Konqueror not justifying text?
Dear all, I'd like to ask you to see if Konqueror is rendering my diary (http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/diary/) as justified text or if it is only showing up as left-aligned text. I'm using a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) setting the alignment mode for paragraphs as justified, but it seems to have no effect with both Konqueror and Opera, but it *does* work with Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.2. I've already checked obvious things like seeing if Konqueror and Opera were caching old/wrong versions of my CSS, and if I got my CSS syntax correct (I validated it). Just as background information, I am using TrueType fonts with all browsers (Verdana, to be more specific, since I find it one of the most readable fonts). Is there something related to both Opera and Konqueror being qt applications? I'm using potato here, with Ivan's latest packages. Can anybody help? Am I doing something incorrectly? Thank you very much for any help, Roger... P.S.: I tested both Konqueror and Opera with a fake user and got the same results (non-justifying text). And the weird thing is that I have a strong impression that both browsers were justifying text some weeks ago. Am I dreaming? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogério Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: KDE and mp3 ripping support.
On Wednesday 18 July 2001 19:16, John Gay wrote: > >If you mean software players, Vorbis plays on almost all of them, if you > > have > > >a recent version. > > Is that 'ALL' software players, or just the Linux ones? In many Office > situations the workers find they only have access to M$ Media player. Does > this play ogg vorbis files? The hardware players are important too, thus Sorry, I forgot Windows Media Player. I hear that work is under way to make it play Ogg. Otherwise support is very good on Windows, Winamp and others have been supporting Ogg for quite a while now. > mp3 compatibility is needed. I beleive there are even some CD players that > can now play mp3's as well as CDDA. These count as hardware "mp3" players. They just use cdroms instead of smart media cards or whatever media. What I said about hardware player support is valid for them too. >This would let you have your entire > Music collection on one CD! Only if your music collection is not much bigger than 10 hours worth of music :-)
Re: Konqueror not justifying text?
Only shows text left-aligned in the latest CVS builds, too. I think you´re doing nothing wrong, konqueror just can´t render it right. Please see http://www.kde.org/mailinglists.html for the kde mailinglists. This lists are the place where you should ask for help. This list is intended for debian + kde stuff. Regards, Philipp Am Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2001 10:30 schrieb Rogério Brito: > Dear all, > > I'd like to ask you to see if Konqueror is rendering my diary > (http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/diary/) as justified text or if > it is only showing up as left-aligned text. > > I'm using a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) setting the alignment > mode for paragraphs as justified, but it seems to have no > effect with both Konqueror and Opera, but it *does* work with > Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.2. > > I've already checked obvious things like seeing if Konqueror > and Opera were caching old/wrong versions of my CSS, and if I > got my CSS syntax correct (I validated it). > > Just as background information, I am using TrueType fonts with > all browsers (Verdana, to be more specific, since I find it > one of the most readable fonts). Is there something related to > both Opera and Konqueror being qt applications? I'm using > potato here, with Ivan's latest packages. > > Can anybody help? Am I doing something incorrectly? > > > Thank you very much for any help, Roger... > > P.S.: I tested both Konqueror and Opera with a fake user and got the > same results (non-justifying text). And the weird thing is that I have > a strong impression that both browsers were justifying text some weeks > ago. Am I dreaming?
Re: KDE and mp3 ripping support.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wednesday 18 July 2001 10:16, John Gay wrote: > >If you mean software players, Vorbis plays on almost all of them, if you > > have > > >a recent version. > > Is that 'ALL' software players, or just the Linux ones? In many Office > situations the workers find they only have access to M$ Media player. Does > this play ogg vorbis files? The hardware players are important too, thus > mp3 compatibility is needed. I beleive there are even some CD players that > can now play mp3's as well as CDDA. This would let you have your entire > Music collection on one CD! Again, you would need to use the mp3 format for > burning these disc's. > > Cheers, > > John Gay John, I began ripping all of my CD's into MP3's, then discovered the Ogg/Vorbis and IMMEDIATELY moved to that format. Smaller, cleaner, better quality. And YES!! there is support in TheUnnamedOne community for them. When I'm stuck in TheUnnamedOne, I prefer WinAMP, and immediately found a number of different o/v plug-ins. All of which worked wonderfully. (http://www.winamp.com/plugins/browse.jhtml;$sessionid$1IBDOBQAAJCS1TN24UYBCZA) And I just looked at M$ MediaPlayer, and of course The Gates of Hell has excluded o/v. I'm sure 'someone' is working on a 'plug-in' for it, but as of yes, no support. Hope this helps John! Either way, I hope yer week is worth reliving! - - -- __ OutCast Computer Consultants of Central Oregon http://outcast-consultants.redmond.or.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] (541) 504-1388 Via IRC at; 205.227.115.251:6667:#OutCasts Via ICQ: UIN 138930 "Failure is not an option...it's bundled with Microsoft" -anonymous- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! "Software is like sex. They're both better when they're free!!" - Linus Torvalds "As a computing professional, I believe it would be unethical for me to advise, recommend, or support the use (save possibly for personal amusement) of any product that is or depends on any Microsoft product." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: 6W04IBX3Ddb0P+4oXIt76gYL9Qfvz6Uk iQA/AwUBO1c1lghnWicv+0tKEQJ2dACcDZ5W1FS6r+f4m0e99Afr73vduSYAn2zI /QlWSNwU3RsmX3S5ZF2HsvEo =jeYH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Konqueror not justifying text?
