Gregor said:
The Natural Philosopher meinte:
Makes me wonder, why I can make a living developing and authoring
websites and -applications.
the amount of utter crap out there that someone has obviously paid for,
should answer that question.
Right, it can only be trying, since your "approach" will never be a
solution.
It IS a solution, since it patently works and satisfies the customer.
Sure, more tripe. Let me explain that for you:
Web pages have the inherency of looking differently on every client.
Choosing pixels is just a try, but will never guarantee anything.
Ok, thats the crux, and leads to two possible appraoches. Go with the
flow and try and code for every different possible windows size, or say
'however all modern browsers can be nailed down hard to absolute
postioning to a one pixel accuracy, and nail them down that way'
I chose the latter. You are arguing for the former.
Well, I suppose you stick to philosophy then and not web related stuff.
Cant. Much as I'd like to. I have a job to do here.
You never stated that, instead you declared it a "solution".
I said it was 'A' solution. You wont find many browsers that will allow
you to resize or restyle a checkbox at all. I merely pointed out that
you can duplicate the functionality with styling and javascript, and
sidestep the problem altogether Its A solution. Not THE solution.
Whether it suits your religion, is your choice. But don't thrust your
religion down MY throat as being THE solution, when its just *another*
solution.
I'm absolutely sure the webpages won't look *exactly* the same.
Very very close. The font rendering on IE7 is Arial usually I think, and
its more pixellated than the smooth fonts on a MAC, but the boxes and
colours and element positions are the same.
Yes, "em" and "%" suffice 99% of the time.
Not on fixed style pages. If you want a box precisely 300x12 pixels, you
need to say so.
Its all down to the religion thats says 'let the browser decide'
I say I don't want the browser to decide. Different browsers make
different decisions.
I tell the browser exactly what I want, and it does it. If it needs to
add scroll bars to enable it all to be viewed, thats fine too. Thats all
the decision I want it making.
I cant write a manual with elements sliding all over the place so my
screenshots look entirely different from what a user is going to see. I
tried that and when you shrink the windows, it was frankly vile. Now if
someone shrinks a window, nothing changes. Only the scroll bars appear
to show them they aren't seeing the full picture.
I am not 'writing to be compatible with XYZ browser' I am taking three
browsers, and making them present a uniform appearance to a particular
in house application. They are just smart terminals as far as I am
concerned. The fact that they have a lot of inbuilt smarts to format
stuff that isn't nailed down, is not something I want. Its something I
want to avoid.
It happens to be the simplest way to make a browser look like its
actually a custom application running on the desktop machine.
Which is what I want.
If you don't want that, that's fine. I am not telling you that this way
is THE way, Unlike you, I don't have the arrogance and religious
conviction. Its A way. that suits people doing similar, which is what I
felt the OP was after.
