Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
| Author |
Message |
|
mich
#1 / 25
|
 Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 The following tip is for all of those who I told could NOT do this. My apologies. Dev, you can definitely include on your site if you like (since you have a topic on this anyway!). All others ought to be polite and ask, or just link to Dev's site. I hate when people attribute without asking (even worse when they claim it as their own without even a "thank you" <g>). You're welcome. <vbg> Text follows:
-------------------------------------
In Access 97, the MsgBox function had a documented syntax
for creating
use the Office
Assistant if the Assistant was turned on. For example, you
could use the
following from Access 97 help:
another.", _
vbOKOnly + vbExclamation
In Access 2000 (which integrates VBE, the Visual Basic
Editor), the VBA
MsgBox function does not call back into Access to do this
work, so you lose
formatted message boxes and you also lose the ability to
have the Office
Assistant "front" for your messages. But there is a
workaround!
By using the Eval function, your call will go through the
Expression Service
that interfaces with Access and Jet to run the MsgBox
function, and it will
call into the Access version instead of the VBA version. So
you can add the
following to your Access database and call it instead of the
VBA MsgBox to
get back the 97 functionality:
Function FormattedMsgBox( _
Prompt As String, _
Optional Buttons As VbMsgBoxStyle = vbOKOnly, _
Optional Title As String = vbNullString, _
Optional HelpFile As Variant, _
Optional Context As Variant) _
As VbMsgBoxResult
If IsMissing(HelpFile) Or IsMissing(Context) Then
FormattedMsgBox = Eval("MsgBox(""" & Prompt & _
""", " & Buttons & ", """ & Title & """)")
Else
FormattedMsgBox = Eval("MsgBox(""" & Prompt & _
""", " & Buttons & ", """ & Title & """, """ & _
HelpFile & """, " & Context & ")")
End If
End Function
--
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.*-*-*.com/
|
| Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
mich
#2 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 I also included pics of this on my website for people who would like to see the difference. :-) http://www.trigeminal.com/usenet.html#15
--
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
Michael (michka) Kaplan
Quote: > The following tip is for all of those who I told could NOT > do this. My apologies. Dev, you can definitely include on > your site if you like (since you have a topic on this > anyway!). All others ought to be polite and ask, or just > link to Dev's site. I hate when people attribute without > asking (even worse when they claim it as their own without > even a "thank you" <g>). > You're welcome. <vbg> Text follows:
> -------------------------------------
> In Access 97, the MsgBox function had a documented syntax
> for creating
> use the Office
> Assistant if the Assistant was turned on. For example, you
> could use the
> following from Access 97 help:
> another.", _
> vbOKOnly + vbExclamation
> In Access 2000 (which integrates VBE, the Visual Basic
> Editor), the VBA
> MsgBox function does not call back into Access to do this
> work, so you lose
> formatted message boxes and you also lose the ability to
> have the Office
> Assistant "front" for your messages. But there is a
> workaround!
> By using the Eval function, your call will go through the
> Expression Service
> that interfaces with Access and Jet to run the MsgBox
> function, and it will
> call into the Access version instead of the VBA version.
So
> you can add the
> following to your Access database and call it instead of
the
> VBA MsgBox to
> get back the 97 functionality:
> Function FormattedMsgBox( _
> Prompt As String, _
> Optional Buttons As VbMsgBoxStyle = vbOKOnly, _
> Optional Title As String = vbNullString, _
> Optional HelpFile As Variant, _
> Optional Context As Variant) _
> As VbMsgBoxResult
> If IsMissing(HelpFile) Or IsMissing(Context) Then
> FormattedMsgBox = Eval("MsgBox(""" & Prompt & _
> """, " & Buttons & ", """ & Title & """)")
> Else
> FormattedMsgBox = Eval("MsgBox(""" & Prompt & _
> """, " & Buttons & ", """ & Title & """, """ & _
> HelpFile & """, " & Context & ")")
> End If
> End Function
> --
> 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
|
| Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#3 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: >I also included pics of this on my website for people who >would like to see the difference. :-) > http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful: 1. You don't use <PRE> or <CODE> for code examples, instead using
<FONT FACE="Courier New,Courier">. Indeed, it's even worse than
that. Instead of a single FONT tag with three attributes, it uses:
<font face="Courier New,Courier"><font color="#000099">
<font size=-1>[text]</font></font></font>
2. The code examples are {*filter*}y awful HTML, with <BR> used for
formatting throughout, and lots of non-breaking spaces. They are
code. You are copying them out of a VB editing window, where they
are pre-formatted text. Just paste them into the HTML file, and
surround them with:
<font color="#000099"><PRE>[code here]</PRE></font>
Preformatted text renders by default in all the major browsers with
COURIER NEW, so it's totally un-necessary to set a font face or
size.
