In article , Richard Porter
wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2009 Keith Hopper wrote:
> > The element which should be used is the 'em' element and, instead of
> > the 'b' element, use 'strong'. The reason for the others being
> > deprecated
they're not
[Snip]
--
Tim Hill,
www.timil.com
On 17 Feb 2009 Keith Hopper wrote:
> The element which should be used is the 'em' element and, instead of
> the 'b' element, use 'strong'. The reason for the others being deprecated
> is a desire to separate styling from the reason that a content needs a
> particular style - 'i' and 'b' imply a pa
In article <502eafeecaasg...@inspire.net.nz>, Keith Hopper
wrote:
> In article <920b6d2e50.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>, Roger Darlington
> wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> > > In article , Richard Porter
> > > wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Yes, but Netsurf still inserts a spa
In article <4cd5fa2e50.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
Roger Darlington wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> > In article <920b6d2e50.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
> >Roger Darlington wrote:
> >> On 1 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> >> > In article ,
> >> >Richard Porter wro
On 16 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> In article <920b6d2e50.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
>> > In article ,
>> >Richard Porter wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Yes, but Netsurf still inserts a space after an end tag -
>
>> It does
In article <920b6d2e50.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
Roger Darlington wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> > In article ,
> >Richard Porter wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes, but Netsurf still inserts a space after an end tag -
> It doesn't if that end tag is .
> So a line like this w
On 16 Feb 2009, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article , Roger Darlington
> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2009, Tim Hill wrote:
>> >
>> > Just to follow-up this issue of Netsurf generating extra space, I
>> > have found an even simpler case:
>> >
>> > .(italic normal).
>> >
>> > I refer to the extra space w
In article , Roger Darlington
wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2009, Tim Hill wrote:
> >
> > Just to follow-up this issue of Netsurf generating extra space, I
> > have found an even simpler case:
> >
> > .(italic normal).
> >
> > I refer to the extra space which coincides with the .
> >
> And doesn'
On 3 Feb 2009, Tim Hill wrote:
>
> Just to follow-up this issue of Netsurf generating extra space, I have
> found an even simpler case:
>
> .(italic normal).
>
> I refer to the extra space which coincides with the .
>
And doesn't it also miss out the space between and 'normal' - it
d
On 1 Feb 2009, Keith Hopper wrote:
> In article ,
>Richard Porter wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
>
>> > I thought browsers ignored white space and in no way thought that would
>> > be the problem. Other browsers obviously must not translate white space
>> > into an extra newline wher
Just to follow-up this issue of Netsurf generating extra space, I have
found an even simpler case:
.(italic normal).
I refer to the extra space which coincides with the .
Keith Hopper mentioned that ...
> This bug was reported a couple of years ago and still seems to occur
> under cert
In article <5026fac702asg...@inspire.net.nz>, Keith Hopper
wrote:
> In article , Richard Porter
> wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
[Snip]
> Netsurf still inserts a space after an end tag - so that
> an end tag immediately followed by a visible or invisible character can
> throw onto
In article ,
Richard Porter wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
> > I thought browsers ignored white space and in no way thought that would
> > be the problem. Other browsers obviously must not translate white space
> > into an extra newline where none is needed. Sometimes Netsurf does.
>
On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
> I thought browsers ignored white space and in no way thought that would
> be the problem. Other browsers obviously must not translate white space
> into an extra newline where none is needed. Sometimes Netsurf does.
Any white space should translate into a single sp
In article <692fe22650.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard Porter
wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
> > I have just noticed an oddity, even with the latest build. Please
> > will someone check that I'm not going mad and I haven't done
> > something inadvertent to the HTML in the extract her
On 1 Feb 2009 Tim Hill wrote:
> I have just noticed an oddity, even with the latest build. Please will
> someone check that I'm not going mad and I haven't done something
> inadvertent to the HTML in the extract here:
> http://www.timil.com/riscos/netsurf_query.htm
> This file is an extracted par
I have just noticed an oddity, even with the latest build. Please will
someone check that I'm not going mad and I haven't done something
inadvertent to the HTML in the extract here:
http://www.timil.com/riscos/netsurf_query.htm
This file is an extracted part of the very old index page which live
17 matches
Mail list logo
