Hi Ray,

>You said>>>
>Check out ExamDiff on the download page under "Text Processing Resources"
>section.<<<<<
>
>I downloaded it, and it is, indeed, well suited for comparing files.  I used
>it to compare two files in the NTPro\Dictionaries folder called "Original Copy
>of Default.udt" dated 8/26/2002 and "Default.udt" dated 1/30/2003.
>
>The older file is larger than the newer one.  For example, the "Original"
>contains 238 entries versus 184 for the newer one.  Some words in the
>"Original" not included in the newer one are>>>

"Default.udt" hasn't been updated since 8/26/2002. Normally, it is only
installed if you haven't already got the file in the NoteTab installation
directory.


Regards,
Eric G.V. Fookes
Author of NoteTab, Mailbag Assistant, and Album Express
http://www.fookes.com/ and http://www.notetab.com/







...

Hi Alec,

>Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch - Robert Heinlein -
><http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=TANSTAAFL>http:\
//www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=TANSTAAFL
>right Jody?

Well, in NoteTab's case, yes there is... but I'd think one would get hungry
enough for Pro or Std sooner or later. :)

>>> *TANSTAAFL* ;-(
>>
>> Sorry, but I need a translation!


Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
              http://www.notetab.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Huh!
You're kidding!
I had no idea that's how to avoid all those extra paragraph spaces!  It does
carriage return, though, doesn't it?  Hmmm...
As one new to CSS, too, I've followed this discussion avidly.
I thank the day someone here suggested I quit messing around and learn it.
It's change my web design life!

Now if I could just figure out all the table stuff.  That's still far too
confusing. ;)

Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: Jody [mailto:av1611@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 7:10 PM
To: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NH] blockquote


Hi Grant,

---snip---

I'm finding that I need to use <div class="..."> a lot over <p
class, for when I don't want the blank space between the elements
(?) like say for a line.gif or between a list of items that I
don't want to use <ol>/<ul>, etc. with or like a midi console.

---end snip---

Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

Hi Christine,

>You're kidding!
>I had no idea that's how to avoid all those extra paragraph
>spaces!  It does carriage return, though, doesn't it?  Hmmm...
>As one new to CSS, too, I've followed this discussion avidly. I
>thank the day someone here suggested I quit messing around and
>learn it. It's change my web design life!

I'm fairly new as well, been dabbling with it off and on for about
a year.

The <div...> is just one way to get rid of the blank
line/spacing, but Lotta showed us that we can use say <p
class="nospc">...</p> then in the style sheet have:

p.nospc
         {
         margin-top: 0px;
         margin-bottom: 0px;
         }

I find it does not always give me the desired result though so I
use a lot of <div class="">...</div>

>I'm finding that I need to use <div class="..."> a lot over <p
>class, for when I don't want the blank space between the elements
>(?) like say for a line.gif or between a list of items that I
>don't want to use <ol>/<ul>, etc. with or like a midi console.


Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
              http://www.notetab.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Or you can make it even simpler (especially handy if you have a lot of
paragraphs in the document) by using something like this in an external
stylesheet.

div.myclass p{
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px
}

And then in your html document, do something like this:

<div class="myclass">
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
</div>

John


--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, Jody <av1611@e...> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
>
> >You're kidding!
> >I had no idea that's how to avoid all those extra paragraph
> >spaces!  It does carriage return, though, doesn't it?  Hmmm...
> >As one new to CSS, too, I've followed this discussion avidly. I
> >thank the day someone here suggested I quit messing around and
> >learn it. It's change my web design life!
>
> I'm fairly new as well, been dabbling with it off and on for about
> a year.
>
> The <div...> is just one way to get rid of the blank
> line/spacing, but Lotta showed us that we can use say <p
> class="nospc">...</p> then in the style sheet have:
>
> p.nospc
>         {
>         margin-top: 0px;
>         margin-bottom: 0px;
>         }
>
> I find it does not always give me the desired result though so I
> use a lot of <div class="">...</div>
>
> >I'm finding that I need to use <div class="..."> a lot over <p
> >class, for when I don't want the blank space between the elements
> >(?) like say for a line.gif or between a list of items that I
> >don't want to use <ol>/<ul>, etc. with or like a midi console.
>
>
> Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
> Jody
>
>     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
>              http://www.notetab.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ahh, clever!  Thanks Jody/Lotta!
I just love this stuff!
If I could just make sense of the box/table module, I'd be in like Flynn --
or something like that. :)

Tell me, am I right or is it just me, that unlike plain html, if I where I
could do this:
<TR align="bottom"><TD> blah blah blah </TD><TD>blahblahblah</TD></TR>
and the align="bottom" would covers what occurs in the entire row,

CSS ignores the <TR> stuff and makes me put the align="bottom" into each
<TD> tag?