And the pre-formatted version is a lot less text to download and a
helluva lot easier to create in the first place.
3. For the MsgBox graphics, you use a table, but center the table
with the old-fashioned <CENTER> tag, instead of using the
ALIGNMENT="CENTER" attribute of the table tag. What you have:
<center><table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
What you should have:
<table ALIGNMENT="CENTER" BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0
>
That's better HTML and less likely to muck things up (one
attribute, vs. an open and close tag). Of course, it doesn't render
on every browser, but it's straight out of the HTML 3.2 spec. It is
definitely supported in version 4 browsers, though only spottily in
previous browsers.
4. In Netscape 3.02 (what's on my home machine), the graphics
overlap and the captions for the graphics are behind them. This is
because the width of your data cells is only 100 pixels, while the
graphics themselves are several times that wide. Also, the text for
the captions falls outside any container tags within the table. It
can't possibly render properly in any browser.
To illustrate, I've put up a simple page on my own web page to show
how these tables actually ought to be formatted:
<ttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton/MichKa.html>
(I'd normally put it on my dfassoc account, but my ISP fouled up
permissions and I don't have control of that directory any more.
Idiots)
I'm assuming that the reason for all of this is that you're
webmaster is using some kind of tool that automatically generates
the code, but it's doing a really dreadful job. Whatever it is, it
should be dumped for something that actually works.
And, yes, I'm an {*filter*}.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#4 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote:
Kaplan)
> >I also included pics of this on my website for people who
> >would like to see the difference. :-)
> > http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
> You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful:
<SNIP Details> Quote: > I'm assuming that the reason for all of this is that you're > webmaster is using some kind of tool that automatically generates > the code, but it's doing a really dreadful job. Whatever it is, it > should be dumped for something that actually works. > And, yes, I'm an {*filter*}.
I don't think you're an {*filter*}.... it is pretty much tool based, though. Notepad has always been my HTML editor of choice. I'll look into it. I did look at the page on IE5 and Netscape 4.5, and it
looked ok in both of them, though.....
--
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.*-*-*.com/
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Pete
#5 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 David, assuming you are not just joking around, what the _hell_ are you talking about? 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.
'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????
BTW, Michka, thanks for the topic and solution. Even though it is an almost
unbelievable kluge....
Unbelievable in that you should have to do it, another point for trashing
A2K. Any takers on A2K surviving the Millenium bug, sheesh with {*filter*}like
that being required it makes you wonder....
--
Pete B
Quote:
>>I also included pics of this on my website for people who
>>would like to see the difference. :-)
>> http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
>You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful:
>1. You don't use <PRE> or <CODE> for code examples, instead using
><FONT FACE="Courier New,Courier">. Indeed, it's even worse than
>that. Instead of a single FONT tag with three attributes, it uses:
> <font face="Courier New,Courier"><font color="#000099">
> <font size=-1>[text]</font></font></font>
>2. The code examples are {*filter*}y awful HTML, with <BR> used for
>formatting throughout, and lots of non-breaking spaces. They are
>code. You are copying them out of a VB editing window, where they
>are pre-formatted text. Just paste them into the HTML file, and
>surround them with:
> <font color="#000099"><PRE>[code here]</PRE></font>
>Preformatted text renders by default in all the major browsers with
>COURIER NEW, so it's totally un-necessary to set a font face or
>size.
>And the pre-formatted version is a lot less text to download and a
>helluva lot easier to create in the first place.
