Prev: iPod touch and large .flv files
Next: What in the world just happened?
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 11 May 2010 13:54
Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 05-10-2010 18:44, Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> >> John, get this through your head:
> >> You need to validate your html. At least half a dozen people, including
> >> me, have pointed you to:
> >> http://validator.w3.org/
> >... [snip]
> > That you have said you don't want to do the above does not change the
> > necessity to do so.
>
> Good grief, is this guy a reincarnation of Mark Conrad ?!?

Mark is sane by comparison. Hell, Mark is just mildly annoying. John is
an utter fruitcake.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: Phillip Jones on 11 May 2010 14:08
rf wrote:
> "dorayme"<dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:dorayme-6E2D10.16150111052010(a)news.albasani.net...
>> In article<hsags9$atv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Phillip Jones<pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article<hsaduc$1b3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Scott Bryce<sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Glen Labah wrote:
>>>>>> If you want a complicated format system that is pretty universal from
>>>>>> one computer to the next, there's always PDF.
>>>>>
>>>>> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed
>>>>> rather
>>>>> than viewed on screen.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe sort of... but not really true in the real world. If I had
>>>> to html *all* the material (like newsletters and temporary
>>>> flyers, notices of some types) I handle on webpages, it would
>>>> cost the clients much more than was justified. It is a matter of
>>>> judgement and "for print" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
>>>> condition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its kind of hard to view family tree created on FileMaker in native
>>> format.
>>
>> The relevance of this being quite what?
>
> That it would be best for Phillip to pesent it in a pdf?
>
>
What I was referring to is on my website I have several family trees and
the files were originally created in FileMaker Pro. So Pdf is a good way
to present it on a website.

Just showing another good reason to use PDF on a Website.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com
From: Phillip Jones on 11 May 2010 14:21
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article
> <34e0a75e-c53c-46e6-b242-caca4bc52343(a)r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Dingley<dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
>>>> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed rather
>>>> than viewed on screen.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because most PDF screen readers are so insufferably awful at
>> scrolling? 8-)
>
> I have no problem scrolling PDFs in Preview, and usually don't have any in
> Safari either.
>

Also PDF Browser Plugin by Schubert, in SeaMonkey, FireFox, iCab,
OmniWeb, Opera, Camino, and Safari Work well.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com
From: Scott Bryce on 11 May 2010 16:37
dorayme wrote:
> In article <hsaduc$1b3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Scott Bryce
> <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:

>> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed
>> rather than viewed on screen.
>
> Maybe sort of... but not really true in the real world. If I had to
> html *all* the material (like newsletters and temporary flyers,
> notices of some types) I handle on webpages, it would cost the
> clients much more than was justified. It is a matter of judgement and
> "for print" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.

Newsletters? Flyers? Notices? Aren't those intended to be printed? To
say that they are intended to be printed does not mean that someone
CAN'T view them on screen if they wanted to.

From: Scott Bryce on 11 May 2010 16:39
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <hsaduc$1b3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Scott Bryce
> <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you want a complicated format system that is pretty universal
>>> from one computer to the next, there's always PDF.
>> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed
>> rather than viewed on screen.
>
> Why?


The browser hands control to a PDF reader, which breaks the normal
navigation scheme for the web. It is a usability issue. Not a huge one,
since PDF is ubiquitous, but a usability issue none the less.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: iPod touch and large .flv files
Next: What in the world just happened?