location of the text on an image differently.

Hello members

I've always wondered why, I found an answer in bandwidth economy, but other than that, how do they expect us to do it? With padding?
Any advice, comments?
thanks

The main push for elimination of tables is the use of tables to create predictable margins around the text. The padding attribute on the "body" tag in the stylesheet fixes this nicely.

But they really haven't come up with a "nice" way to create columns of text and photos without using tables. Every time I try to use the "div" tag to create columns, it tangles into a single vertical column if the browser is open in a small window.