That's what I'm experiencing...

Christine

John, you lost me on this one, because I'm not familiar with the syntax of
declaring a .xxxx, with the div in front of it, then the p before the {

I'm only familiar with

.myclass {

And then using it in a div or a P.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: John Zeman <john041650@...> [mailto:john041650@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 5:57 PM
To: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NH] blockquote


Or you can make it even simpler (especially handy if you have a lot of
paragraphs in the document) by using something like this in an external
stylesheet.

div.myclass p{
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px
}

And then in your html document, do something like this:

<div class="myclass">
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
</div>

John


--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, Jody <av1611@e...> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
>
> >You're kidding!
> >I had no idea that's how to avoid all those extra paragraph
> >spaces!  It does carriage return, though, doesn't it?  Hmmm...
> >As one new to CSS, too, I've followed this discussion avidly. I
> >thank the day someone here suggested I quit messing around and
> >learn it. It's change my web design life!
>
> I'm fairly new as well, been dabbling with it off and on for about
> a year.
>
> The <div...> is just one way to get rid of the blank
> line/spacing, but Lotta showed us that we can use say <p
> class="nospc">...</p> then in the style sheet have:
>
> p.nospc
>         {
>         margin-top: 0px;
>         margin-bottom: 0px;
>         }
>
> I find it does not always give me the desired result though so I
> use a lot of <div class="">...</div>
>
> >I'm finding that I need to use <div class="..."> a lot over <p
> >class, for when I don't want the blank space between the elements
> >(?) like say for a line.gif or between a list of items that I
> >don't want to use <ol>/<ul>, etc. with or like a midi console.
>
>
> Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
> Jody
>
>     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
>              http://www.notetab.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

We could do it your way Christine.
Instead of this:

div.myclass p{
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px
}

I could have said this:

.myclass p{
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px
}

And it would do the same thing when I assign that "myclass" to a div.  The key
here is the P that follows
.myclass

What that P does is to assign 0 margin and 0 padding values ONLY to paragraphs
within that div.

What's simpler in your html, this?

<div class="myclass">
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
<p>A paragraph of text</p>
</div>

Or this?

<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>
<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>
<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>
<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>
<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>
<p class="myclass">A paragraph of text</p>

John



--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" <Christine@E...> wrote:
> John, you lost me on this one, because I'm not familiar with the syntax of
> declaring a .xxxx, with the div in front of it, then the p before the {
>
> I'm only familiar with
>
> .myclass {
>
> And then using it in a div or a P.
> What am I missing?
> Thanks,
> Christine

I've never tried using CSS on a TR element before Christine, but I
don't know why it wouldn't work.  On the other hand it may be one of
the many bugs regarding CSS that the browsers are still working
out..  If no one else comes up with an answer to your question I'll
do some experimenting tomorrow (might as well wait until I'm getting
paid to do that kind of stuff huh? LOL) with CSS and TR and see what
happens..

John


--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" <Christine@E...> wrote:
> Ahh, clever!  Thanks Jody/Lotta!
> I just love this stuff!
> If I could just make sense of the box/table module, I'd be in like
Flynn --
> or something like that. :)
>
> Tell me, am I right or is it just me, that unlike plain html, if I
where I
> could do this:
> <TR align="bottom"><TD> blah blah blah
</TD><TD>blahblahblah</TD></TR>
> and the align="bottom" would covers what occurs in the entire row,
>
> CSS ignores the <TR> stuff and makes me put the align="bottom" into
each
> <TD> tag?
>
> That's what I'm experiencing...
>
> Christine

Hi Christine,

> Tell me, am I right or is it just me, that unlike plain html, if I where I
> could do this:
> <TR align="bottom"><TD> blah blah blah </TD><TD>blahblahblah</TD></TR>
> and the align="bottom" would covers what occurs in the entire row,

Oh no you couldn't!  It would need to be "valign" :-)

> CSS ignores the <TR> stuff and makes me put the align="bottom" into each
> <TD> tag?
>
> That's what I'm experiencing...

Sorry, but I missed early parts of this thread, what browsers are you using
to view your code?

As John Zeman suggests, then you may be viewing your code in a diabolical
browser, such as old versions of Navigator.  It should work.

