Posted by dorayme on 11/09/06 01:13

In article <0Tu4h.1125$GS2.859@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"BootNic" <BootNic@bounce.prodigy.net> wrote:

> > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > news: doraymeRidThis-CDF2E5.10530709112006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au
> > In article <Q5e4h.6964$9v5.3241@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "BootNic" <BootNic@bounce.prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > I put it up. It, of course, looks the same to me on Safari etc.
> > But does it now behave itself re zoom on IE7? Your example is the
> > second one at
> > <http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/bootNicsRevenge.html>
>
>
> http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/footer.html
>
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoom-100.png[/IMG]
> {IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoom-125.png[/IMG]
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoom-150.png[/IMG]
>
> http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/bootNicsRevenge.html
> Javascript disabled
>
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomB-100.png[/IMG]
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomB-125.png[/IMG]
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomB-150.png[/IMG]
>
> http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/bootNicsRevenge.html
> Javascript enabled
>
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomC-100.png[/IMG]
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomC-125.png[/IMG]
> [IMG]http://files.photojerk.com/BootNic/IEZoomC-150.png[/IMG]

IEZoom is first time I have seen what a mess it can make.

IEZoomB looks good. Better than IEZoomC. This is with JS off? Is
there a moral in this? To be rid of the js bits altogether in
your fix? Or have I misunderstood this or have you described off
and on above wrong?

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]