>3. For the MsgBox graphics, you use a table, but center the table
>with the old-fashioned <CENTER> tag, instead of using the
>ALIGNMENT="CENTER" attribute of the table tag. What you have:
> <center><table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
>What you should have:
> <table ALIGNMENT="CENTER" BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0
>That's better HTML and less likely to muck things up (one
>attribute, vs. an open and close tag). Of course, it doesn't render
>on every browser, but it's straight out of the HTML 3.2 spec. It is
>definitely supported in version 4 browsers, though only spottily in
>previous browsers.
>4. In Netscape 3.02 (what's on my home machine), the graphics
>overlap and the captions for the graphics are behind them. This is
>because the width of your data cells is only 100 pixels, while the
>graphics themselves are several times that wide. Also, the text for
>the captions falls outside any container tags within the table. It
>can't possibly render properly in any browser.
>To illustrate, I've put up a simple page on my own web page to show
>how these tables actually ought to be formatted:
> <ttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton/MichKa.html>
>(I'd normally put it on my dfassoc account, but my ISP fouled up
>permissions and I don't have control of that directory any more.
>Idiots)
>I'm assuming that the reason for all of this is that you're
>webmaster is using some kind of tool that automatically generates
>the code, but it's doing a really dreadful job. Whatever it is, it
>should be dumped for something that actually works.
>And, yes, I'm an {*filter*}.
>--
>David W. Fenton http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton
>dfenton at bway dot net http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#6 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 Well, fwiw, David is right from the actual source standpoint. But the page LOOKS good. With those changes, it will not actually look much different. But one thing that the tool was doing was adding font
name/size tags to every paragraph, presumably so formatting
changes above where the person forgot an end tag would not
affect the whole page. The problem is that it bloats the
page a lot....
I took them all out (since they were all setting things to
the same font) and did the changes to code formatting, and
the page is now 25% smaller.... so that bloat does add up.
You can check out the new page, it looks the same as the old
one.
--
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.*-*-*.com/
Quote: > David, assuming you are not just joking around, what the _hell_ are you > talking about? > 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 Quote: > 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. > '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????
> BTW, Michka, thanks for the topic and solution. Even
though it is an almost Quote: > unbelievable kluge.... > Unbelievable in that you should have to do it, another
point for trashing
> A2K. Any takers on A2K surviving the Millenium bug,
sheesh with {*filter*}like Quote: > that being required it makes you wonder.... > --
> Pete B
Quote:
Kaplan)
> >>I also included pics of this on my website for people
who
> >>would like to see the difference. :-)
> >> http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
> >You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful:
> >1. You don't use <PRE> or <CODE> for code examples,
instead using
> ><FONT FACE="Courier New,Courier">. Indeed, it's even
worse than
> >that. Instead of a single FONT tag with three attributes,
it uses:
> > <font face="Courier New,Courier"><font
color="#000099">
> > <font size=-1>[text]</font></font></font>
> >2. The code examples are {*filter*}y awful HTML, with <BR>
used for
> >formatting throughout, and lots of non-breaking spaces.
They are
> >code. You are copying them out of a VB editing window,
where they
> >are pre-formatted text. Just paste them into the HTML
file, and
> >surround them with:
> > <font color="#000099"><PRE>[code here]</PRE></font>
> >Preformatted text renders by default in all the major
browsers with
> >COURIER NEW, so it's totally un-necessary to set a font
face or
> >size.
> >And the pre-formatted version is a lot less text to
download and a
> >helluva lot easier to create in the first place.
> >3. For the MsgBox graphics, you use a table, but center
the table
> >with the old-fashioned <CENTER> tag, instead of using the
> >ALIGNMENT="CENTER" attribute of the table tag. What you
have:
> > <center><table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
> >What you should have:
> > <table ALIGNMENT="CENTER" BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0
CELLPADDING=0
> >That's better HTML and less likely to muck things up (one
> >attribute, vs. an open and close tag). Of course, it
doesn't render
> >on every browser, but it's straight out of the HTML 3.2
spec. It is
> >definitely supported in version 4 browsers, though only
spottily in
> >previous browsers.