Also it might be best to paste in exactly the problem code, to avoid those
cunning little typos which may take our eye off the ball.

Greg

Using tr in CSS worked for me Christine.  TopStyle warned me that Netscape 4
doesn't support it which is no surprise, but otherwise it seemed to work fine. 
I just used the following in my stylesheet:

tr.bot{
vertical-align: bottom;
}

And in my html, called that with this in the row I wanted:
<tr class="bot">

Greg you're right, I had missed that!  Using incorrect align and valign settings
was one of my most common mistakes in writing html until I started using a
validator to find problems.

John



--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
>
> > Tell me, am I right or is it just me, that unlike plain html, if I where I
> > could do this:
> > <TR align="bottom"><TD> blah blah blah </TD><TD>blahblahblah</TD></TR>
> > and the align="bottom" would covers what occurs in the entire row,
>
> Oh no you couldn't!  It would need to be "valign" :-)
>
> > CSS ignores the <TR> stuff and makes me put the align="bottom" into each
> > <TD> tag?
> >
> > That's what I'm experiencing...

Actually, (don't smack me) the only "diabolical" browser I use is IE 5.5. I
don't care about Netscape, nor someone using older versions of anything.
The pages for whom my site(s) are created all use 5.5.  They're targeted
sites, so general public is superfluous.  A kind of attitude, I know, but
nonetheless, it is what it is.

I create my .css file with

.bot {vertical-align: bottom;} (for example)
then in the page I use <TR CLASS="Bottom">.

I see you noted tr.bot {etc.
Do I need, in my .css file, to indicate the tag before the class elements?
I thought I understood that if I just used ".bot" it would make it a kind of
generic modifier.

It never seems to pay attention to me, which I find annoying.  Come to think
of it, if I put <TABLE CLASS="Bottom"> it ignores me, too.  My pages are
bloated with repeated CLASS="Bottom"s in the <TD> tags.

I've changed all my "align" incarnations to "class" all over.  I'll play a
little more, though.  Thanks for giving it a try, guys!

Oh - Top Style tells me a class such as "class="Center" isn't in use.  It's
ALL OVER my site!  Go figure.

Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: John Zeman <john041650@...> [mailto:john041650@...]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:34 PM
To: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NH] blockquotes and more


Using tr in CSS worked for me Christine.  TopStyle warned me that Netscape 4
doesn't support it which is no surprise, but otherwise it seemed to work
fine.  I just used the following in my stylesheet:

tr.bot{
vertical-align: bottom;
}

And in my html, called that with this in the row I wanted:
<tr class="bot">

Greg you're right, I had missed that!  Using incorrect align and valign
settings was one of my most common mistakes in writing html until I started
using a validator to find problems.

John

Hi Christine,

As I said before, it's best if you quote your actual code rather than
re-type it within the body of a message.

> I create my .css file with
>
> .bot {vertical-align: bottom;} (for example)
> then in the page I use <TR CLASS="Bottom">.

If that's really what you do, then it won't work!

the class identifier is "bot".  You need to use

<TR class="bot">

for it to pick up your vertical-align

> I see you noted tr.bot {etc.
> Do I need, in my .css file, to indicate the tag before the class elements?
> I thought I understood that if I just used ".bot" it would make
> it a kind of generic modifier.

You're right!  "tr.bot" creates a bot class that's only valid for TR tags.
".bot" creates a class that will work for anything.  A tag specific class
will take precedence over a generic class.

> Oh - Top Style tells me a class such as "class="Center" isn't in
> use.  It's ALL OVER my site!  Go figure.

Check the case is the same "Center" is not "center"!

Please post genuine code!  It stops us having to guess what is wrong!

Greg

<LOL>
Actually, I did post actual code from my .css file.
I use .bot, but I retyped the =bottom from thoughts rather than cutting and
pasting out of an html document.  Since I don't use classes in the <TR>
tag -- because they don't WORK, there was nothing to cut and paste.

I use in reality, class="bot".

I do understand the mechanics, all typos aside.  It just doesn't seem to
pick up.

>>Check the case is the same "Center" is not "center"!<<

I had no idea Top Style was case sensitive, considering it ignores my case
inconsistencies (which I'm correcting) in other places!

Thanks, though, Greg.
C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Chapman [mailto:greg@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:22 AM
To: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NH] blockquotes and more


Hi Christine,

As I said before, it's best if you quote your actual code rather than
re-type it within the body of a message.

