|
|
Posted by Frogleg on 08/12/05 13:39
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:23:51 GMT, Chris Beall
<Chris_Beall@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Frogleg wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:44:50 +0200, "Dominik Jain" <djain@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frogleg <frogleg@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I devised the following:
>>>>
>>>><div style="width: 80%;">
>(snip HTML)
>>>There might be something wrong with the way your tables are formatted
>>>(perhaps you specified column widths that are in conflict with the 100%?).
>>
>>
>> It may be, but I can't find it. See
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~absolutelyfake/test.htm
AH HAH! I found it! I run at 800x600 rez (and dialup and read by
candelight), and the top 2 images total *more* than 80% of 800!! So
the 2nd table *was* the correct size, and the 1st had been stretched
to accomodate images.
Yes, I *do* check layout at higher resolution, but not until I've
worked things out in my 'usual' environment. Thanks for help. (Nvu may
be pretty handy for other things, too.)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|