> >4. In Netscape 3.02 (what's on my home machine), the
graphics
> >overlap and the captions for the graphics are behind
them. This is
> >because the width of your data cells is only 100 pixels,
while the
> >graphics themselves are several times that wide. Also,
the text for
> >the captions falls outside any container tags within the
table. It
> >can't possibly render properly in any browser.
> >To illustrate, I've put up a simple page on my own web
page to show
> >how these tables actually ought to be formatted:
> > <ttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton/MichKa.html>
> >(I'd normally put it on my dfassoc account, but my ISP
fouled up
> >permissions and I don't have control of that directory
any more.
> >Idiots)
> >I'm assuming that the reason for all of this is that
you're
> >webmaster is using some kind of tool that automatically
generates
> >the code, but it's doing a really dreadful job. Whatever
it is, it
> >should be dumped for something that actually works.
> >And, yes, I'm an {*filter*}.
> >--
> >David W. Fenton
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton Quote: > >dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Chris Georgiou - TZOTZIO
#7 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
(David W. Fenton) might have written: Quote:
>>I also included pics of this on my website for people who
>>would like to see the difference. :-)
>> http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
>You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful:
<snip of David commenting on the HTML at MichKa's website> No, David, you're not what you called yourself in your post's last line
:)
Although the dreadful IE5 which I have *does* show the page exactly as
you proposed in your "Making fun..." page (hinting that the page is
prossibly built with a Microsoft tool; hey, those multiple <font> tags
do look familiar), it should be the responsibility of any webmaster or
web{*filter*} (in this case, Karleen Smith's) to make the pages viewable
as designed on most browsers around the world, especially if on the home
page there's a notification for optimization on both very popular
browsers, without any version specified.
However, you could put the text of your whole post in your page, and
then post simply the link to it stating the fact that there one would
find corrections / advices on the trigeminal.com HTML code. Less need
for self-describing this way :)
--
I am Greeks and I speak England very best,
TZOTZIOY, ICQ# 13397953
(when e-mailing delete the 'deletethispart' part)
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#8 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97
Quote: > BTW, Michka, thanks for the topic and solution. Even
though it is an almost Quote: > unbelievable kluge.... > Unbelievable in that you should have to do it, another
point for trashing
> A2K. Any takers on A2K surviving the Millenium bug,
sheesh with {*filter*}like Quote: > that being required it makes you wonder....
I agree that its a kludge.... but much better than my old answer (you can't DO that, sorry!). --
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.*-*-*.com/
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#9 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 Well, fwiw I like the way my site looks. :-) --
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
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Chris Georgiou - TZOTZIO
#10 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:24:44 -0700, rumours say that "Michael (michka)
Quote: >Well, fwiw I like the way my site looks. :-)
Yep, it does look fine :) (that is, apart from being viewed on older non MS browsers, which was
the reason of David's examining the HTML)
--
I am Greeks and I speak England very best,
TZOTZIOY, ICQ# 13397953
(when e-mailing delete the 'deletethispart' part)
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Chris Georgiou - TZOTZIO
#11 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:55:16 -0500, rumours say that "Pete B"
<about non viewability of MichKa's pages on NS 3.02>
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????
Yes, he does, but on the home page of trigeminal.com, there's that little icon stating the site is optimised for NetScape too, so David's complaints wasn't irrational... -- I am Greeks and I speak England very best, TZOTZIOY, ICQ# 13397953 (when e-mailing delete the 'deletethispart' part)
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Pete
#12 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 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.
--
Pete B
Quote:
>Well, fwiw, David is right from the actual source >standpoint. But the page LOOKS good. With those changes, it >will not actually look much different. >But one thing that the tool was doing was adding font
>name/size tags to every paragraph, presumably so formatting
>changes above where the person forgot an end tag would not
>affect the whole page. The problem is that it bloats the
>page a lot....
>I took them all out (since they were all setting things to
>the same font) and did the changes to code formatting, and
>the page is now 25% smaller.... so that bloat does add up.
>You can check out the new page, it looks the same as the old
>one.