> I create my .css file with
>
> .bot {vertical-align: bottom;} (for example)
> then in the page I use <TR CLASS="Bottom">.

If that's really what you do, then it won't work!

the class identifier is "bot".  You need to use

<TR class="bot">

for it to pick up your vertical-align

> I see you noted tr.bot {etc.
> Do I need, in my .css file, to indicate the tag before the class elements?
> I thought I understood that if I just used ".bot" it would make
> it a kind of generic modifier.

You're right!  "tr.bot" creates a bot class that's only valid for TR tags.
".bot" creates a class that will work for anything.  A tag specific class
will take precedence over a generic class.

> Oh - Top Style tells me a class such as "class="Center" isn't in
> use.  It's ALL OVER my site!  Go figure.

Check the case is the same "Center" is not "center"!

Please post genuine code!  It stops us having to guess what is wrong!

Greg

Christine in addition to what Greg said, I'll add this about class names (from
the richinstyle web site).

Classes may not start with a number or hyphen, and should be in lowercase
(because although all browsers should distinguish between lower and upper case,
most do not). They may not contain spaces in their names. They may contain any
letter of the alphabet as well as numbers and hyphens (but not at the start of
the class).

John

> I create my .css file with
>
> .bot {vertical-align: bottom;} (for example)
> then in the page I use <TR CLASS="Bottom">.
>
> I see you noted tr.bot {etc.

Christine,

Do not forget that TR contains TD, which may not align at the bottom.

Hugo

Hi All,

I have not submitted any pages to search engines in years.  It
use to be there was always a "add a page" or "submit..." at the
bottom of the search engines and it was for free. Man what a
shock I had when I went to submit. I noticed that AltaVista
allowed five freebies and then said if they are accepted it would
take 4-6 weeks.  Are any of the others for free and what's your
advise on listing a few pages if that's all they allow for free.
The prices that I saw were way out of my league.  I don't see how
anybody could add personal websites at those outrageous prices. :(

Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
              http://www.notetab.net

Hi Jody,

> I have not submitted any pages to search engines in years.  It
> use to be there was always a "add a page" or "submit..." at the
> bottom of the search engines and it was for free. Man what a
> shock I had when I went to submit.

The best place I know for general advice on this is on the Search Engine
Watch site:
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/index.html
Yes, if you've got a highly commercially oriented site, you might need to
pay, even pay for "advanced" information at Search Engine Watch, but...

I have found that if you follow the guidance given there and are prepared to
just wait up to six weeks or so Google will come along and find you and then
you'll trickle through to everywhere else that matters.

Greg

Hi Greg,

>I have found that if you follow the guidance given there and are
>prepared to just wait up to six weeks or so Google will come
>along and find you and then you'll trickle through to everywhere
>else that matters.

Are you saying that the search engines do their own additions
with bots and eventually they add all the sites?  So, sort of
like Alta Vista was outrageous in their add 500 links and it is
done in two days vs add 5 manually for free and it takes 4-6
weeks?  Thanks for the link.  I'll definitely check it out.

Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
              http://www.notetab.net

>  I noticed that AltaVista allowed five freebies and then said if they are
> accepted it would
>take 4-6 weeks.

No, it says "Add or remove up to 5 URLs _at_ a_time_"

>  Are any of the others for free

All 'real' engines are free AFAIK.

Lotta

Hi all,

Could someone please explain for me the concept of  "submitting a page/site
to search engines"?

Is it a (paid) attempt to make an arbitrary site appear as a hit even when
it does not actually satisfy the search criteria?

Or is it a (paid) attempt to have a site be listed first, when it does at
least satisfy the search criteria?

How many sites can be listed first in a given display of search results? LOL

Bruce


______________________________________________________________________________
Wie waere das: mehrere E-Mail Adressen - aber nur ein Postfach ?
Kein Problem mit WEB.DE FreeMail - http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021127

I use SiteAdd.com.  They hit all the search engines and it's also free.
I've used them forever, and the addition is usually within 24 hours!

I also use Andale.com for counters, in case you're interested.  They were
initially set up for auction people, but if you delve deeply enough, you'll
find the area to create counters for other thing.  It's kind of cool.  You
can set them to be invisible to anyone but you, too, which I like.

Christine

Hi Bruce,

> Could someone please explain for me the concept of  "submitting a
> page/site to search engines"?

Once upon a time (It all seems a bit fairytale-like ancient history - say
five years ago) it was fairly simple.

