Posted by dorayme on 10/02/07 23:46

In article <2ksMi.5637$6p6.5114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
William Gill <noreply@example.invalid> wrote:

> So if I treat the entire block (div) as an image, specifying text size,
> div height and width all in pixels, I should be able to have the same
> effect as a graphic without the overhead. Theoretically, it could work
> just like a graphic, with the same limitations.

If you have text in a box (not a picture of text), you won't get
much benefit *overhead wise*.

It is almost always best to use html text, and size the box
itself to grow with the text if it threatens to bust out of the
box. You can do this by eming the box if you are dealing with a
box that does not grow naturally to fit the text. You are an
engineer, use the well evolved built-in machines in html...

>
> Interestingly, there is a tangent to a thread in c.i.w.a.s (Re: Possible
> to Change List Bullet Color?) that talks about using non-pixel
> dimensions on images (i.e. em's), allowing the user font size controls
> to work on the images. This can produce some good and bad effect.
>

Sometimes one can do this with banners and headings to some
effect. But my experiments on this have always disappointed me
when I see the results in IE. If you prepare the images right
(and there are some rules to observe here), it can work
brilliantly in some browsers.


> I guess it's just the engineer in me that always wants to see "what
> if...?" At eight, I "designed" my first radio by "adapting" the
> instructions to the material I had available, and have been doing this
> far to many years to just quit now. :-)
>

Be very careful of this tendency, William, it is a double edged
sword. Here is an example of the tendency and its swordlike
effect:

<http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/execution.html>

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]