>--
>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.*-*-*.com/
>> David, assuming you are not just joking around, what the
>_hell_ are you
>> talking about?
>> 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.
>> '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????
>> BTW, Michka, thanks for the topic and solution. Even
>though it is an almost
>> unbelievable kluge....
>> Unbelievable in that you should have to do it, another
>point for trashing
>> A2K. Any takers on A2K surviving the Millenium bug,
>sheesh with {*filter*}like
>> that being required it makes you wonder....
>> --
>> Pete B
>Kaplan)
>> >>I also included pics of this on my website for people
>who
>> >>would like to see the difference. :-)
>> >> http://www.*-*-*.com/ #15
>> >You know, Michael, the HTML in that page is dreadful:
>> >1. You don't use <PRE> or <CODE> for code examples,
>instead using
>> ><FONT FACE="Courier New,Courier">. Indeed, it's even
>worse than
>> >that. Instead of a single FONT tag with three attributes,
>it uses:
>> > <font face="Courier New,Courier"><font
>color="#000099">
>> > <font size=-1>[text]</font></font></font>
>> >2. The code examples are {*filter*}y awful HTML, with <BR>
>used for
>> >formatting throughout, and lots of non-breaking spaces.
>They are
>> >code. You are copying them out of a VB editing window,
>where they
>> >are pre-formatted text. Just paste them into the HTML
>file, and
>> >surround them with:
>> > <font color="#000099"><PRE>[code here]</PRE></font>
>> >Preformatted text renders by default in all the major
>browsers with
>> >COURIER NEW, so it's totally un-necessary to set a font
>face or
>> >size.
>> >And the pre-formatted version is a lot less text to
>download and a
>> >helluva lot easier to create in the first place.
>> >3. For the MsgBox graphics, you use a table, but center
>the table
>> >with the old-fashioned <CENTER> tag, instead of using the
>> >ALIGNMENT="CENTER" attribute of the table tag. What you
>have:
>> > <center><table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
>> >What you should have:
>> > <table ALIGNMENT="CENTER" BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0
>CELLPADDING=0
>> >That's better HTML and less likely to muck things up (one
>> >attribute, vs. an open and close tag). Of course, it
>doesn't render
>> >on every browser, but it's straight out of the HTML 3.2
>spec. It is
>> >definitely supported in version 4 browsers, though only
>spottily in
>> >previous browsers.
>> >4. In Netscape 3.02 (what's on my home machine), the
>graphics
>> >overlap and the captions for the graphics are behind
>them. This is
>> >because the width of your data cells is only 100 pixels,
>while the
>> >graphics themselves are several times that wide. Also,
>the text for
>> >the captions falls outside any container tags within the
>table. It
>> >can't possibly render properly in any browser.
>> >To illustrate, I've put up a simple page on my own web
>page to show
>> >how these tables actually ought to be formatted:
>> > <ttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton/MichKa.html>
>> >(I'd normally put it on my dfassoc account, but my ISP
>fouled up
>> >permissions and I don't have control of that directory
>any more.
>> >Idiots)
>> >I'm assuming that the reason for all of this is that
>you're
>> >webmaster is using some kind of tool that automatically
>generates
>> >the code, but it's doing a really dreadful job. Whatever
>it is, it
>> >should be dumped for something that actually works.
>> >And, yes, I'm an {*filter*}.
>> >--
>> >David W. Fenton
> http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfenton
>> >dfenton at bway dot net
> http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~dfassoc
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
mich
#13 / 25
|
Getting back the formatted MsgBox in Access 2000 that worked in Access 97 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. --
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
Chris Georgiou - TZOTZIOY
Quote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:55:16 -0500, rumours say that "Pete B"
> <about non viewability of MichKa's pages on NS 3.02>
> >'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????
> Yes, he does, but on the home page of trigeminal.com,
there's that
> little icon stating the site is optimised for NetScape
too, so David's
> complaints wasn't irrational...
> --
> I am Greeks and I speak England very best,
> TZOTZIOY, ICQ# 13397953
> (when e-mailing delete the 'deletethispart' part)
|
| Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
David W. Fent
#14 / 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
#15 / 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 |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 25 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|