There were "search engines", automated tools that crawled the web, analysed
the pages they found and classified them according to the content, so that
search engine users could ask for pages with content xxxx and you were
presented with a list.

Then there were also "web directories", which employed staff to visit sites,
assess them, classify them and put them in an index to be called up by users
of their service.

As users, each had its advantages.  Engines tended to find newer material
faster.  Directories tended to list you better organised and more reliable
sites.

In those days, as Jody says, most sites offered "Submit a site" pages.
These helped the engines seed their robots with new starting points from
where to crawl and directory staff, places to look.

As the web developed each type of service began to feed more off the other,
and for the casual user it became more difficult to distinguish engines from
directories.  Automated software became more sophisticated and reliable at
producing good results.

When the "dot com" bubble burst, things got more cut-throat and money
started changing hands between those who wanted their sites more visible and
engines/directories who were seen as the way of attracting new business.
Whether it is worth paying very much depends on your perspective.  Perhaps
it is if you're in a business whose sole revenue comes via the net.  For
most "real-world" businesses, I doubt it, but the web naive, may be suckered
into paying money, I guess!

> Is it a (paid) attempt to make an arbitrary site appear as a hit even when
> it does not actually satisfy the search criteria?
> Or is it a (paid) attempt to have a site be listed first, when it does at
> least satisfy the search criteria?

You need to read the terms and conditions of what you are paying for.  In
the end it won't be worth a Engine/Directory service disregarding search
terms, or it will get the reputation of giving duff results and then no one
will either use it or want to pay to be found via it.

Greg

How can I select a whole line, paragraph or area using the keyboard or short
cut? Or, is there a way to do it with a clip but use the keyboard not mouse?  I
don't know much about clip programming.

Thanks,
Sperry



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, loro <loro@h...> wrote:
>
>  > especially with the maturation of CSS and more
>  > sophisticated browsers, I wonder if there's really
>  > any useful difference between logical and physical
>  > after all.
>
> That's the point of CSS. To handle the "physical" and let (X)HTML be
the
> structural language it was meant to be and is suited for. Non CSS
devices
> get the structural markup and can display it accordingly = a whole lot
> better than they could the table and tag soup. The only losers are the
> intermediate browsers like Netscape4 that may have to be served a
dumbed
> down style sheet for it's own protection. They just get more plain
looking
> page. Worse things could happen to a dying browser.
>


Sorry, but I can't agree.

1. For those of us humans reading the raw code, <i> is briefer than
<em> and <b> is much briefer than <strong>.  Succinctness rules over
verbosity -- especially when functionality is no different (or
impaired in the case of older browsers trying to read code.)

2. All browsers that I have seen render <em> as italics and <strong>
as bold anyway -- by default.

3. Style sheets can be used to dictate the rendering of <i> just as
easily as <em> and of <b> just as easily as <strong>

4. If the question is one of XSL and transformations, <i> is as easy
to transform into (whatever) as <em> is, and the same for <b> and <strong>

I really don't get the deprecation of <i> and <b>.  It just looks like
holier-than-thou code snobbishness to me.

s

Hi goldenapuleius,

gGyc> 1. For those of us humans reading the raw code, <i> is briefer than
gGyc> <em> and <b> is much briefer than <strong>.  Succinctness rules over
gGyc> verbosity -- especially when functionality is no different (or
gGyc> impaired in the case of older browsers trying to read code.)

<i> loses it's meaning when you don't use it to italicize, <em> is
always unmistakeably emphasis.  If you had never seen an <i> tag and
were new to all of HTML, then <em> would make more sense to you.  This
isn't just a question of succinctness over verbosity, it's a matter of
context and definition.  You're essentially saying that I should call
the grass the sky because I'll save a couple of letters.  Won't my
four year old be thrilled that I've turned her world upside down to
please you.

gGyc> 2. All browsers that I have seen render <em> as italics and <strong>
gGyc> as bold anyway -- by default.

So?

gGyc> 3. Style sheets can be used to dictate the rendering of <i> just as
gGyc> easily as <em> and of <b> just as easily as <strong>

That's just fantastic, just what we need, confusion to make life
easier for you.  On most of my intranet pages I have <em> styled as
BOLD GREEN for display on the screen, and ITALIC for print.  In both
cases <em>phasis makes sense, but only in one case does <i>talics make
any sense.  I'd hate to see the poor bastards at my work who are just
learning HTML/CSS come after me and try and figure out why <i> tags
aren't doing italics.

gGyc> 4. If the question is one of XSL and transformations, <i> is as easy
gGyc> to transform into (whatever) as <em> is, and the same for <b> and <strong>

<i> and <b> both are still representative of a "styling" mentality
while <em> and <strong> are representative of a "structure" mentality.
Why bother with style sheets, XHTML, etc. at all if not to carry it
all the way?

gGyc> I really don't get the deprecation of <i> and <b>.  It just looks like
gGyc> holier-than-thou code snobbishness to me.