I can confirm this with the latest 2.2beta packages. On Thursday 19 July 2001 01:30 am, Rogério Brito wrote: > Dear all, > > I'd like to ask you to see if Konqueror is rendering my diary > (http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/diary/) as justified text or if > it is only showing up as left-aligned text. > > I'm using a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) setting the alignment > mode for paragraphs as justified, but it seems to have no > effect with both Konqueror and Opera, but it *does* work with > Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.2. > > I've already checked obvious things like seeing if Konqueror > and Opera were caching old/wrong versions of my CSS, and if I > got my CSS syntax correct (I validated it). > > Just as background information, I am using TrueType fonts with > all browsers (Verdana, to be more specific, since I find it > one of the most readable fonts). Is there something related to > both Opera and Konqueror being qt applications? I'm using > potato here, with Ivan's latest packages. > > Can anybody help? Am I doing something incorrectly? > > > Thank you very much for any help, Roger... > > P.S.: I tested both Konqueror and Opera with a fake user and got the > same results (non-justifying text). And the weird thing is that I have > a strong impression that both browsers were justifying text some weeks > ago. Am I dreaming? -- "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE docs in other formats
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:27:24PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: > > Anyone know of any KDE2.2 docs available as texinfo, > or ps, pdf, html, plain text? > > ...anything but docbook, it is just way too slow. > > > I think KDE really blew it on this one, or maybe the build process for > the docs is broken... I've always looked at LaTeX, SGML (docbook, xml, > etc.), etc. as the *source* for documents -- which then gets converted > to html, texinfo, rtf, ps, whatever. I totally disagree. docbook is the perfect format because these are the *source* for documents...it allows for extremely easy language translations, and does not require the distro to produce *.html/*.txt/*.etc... versions of all the documentation. One only has to have a docbook viewer (both KDE and Gnome support reading of .docbook files directly) or you can convert it into your own favorite extension. Yes..it is slow due to the conversion/reading process but one gives up some things to gain alot of other things. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: [tmb@lumo.com: Bug#98994: large and small icons for xmms are reversed under KDE]
I wish I could. I didn't know that xmms was on the toolbar to begin with. Ivan On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:12:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone explain this, please? :) > > - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > > Subject: Bug#98994: large and small icons for xmms are reversed under KDE > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Debian-PR-Package: xmms > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Reportbug-Version: 1.16 > Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:49:47 -0700 > > Package: xmms > Version: 1.2.4-4 > Severity: minor > > The icons representing xmms are reversed under kde: with a normal > toolbar, I get a tiny icon and with a tiny toolbar I get a cutout of > a normal icon. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: testing/unstable > Architecture: i386 > Kernel: Linux gigue 2.4.4 #4 SMP Sat May 19 18:15:00 PDT 2001 i686 > Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C > > Versions of packages xmms depends on: > ii libc6 2.2.3-4GNU C Library: Shared libraries > an > ii libglib1.21.2.10-1.1 The GLib library of C routines > > ii libgtk1.2 1.2.10-1 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets > fo > ii xlibs 4.0.3-3X Window System client libraries > > > > - End forwarded message - > > -- > Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---end quoted text--- -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: KDE docs in other formats
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:27:24PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: > > > > Anyone know of any KDE2.2 docs available as texinfo, > > or ps, pdf, html, plain text? > > > > ...anything but docbook, it is just way too slow. > > > > > > I think KDE really blew it on this one, or maybe the build process for > > the docs is broken... I've always looked at LaTeX, SGML (docbook, xml, > > etc.), etc. as the *source* for documents -- which then gets converted > > to html, texinfo, rtf, ps, whatever. > > I totally disagree. docbook is the perfect format because these are > the *source* for documents... it allows for extremely easy language > translations, > and does not require the distro to produce *.html/*.txt/*.etc... versions of > all the documentation. One only has to have a docbook viewer (both KDE and > Gnome support reading of .docbook files directly) or you can convert it into > your own favorite extension. > Do you use the source of a program, or the program itself... ...if it is not acceptable to have "$ command" result in the command being compiled from source, then executed... why is the same paradigm OK for documents. Docbook is a good __*source*__ format, but converting it to something better suited for display should be part of building the package... "make html", "make info", "make text", ...like I see other source packages provide. > Yes..it is slow due to the conversion/reading process but one gives up some > things to gain alot of other things. _Nothing_ is gained by the user reading docbook directly, much less "alot". "apropos docbook" doesn't show me any viewers; "grep docbook /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep viewer" doesn't show anything; I just did a search on "docbook" in dselect -- not one package provided a docbook viewer, and it is a bit of a stretch to say that docbook2texi and docbook2man even remotely imply that something done in the DocBook SGML DTD is a final product... especially when all the tools seem to be concerned with generating (not converting) HTML, RTF, text, and other formats that are commonly recognized by a user as something they want to look at, from stuff done with the docbook DTD. ...do I need to install Gnome so I can look at the KDE docs when the Khelpcenter breaks, and I can't look at the formatted docs unless I fire up a GUI or generate some other format first. Is the DTD provided in kdebase, or do I need to install a -dev package before I can generate HTML from the .docbook files using the standard tools. What does KDE do internally that takes so long (I bet you hope it is something other than convert to HTML then render, eh ;-). How do I generate HTML from KDE's docbook based documentation? I leave you with this rhetorical question... If DocBook is such a great format for the end-user to have their documentation in, why are the files in /usr/share/doc/docbook-doc HTML. - Bruce
Re: KDE docs in other formats
What do I need to install to be able to convert docbook files to html? I need this for the program i'm writing. I'm running kde2.2beta1 under sid and kde can't "create a view" (in konq.) for a docbook file, so is unable to read it. I have already installed: sgml-* (quite a few) docbook some styleheets (can't remember) jade Still no go!! KDevelop crashes also when I try to add a docbook file. I think it tries to view the file.
Re: KDE docs in other formats
[...] > I leave you with this rhetorical question... > If DocBook is such a great format for the end-user to have their > documentation in, why are the files in /usr/share/doc/docbook-doc > HTML. I never said it was a gret format for the end-user. I said the benifits of using docbook for a distribution outway the spead the end-user gets from viewing documentation. It is easier to maintain a single file than 4 different versions of one. that's not even talking about the size. If you want to maintain html versions of the documentation be my guest. It's a royal pain in the ass and I for one don't even use html. I prefer text. I know people who prefer .pdf. Which format should we provide? All of them? hmmm...let's calculate how much larger the distribution got by providing at least 4 different versions of documentation. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: [tmb@lumo.com: Bug#98994: large and small icons for xmms are reversed under KDE]
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: >I wish I could. I didn't know that xmms was on the toolbar to begin with. I'd bet that they use xmms-status-plugin... It allegedly has KDE functionality (never actually used it myself). >Ivan > >On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:12:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Can someone explain this, please? :) >> >> - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - >> >> Subject: Bug#98994: large and small icons for xmms are reversed under KDE >> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> X-Debian-PR-Package: xmms >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> X-Reportbug-Version: 1.16 >> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:49:47 -0700 >> >> Package: xmms >> Version: 1.2.4-4 >> Severity: minor >> >> The icons representing xmms are reversed under kde: with a normal >> toolbar, I get a tiny icon and with a tiny toolbar I get a cutout of >> a normal icon. >> >> -- System Information >> Debian Release: testing/unstable >> Architecture: i386 >> Kernel: Linux gigue 2.4.4 #4 SMP Sat May 19 18:15:00 PDT 2001 i686 >> Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C >> >> Versions of packages xmms depends on: >> ii libc6 2.2.3-4GNU C Library: Shared libraries >> an >> ii libglib1.21.2.10-1.1 The GLib library of C routines >> ii libgtk1.2 1.2.10-1 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets >> fo >> ii xlibs 4.0.3-3X Window System client libraries >> >> >> - End forwarded message - >> >> -- >> Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >---end quoted text--- > > -- The early worm gets the bird. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: KDE docs in other formats
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > [...] > > > I leave you with this rhetorical question... > > If DocBook is such a great format for the end-user to have their > > documentation in, why are the files in /usr/share/doc/docbook-doc > > HTML. > > I never said it was a gret format for the end-user. I said the benifits of > using docbook for a distribution outway the spead the end-user gets from > viewing documentation. > > It is easier to maintain a single file than 4 different versions of one. > that's not even talking about the size. That is the nice thing about the SGML and LaTeX way of doing things -- you don't need to maintain multiple sets of docs, you maintain one and generate what is best for the intended use... be that printing, hypertext, plaintext, some special format. If KDE was using HTML for their docs, then it is good they changed > If you want to maintain html versions of the documentation be my guest. It's > a royal pain in the ass and I for one don't even use html. I prefer text. I > know people who prefer .pdf. Which format should we provide? All of them? > hmmm...let's calculate how much larger the distribution got by providing > at least 4 different versions of documentation. No need to get carried away, Ivan. I asked if there were docs available in another format, then I asked how to generate HTML from the docbook stuff, at no time did suggest that you (or even Debian) should provide docs in multiple formats. So... How do I generate HTML from the KDE docbook documentation? That is really the only thing I want to know. - Bruce
