|
|
Posted by charles cashion on 12/26/07 05:02
I will refrain from repeating the whole message.
John Hosking wrote:
J> A what?
Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?
J> friend
Friends help friends, even when critical.
J> not really a font declaration
You are correct. I need to close each one with
a greater-than glyph ( > )...
<font face=Times >
<font face=Roman >
<font face="Times Roman" >
<font face="New Times Roman" >
<font face="Times New Roman" >
J> ...the putative object
J> of which you have failed to mention...
I have re-read my own message. I think my question
is clear. To put my question into another choice
of words, my question is, why do five different face
declarations produce identical glyphs?
J> If you despise Microsoft
Despise? Did my abbreviation offend you, John?
You mean that there are people that still despise
Microsoft? Perhaps I have been writing text messages
and using abbreviations and have lost sensitivity.
I think you should judge people (or organizations)
according to both their good deeds and their greed.
Either way, you *will* think what you want.
J> ...didn't mention what browser...
You are correct. I am using Firefox 2.0.0.11
J> ...results you were hoping to get...
Perhaps my question was a bit too terse
for some people. I want to know why five different
face declarations produce identical lines of text.
J> ...URL to validated code...
I do not usually upload small test segments. But if
it makes any difference, my NON-program is uploaded
And to make it easy for some people, I will use an
easy-to-discern name for the non-program...
http://dunjas.com/JohnHosking.html
I must remember to remove it after some helpful
person answers my question.
J> *expensive* keeping a bear in a tall building
Ah yes... Criticism disguised as humor.
J> The service is obnoxious
True, but not constructive.
J>I've been hosed before
If you say so.
J> What would that have to do with it?
Mea Culpa. My filter originally contained a
typographical error. It was not *exact*.
J> Of course, none of this actually makes the spammer
J> "go away," but I don't see the spam, and that's
J> good enough for me.
That was actually helpful. Because you insisted that
Firefox filters work, I kept working on my (one)
filter until it was correct and functional.
Thank you John for calling attention to my ignorance.
You have done a much better job than me.
Charles
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|