Re: netsurf buttonbar

2008-01-06 Thread Roger Darlington
On 5 Jan 2008, Michael Drake wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Brian Howlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 5 Jan, Richard Porter wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > Is it possible to make a dragable icon like the little globe on >> > Oregano, so that you can drag the URL onto another browser

Re: Background colours

2008-01-06 Thread Roger Darlington
On 16 Dec 2007, Tim Hill wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Symes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Got a problem... guess there is an answer but can't seem to find it. > >> Silly people > > Guilty m'lud. > >> create sites with black backgrounds, then plonk grey text >> on it... or Dark

Re: Background colours

2008-01-06 Thread Tim Hill
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Snip] > > Nope, they look okay to me. But wait! Netsurf renders the colours > > wrongly and the _always_underlined_links_ are dark blue, rather than > > the chosen hue of pale green (see any other browser). So you maybe

Re: netsurf buttonbar

2008-01-06 Thread Evan Clark
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unless you're using Select or any of ROL's other names for RO4 with > > Select features. Select's text selection in writable icons feature > > stops URL bar dragging from working, unless you hold Shift or Ctrl as >

Re: netsurf buttonbar

2008-01-06 Thread Roger Darlington
On 6 Jan 2008, Evan Clark wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Unless you're using Select or any of ROL's other names for RO4 with >> > Select features. Select's text selection in writable icons feature >> > stops URL bar dragging from wo

background colour in TABLEs ?

2008-01-06 Thread Roger Darlington
In HTML like: text etc The background table colour is ignored. I have looked at the Progress page, and it mentions TABLES> Elements col, colgroup, rowgroup and caption not implemented. It doesn't seem to mention background colour as not being implemented. [O2 doesn't ignore it, nor do othe

Re: Background colours

2008-01-06 Thread Roger Darlington
On 6 Jan 2008, Tim Hill wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Darlington > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Snip] > >> > Nope, they look okay to me. But wait! Netsurf renders the colours >> > wrongly and the _always_underlined_links_ are dark blue, rather than >> > the chosen hue of pale

Re: netsurf buttonbar

2008-01-06 Thread Evan Clark
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Jan 2008, Evan Clark wrote: > > That could be because you have the MoveWindow module loaded. > Oooh yes. So I do. > Is there a use for this module (other than to accidentally move > Netserfs text entry box?).

Re: background colour in TABLEs ?

2008-01-06 Thread JJ van Poll
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In HTML like: > > text etc > > The background table colour is ignored. > I have looked at the Progress page, and it mentions > TABLES> > Elements col, colgroup, rowgroup and caption not implemented. > I

Re: background colour in TABLEs ?

2008-01-06 Thread Chika
On 06 Jan, JJ van Poll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Roger Darlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In HTML like: > > > > text etc > > > > The background table colour is ignored. > > I have looked at the Progress page, and it mentions > > TABLES> >

Re: background colour in TABLEs ?

2008-01-06 Thread Tim Hill
[Snip] > although bgcolor is a deprecated tag - CSS is preferred. See > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1 for more on > this. For the g'zillionth time, it may be deprecated for new content but recommended that browsers support deprecated tags to support existing pre-dep

Re: background colour in TABLEs ?

2008-01-06 Thread Chika
On 06 Jan, Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Snip] > > although bgcolor is a deprecated tag - CSS is preferred. See > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1 for more on > > this. > For the g'zillionth time, it may be deprecated for new content but > recommended that b