|
|
Posted by TaliesinSoft on 02/17/07 00:30
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:04:08 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article
<doraymeRidThis-26D5D5.11040817022007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>):
> In article <0001HW.C1FB86DE003D9B46B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I actually considered having the width be flexible, as in your "Better
>> Way" example, but rejected it. Why I can't exactly remember at the
>> moment, but when the brain cells bounce properly I'll post the reason.
>
> Let me jog your memory. It was because I told you to do it ages ago and no
> one ever does a single thing I say. It is written in between the atoms, it
> will be in the next version of Quantum Theory.
Methinks the brain cells have bounced a bit and I think that the reason I
rejected the fluid arrangement of miniatures on the opening page was the
inability to return from an excursion to the enlargements with the relevant
miniature being at the top of the page.
--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|