Prev: How to auto-fill a form field WITHOUT extension and cookie - just by URL parameter?
Next: My css-layout success: comments?
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 31 Dec 2009 15:09
emekadavid wrote:

> Please the problem is stated below the code:<!--
> To change this template, choose Tools | Templates
> and open the template in the editor.
> -->

That's not a constructive way to ask for help with your problem. First, you
should state the problem at the start of your message body. Second, you
should not include mystic comments like the above. Third, you should upload
your document on a web server and post the URL. Fourth, you should post to
the right group only, in this case c.i.w.a.stylesheets only (followups now
trimmed).

I did part of your homework for you and uploaded your document at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/test/ie.html
for some unspecified time.

> The problem is: the complete poem does not show on print in Internet
> Explorer. Is this the renegade behavior for IE 6 and do I have to
> accept it
> like that?xnt

Testing on an IE 6 emulator in Print Preview, I see no such problem. Have
you tested this on different computers? Does the IE 6 you tested on work
otherwise OK in printing? Did you actually print or just use Print Preview?

If you remove CSS declarations one at a time, at which point does the
problem disappear?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Osmo Saarikumpu on 2 Jan 2010 09:49
Jukka K. Korpela kirjoitti:

> That's not a constructive way to ask for help with your problem. First,
> you should state the problem at the start of your message body. Second,
> you should not include mystic comments like the above. Third, you should
> upload your document on a web server and post the URL. Fourth, you
> should post to the right group only, in this case c.i.w.a.stylesheets
> only (followups now trimmed).

Fifth, one should remove everything from the code that does not
contribute to the problem. The OP would very probably found a solution
if he had done that.

>> The problem is: the complete poem does not show on print in Internet
>> Explorer. Is this the renegade behavior for IE 6 and do I have to
>> accept it
>> like that?xnt

> Testing on an IE 6 emulator in Print Preview, I see no such problem.

My IE 6.0.2900.5512 (XP, SP3) would print just one page, losing
everything that did not fit in it.

> If you remove CSS declarations one at a time, at which point does the
> problem disappear?

It disappeared when I combined the media independent CSS rules with the
media @screen ones. It seems that the media independent rules confused IE 6.

--
Best wishes,
Osmo

From: Harlan Messinger on 4 Jan 2010 12:10
Osmo Saarikumpu wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela kirjoitti:
>
>> That's not a constructive way to ask for help with your problem.
>> First, you should state the problem at the start of your message body.
>> Second, you should not include mystic comments like the above. Third,
>> you should upload your document on a web server and post the URL.
>> Fourth, you should post to the right group only, in this case
>> c.i.w.a.stylesheets only (followups now trimmed).
>
> Fifth, one should remove everything from the code that does not
> contribute to the problem. The OP would very probably found a solution
> if he had done that.

On the contrary: A very common problem is that someone writes for help
but divulges only a very small portion of his code based on his
preconceived notion of where the problem is. It happens fairly
frequently that the code he chose to reveal is not the source of the
problem.

From: Jukka K. Korpela on 4 Jan 2010 12:34
Harlan Messinger wrote:

>> Fifth, one should remove everything from the code that does not
>> contribute to the problem. The OP would very probably found a
>> solution if he had done that.
>
> On the contrary: A very common problem is that someone writes for help
> but divulges only a very small portion of his code based on his
> preconceived notion of where the problem is.

Which part of "that does not contribute to the problem" did you miss?

Clearly this was about isolating the problem, so that a problem description,
with a URL, can be posted in a minimal case, i.e. the smallest possible case
where the problem still occurs. Not about randomly leaving things out.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Harlan Messinger on 5 Jan 2010 13:59
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>>> Fifth, one should remove everything from the code that does not
>>> contribute to the problem. The OP would very probably found a
>>> solution if he had done that.
>>
>> On the contrary: A very common problem is that someone writes for help
>> but divulges only a very small portion of his code based on his
>> preconceived notion of where the problem is.
>
> Which part of "that does not contribute to the problem" did you miss?

No part of it, since I was addressing precisely the assumption that the
person writing the question is necessarily able to distinguish between
the parts of his code that aren't contributing to the problem and the
parts that are, a point which you make more vociferously than anyone
else here.

> Clearly this was about isolating the problem, so that a problem
> description, with a URL, can be posted in a minimal case, i.e. the
> smallest possible case where the problem still occurs. Not about
> randomly leaving things out.

This presupposes that the user understands where the problem is.
Otherwise this could be fruitless effort. I'm not saying he can't try
whittling stuff down first--like replacing 50 paragraphs of unremarkable
text content with "text here" and seeing if the problem still
occurs--but "one should remove *everything* from the code that does not
contribute to the problem" can be a sometimes impractical and
question-begging absolute.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: How to auto-fill a form field WITHOUT extension and cookie - just by URL parameter?
Next: My css-layout success: comments?