Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
| Author |
Message |
|
David W. Fent
#16 / 25
|
 Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >And the site is tested on Netscape 4.5, which is often my
>default browser. I only am willing to "guarantee" NS 4.5 and
>IE5.
It's still invalid HTML, because your table cells say WIDTH="100" while the graphics in those table cells are, respectively, 301 and 240 pixels wide. It was invalid. And you fixed it, using my code verbatim (which is
fine, of course; either that, or you format tables just the same
way as *I* do!).
BTW, I think if you use a <DIV ALIGN="CENTER"> around the table, it
will center it even in version 3 browsers, but I haven't checked
that for sure.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
David W. Fent
#17 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >Well, fwiw I like the way my site looks. :-)
I like the way your site looks, too. But I like it better when you use good, efficient HTML to produce
that look.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#18 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 Yours I copied verbatim. :-) I fixed up some other pages there, as well....
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Quote:
Kaplan)
> >And the site is tested on Netscape 4.5, which is often my
> >default browser. I only am willing to "guarantee" NS 4.5
and
> >IE5.
> It's still invalid HTML, because your table cells say
WIDTH="100"
> while the graphics in those table cells are, respectively,
301 and
> 240 pixels wide.
> It was invalid. And you fixed it, using my code verbatim
(which is
> fine, of course; either that, or you format tables just
the same
> way as *I* do!).
> BTW, I think if you use a <DIV ALIGN="CENTER"> around the
table, it
> will center it even in version 3 browsers, but I haven't
checked
> that for sure.
> --
> David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton Quote: > dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#19 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >OK, my apologies, David. I thoiught you were complaining about >the appearance of the page, not the design. >'T'would be nice if I had the time to browse the HTML on the web
>pages I visit. It'd take half the day, every day.
The page doesn't render properly in some browsers because it has invalid HTML. Well, it's not structurally wrong, it's just contradictory in what it's asking the browser to do (making the table cells too narrow for the graphics in those cells). I've looked at that Web page many, many times, since it has to be
the single most valuable Access-related individual Web page (as
opposed to collection of pages) on the Web. But this was the first
time I looked at the HTML, because of the fact that the graphics
rendered in Netscape overlapping each other. When I see pages
rendering wrong, I tend to look at the HTML to figure out why.
And in the case of MS web pages, I've been known to download them
and revised them to render correctly so that I could print them.
You'd be surprised at how many MS web pages either won't render
onscreen in any of my browsers or can't be printed.
Now that I have IE5 at work I probably won't have the problem as
much, but it's a terrible problem when people put up valuable
content but can't be bothered to test to see if their readers will
be able to see it (apologies to MichKa).
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#20 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >David, assuming you are not just joking around, what the _hell_
>are you talking about?
1. The page has about twice the HTML it needs to present the exact same layout (i.e., wasted bandwidth). 2. The HTML doesn't render properly in either Netscape 3.x or IE3.x
(all I've got at home). And it *shouldn't* render correctly,
because the HTML is contradictory.
Quote: >I selected the link, and got a very respectable web page, with
>excellent formatting and a very nice layout, as well as a good
>mixture of fonts and color for graphical effect. So what is all
>this "HTML in that page is dreadful" crap? It looks great to me.
>And the link you are {*filter*}ing about works just fine right from
>Outlook Express Preview pane, my newsreader client, thank you.
I could write an Access application that, from the end user's point of view, worked just fine, and still have *you* look at the code and say it was "dreadful." Right? Quote: >'Course, I can only check it with IE5. You wouldn't be having
>these problems because you're using That Other Browser, would you,
>hmmm????
1. Web pages should be tested to be sure that they render properly in commonly used browsers, not just in the one *you* use. 2. It seems self-evident to me that one should strive to use the
minimal amount of HTML to render the content onscreen. Redundancy
and inefficiency are to be avoided, right?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#21 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >Well, fwiw I like the way my site looks. :-)
I like the way your site looks, too. But I like it better when you use good, efficient HTML to produce
that look.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#22 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >And the site is tested on Netscape 4.5, which is often my
>default browser. I only am willing to "guarantee" NS 4.5 and
>IE5.