No, it just makes sense.


--
Regards,
  Jason Waugh

Hi Jason,

> <i> loses it's meaning when you don't use it to italicize, <em> is
> always unmistakeably emphasis.

> gGyc> 3. Style sheets can be used to dictate the rendering of <i> just as
> gGyc> easily as <em> and of <b> just as easily as <strong>
>
> That's just fantastic, just what we need, confusion to make life
> easier for you.

I'm with you all the way on this!  And you miss the very obvious point that
the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
absolutely no meaning.

Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect my users
to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure should be
separated.

Can anyone tell me whether aural browsers shout louder, speak deeper, or
just add and Italian accent, when reading an <I> tag?  Don't answer!  It'll
be defined in the stylesheet, won't it?

Greg

> How can I select a whole line, paragraph or area using the keyboard
or short cut? Or, is there a way to do it with a clip but use the
keyboard not mouse?  I don't know much about clip programming.
>
> Thanks,
> Sperry

Hi,

If your text is left aligned SHIFT+CTRL+I does a good job.

Selecting lines/parts of texts with the keyboard is always a
combination of SHIFT and/or CTRL and arrow/home/PageUp/PageDown.
Using the keys without SHIFT and CTRL just repositions your cursor to
different parts of the text. Try it out, it's easier than explaing
all the possibilities.

Clips can be run with CTRL+SPACE. Or try ESC.

F4 brings up the clipbook (or hides it)

SHIFT F4 switches focuses to (and from) the clipbook - then use the
arrowUp/Down keys (and Ctrl+SPACE)

F1 is for HELP ;-)

HTH,

Hugo

Hugo,

Thanks a lot. That helped me a lot :)

Sperry



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 2/13/2003 at 11:26 PM hugo_paulissen <h.paulissen@...>
wrote:

>> How can I select a whole line, paragraph or area using the keyboard
>or short cut? Or, is there a way to do it with a clip but use the
>keyboard not mouse?  I don't know much about clip programming.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sperry
>
>Hi,
>
>If your text is left aligned SHIFT+CTRL+I does a good job.
>
>Selecting lines/parts of texts with the keyboard is always a
>combination of SHIFT and/or CTRL and arrow/home/PageUp/PageDown.
>Using the keys without SHIFT and CTRL just repositions your cursor to
>different parts of the text. Try it out, it's easier than explaing
>all the possibilities.
>
>Clips can be run with CTRL+SPACE. Or try ESC.
>
>F4 brings up the clipbook (or hides it)
>
>SHIFT F4 switches focuses to (and from) the clipbook - then use the
>arrowUp/Down keys (and Ctrl+SPACE)
>
>F1 is for HELP ;-)
>
>HTH,
>
>Hugo

Hi Lotta and All,

>> I noticed that AltaVista allowed five freebies and then said if
>> they are accepted it would take 4-6 weeks.
>
>No, it says "Add or remove up to 5 URLs _at_ a_time_"
>
>>  Are any of the others for free
>
>All 'real' engines are free AFAIK.

Yes, that is what it said come to think of it.  I guess the gig
bucks part is if you want to do hundreds and get "Express
Service" so to speak.  Thanks.  I feel a bit better now.  So, not
it is a matter of finding each ones hidden place to Add or
Submit.  I did not see them easily like Google, Go.com
(InfoSeek), WebCrawler... I saw one that it appeared they wanted
you to register, but then did not mention if that was needed to
Add.

So... does anybody have a "cheat sheet" they use to Add or get to
the pages to Add to the most popular?

Just saw your post Christine (SiteAdd.com).  I've seen that in
the past, perhaps that is an easy way to get started.  Opinions
please?

> Andale.com...You can set them to be invisible to anyone but
> you, too, which I like.

Yes, I might look into the invisible ones.  I think my domains
will be having a stat thing soon though with all the bells and
whistles.

Happy HTML'n and Tab'n!
Jody

     mailto:ntb-html-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:ntb-html-UnSubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ntb-html
              http://www.notetab.net