X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f996b,3483bd10835621f X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-28 16:52:06 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!news-out-sjo.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!p3ee29344.dip.t-dialin.NET!not-for-mail From: Tilman Ahr Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: Classic ascii pics Date: 29 Mar 2001 02:38:03 +0200 Organization: RiotCo, ltd. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <99l69i$ftc$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <985564211.24478@itz.pp.sci.fi> <99n6ki$3p0$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <99t2dj$chk$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <3AC2725B.52402EDB@thanks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p3ee29344.dip.t-dialin.net (62.226.147.68) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 985826930 2941284 62.226.147.68 (16 [35725]) X-Orig-Path: rioteer.subdomain.de!nobody X-Attribution: T.A. User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) Xref: supernews.google.com alt.ascii-art:4984 Trevor writes: > Henry Segerman wrote: > > Its almost finished now. You can see it at: > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A525791 > > > > Any suggestions/omissions before I put it up for inclusion in the > >edited guide? > > Looks OK in IE, but not in NS. Can't reproduce that, here. Looks fine in Opera 5.0b6, Mozilla, NetRape 4.73, links, w3m and even lynx. Didn't try NetRape 6, since that is actually *beyond* my limits for Software� allowed on my system. There's got to be a limit *somewhere*. Well, aside from the fact that the fsckwits designing the BBCs Mainsite obviously never heard that some people actually drive their monitors with a reasonable resolution instead of those prehistoric 72dpi common in so many wind~1-installations. Thus the fonts are, as always, too small on most 'nix machines (and Macintoys, IIRC). But apart from that (and most people who run into that problem probably either fixed it by now or completely ruined their eyes, thus not being able to read anyways), the site is rather browser-friendly, IMHO. Not exactly *optimized* for "alternative" browsers, seems to scale down fairly gracefully, though. That, however still doesn't make it valid HTML, obviously. http://validator.w3c.org might help you iron out some of the mistakes *you* put into there. That the BBC manages to start breaking the HTML-standard *from the very first line*(!) of their "page" stands for itself, I believe. Tilman ---------- 1: The term is obviously loosely applied in this context -- ,--------------------------------------------------------. |Tilman Ahr | Email: rioteer@gmx.net | | | tilman.ahr@student.hu-berlin.de | `--------------------------PGP-Key available by request--