It's still invalid HTML, because your table cells say WIDTH="100" while the graphics in those table cells are, respectively, 301 and 240 pixels wide. It was invalid. And you fixed it, using my code verbatim (which is
fine, of course; either that, or you format tables just the same
way as *I* do!).
BTW, I think if you use a <DIV ALIGN="CENTER"> around the table, it
will center it even in version 3 browsers, but I haven't checked
that for sure.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Pete
#23 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 Yes, if I had a website and was posting pages there, I agree it would be best to make sure all the various browsers can see them properly, or at least see them as I want them to. And ROTFM about the site's worth, although Dev's site is right up there
too....
--
Pete B
Quote:
>>OK, my apologies, David. I thoiught you were complaining about
>>the appearance of the page, not the design.
>>'T'would be nice if I had the time to browse the HTML on the web
>>pages I visit. It'd take half the day, every day.
>The page doesn't render properly in some browsers because it has
>invalid HTML. Well, it's not structurally wrong, it's just
>contradictory in what it's asking the browser to do (making the
>table cells too narrow for the graphics in those cells).
>I've looked at that Web page many, many times, since it has to be
>the single most valuable Access-related individual Web page (as
>opposed to collection of pages) on the Web. But this was the first
>time I looked at the HTML, because of the fact that the graphics
>rendered in Netscape overlapping each other. When I see pages
>rendering wrong, I tend to look at the HTML to figure out why.
>And in the case of MS web pages, I've been known to download them
>and revised them to render correctly so that I could print them.
>You'd be surprised at how many MS web pages either won't render
>onscreen in any of my browsers or can't be printed.
>Now that I have IE5 at work I probably won't have the problem as
>much, but it's a terrible problem when people put up valuable
>content but can't be bothered to test to see if their readers will
>be able to see it (apologies to MichKa).
>--
>David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
>dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#24 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 My site is nowhere near what Dev's is.... mine is too highly specialized, in the following areas: 1) Replication
2) International/multinational apps
3) Misc. cool code (just a little)
4) Making Access 2000 suck less <vbseg>
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Quote: > Yes, if I had a website and was posting pages there, I agree it would be > best to make sure all the various browsers can see them properly, or at > least see them as I want them to. > And ROTFM about the site's worth, although Dev's site is
right up there
> too....
> --
> Pete B
Quote:
> >>OK, my apologies, David. I thoiught you were
complaining about
> >>the appearance of the page, not the design.
> >>'T'would be nice if I had the time to browse the HTML on
the web
> >>pages I visit. It'd take half the day, every day.
> >The page doesn't render properly in some browsers because
it has
> >invalid HTML. Well, it's not structurally wrong, it's
just
> >contradictory in what it's asking the browser to do
(making the
> >table cells too narrow for the graphics in those cells).
> >I've looked at that Web page many, many times, since it
has to be
> >the single most valuable Access-related individual Web
page (as
> >opposed to collection of pages) on the Web. But this was
the first
> >time I looked at the HTML, because of the fact that the
graphics
> >rendered in Netscape overlapping each other. When I see
pages
> >rendering wrong, I tend to look at the HTML to figure out
why.
> >And in the case of MS web pages, I've been known to
download them
> >and revised them to render correctly so that I could
print them.
> >You'd be surprised at how many MS web pages either won't
render
> >onscreen in any of my browsers or can't be printed.
> >Now that I have IE5 at work I probably won't have the
problem as
> >much, but it's a terrible problem when people put up
valuable
> >content but can't be bothered to test to see if their
readers will
> >be able to see it (apologies to MichKa).
> >--
> >David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton Quote: > >dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#25 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 Yes, but its almost getting to the point where I will need to archive older posts, cuz that page is too darn big! --
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Quote:
Kaplan)
> >My site is nowhere near what Dev's is.... mine is too
highly
> >specialized, in the following areas:
> >1) Replication
> >2) International/multinational apps
> >3) Misc. cool code (just a little)
> >4) Making Access 2000 suck less <vbseg>
> As I said, that URL is the most useful SINGLE WEB PAGE as
opposed
> to COLLECTION OF PAGES. That's what I said originally, and
I stand
> by it.
> --
> David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton Quote: > dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
|
| Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2
|
[ 25 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|
