|
338. Dusty - 9/27/1999 3:03:46 AM Another hint (directed mainly as Dusty)
If you try to post but get an error message, check the thread before posting again. It may have worked.
339. CalGal - 9/27/1999 4:15:34 AM Dusty--if you're going to mess with the width I believe you must also mess with the height. 340. Dusty - 9/27/1999 4:26:34 AM CalGal
Nope, you can put a width only command. In fact, I think it is better this way. If you pick width only, it keeps the aspect ratio. I tried once with both, and it distorted the picture. (Of course, another time I tried both, it didn't seem to have a problem, so I need to do some more homework to figure out what is going on.)
My first few pictures in Home and Garden had no height or width. Then I didn't like the random sizes, so I specified both, but my recent ones have all been width 250, and you can see than they are all the same width, while preserving the original aspect ratio (I think).
341. Dusty - 9/27/1999 4:32:10 AM Test 1 Using only Width =425
Test 2 Using Width =425 Height=50
342. Dusty - 9/27/1999 4:33:56 AM Well, I verified one thing, but raised another question. Looks like I am wrong about the width of the posting area. But this is the testing area, and I wanted to be sure before rewriting the Hints page. 343. Dusty - 9/27/1999 4:37:35 AM Oh wait, I know. When I posted the picture in #327, I selected a height of 150, and the implied width is more than 425, so the margin is pushed beyond its normal location. I posted that before I figured out how wide this place was. 344. Dusty - 9/27/1999 4:41:14 AM In case anyone is interested, the code to create the image is:
< IMG SRC="http://members.home.net/freetochoose/Pellepic.gif" BORDER= HEIGHT= WIDTH=425 ALT="" >
Although the Border, Height and ALT commands aren't needed. (ALT specifies text for people selecting a text-only page)
345. CalGal - 9/27/1999 5:43:39 AM PsychProf,
I create a table just for the piece of text in question. There are probably other ways of doing it, but this is the first method I'm experimenting with. It requires guessing, and I think the spacing on the Check for Dust thread is slightly different than on the posting page itself. I'll have to fix that. If you want to see what I mean, copy the text below the formatted version (which is how I created it) and look at it in Check for Dust. It's gorgeous. And then look how it turns out. (sob)
 | And then, every so often, there's one on the list that stayed under the
radar. One of these movies is The Third Man, which is often described as the greatest movie you've never heard of. It is hard to categorize--it fits the bill nicely as film noir, a mystery, a love story, |
or a devastatingly accurate commentary on post-war Europe--and this may be why it has not remained as widely known as other great movies from the 40s. Happily, it has been refurbished and rereleased on its 50th anniversary to quite a bit of attention--critics have been very happy to see its return and have made much fuss.
< table >< tr >< td >< img src="http://www.openix.com/~danb/third.jpg" >< /td >< td valign="top" >And then, every so often, there's one on the list that stayed under the radar. One of these movies is The Third Man, which is often described as the greatest movie you've never heard of. It is hard to categorize--it fits the bill nicely as film noir, a mystery, a love story,< /td>< /tr>< /table> or a devastatingly accurate commentary on post-war Europe--and this may be why it has not remained as widely known as other great movies from the 40s. Happily, it has been refurbished and rereleased on its 50th anniversary to quite a bit of attention--critics have been very happy to see its return and have made much fuss.346. CalGal - 9/27/1999 5:49:26 AM It just occurred to me that this will always be a problem when margins are screwed up, too. Hmm. So the trick is to hardcode the table to a certain width.
Try again.
| And then, every so often, there's one on the list that stayed under the radar. One of these movies is The Third Man, which is often described as the greatest movie you've never heard of. It is hard to categorize--it fits the bill nicely as film noir, a mystery, a love story, or a devastatingly accurate commentary on post-war Europe--and this may be |
why it has not remained as widely known as other great movies from the 40s. Happily, it has been refurbished and rereleased on its 50th anniversary to quite a bit of attention--critics have been very happy to see its return and have made much fuss.347. CalGal - 9/27/1999 5:50:49 AM Okay, so you can't control your environment completely, but if the margins were normal right now, I think this would have looked okay.
So hardcode the table width--I used 400.
Don't forget to put < /td > tags, which aren't mandatory--but Netscape will mess things up something awful if you don't use them. 348. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/27/1999 6:07:55 AM And then, every so often, there's one on the list that stayed under the radar. One of these movies is The Third Man, which is often described as the greatest movie you've never heard of. It is hard to categorize--it fits the bill nicely as film noir, a mystery, a love story,or a devastatingly accurate commentary on post-war Europe--and this may be why it has not remained as widely known as other great movies from the 40s. Happily, it has been refurbished and rereleased on its 50th anniversary to quite a bit of attention--critics have been very happy to see its return and have made much fuss.
And then, every so often, there's one on the list that stayed under the radar. One of these movies is The Third Man, which is often described as the greatest movie you've never heard of. It is hard to categorize--it fits the bill nicely as film noir, a mystery, a love story, or a devastatingly accurate commentary on post-war Europe--and this may be why it has not remained as widely known as other great movies from the 40s. Happily, it has been refurbished and rereleased on its 50th anniversary to quite a bit of attention--critics have been very happy to see its return and have made much fuss. Trying to predict where the text is going to break is a fool's errand. I mean, why bother, when you can do an actual wrap?349. CalGal - 9/27/1999 6:12:36 AM Soup,
Hence my comment in my first post:
There are probably other ways of doing it, but this is the first method I'm experimenting with.
As in, I hadn't really checked it out yet and was playing around.
Thanks for the tip--tP, is it? 350. CalGal - 9/27/1999 6:30:12 AM Prof,
I'll standardize Soup's method and add it to HTML hints--he's using the colspan tag. Do a view source for the tags. 351. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 8:02:59 AM Post? 352. pellenilsson - 9/27/1999 7:31:19 PM Testing the width statement.
Peter Bruegel the Elder, The Triumph of Death 353. pellenilsson - 9/27/1999 7:35:57 PM And here something from my current continent of abode:
 354. pellenilsson - 9/27/1999 7:41:58 PM How high is the screen?
This is height="550" which fits well on my 1000x800 screen. What should one use for a 640x480 screen? Are there such around in the Mote? 355. PsychProf - 9/27/1999 8:12:05 PM Cal...thanks much... 356. Dusty - 9/27/1999 9:25:11 PM pellenilsson
The second one fits, but the first one is too tall. I’m running 1024 x 768, but don't forget, a chunk of the screen is taken up by the borders of the browser.
I hadn't thought about height limitations, but if one wants the entire image to be on the screen, then there are obviously limits. I'll bet there aren't too many 640 x 480 in this group, but there may be 800 x 600. When I switch to 800 x 600, the second image just barely fails to fit, even when eliminating toolbars. However, it does fit when clicking on the full-screen option.
Hint to eMoters: if someone displays a tall image that doesn't quite fit on your screen, did you know that there is a button on the browser for a full-screen option? It doesn't literally give the whole screen for the window, but it does give you more viewing room. Both IE and Netscape have this option.
357. Dusty - 9/27/1999 10:00:56 PM BTW, striking image, Pelle
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
