[LINK] Redirects, User counters and Advertising

[Rick Welykochy]

Eric Scheid wrote:

> On 26/2/07 4:05 PM, "Marghanita da Cruz" <marghanita at ramin.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I thought that was the idea of standards - weblogs seem to capture the
>>browser information anyway so, you will have to come up with a better
>>excuse for why websites don't work.
> 
> 
> so what is the standard and reasonable width for a web page?

There isn't one.

I've seen sites code their HTML for 800x600, which looks totally daft on a
large display. Great to see 50% of your window holding nothing more than the
background image/colour.

I really don't understand why it is so hard to code HTML so that it uses the
full width of the display window, no matter what the size. All one has to do is
use relative sizes in the HTML, like width="50%" or width="100%", etc. I don't
recall myself ever coding anything *but* relative sizes when laying out pages.

The most vile addition to HTML and the CSS specification was pixel measurements,
i.e. width="250px". How ridiculous. 250 pixels last year is equivalent to, say,
200 pixels today, due to a corollary of Moore's law (one that I just posit now)
which states that display resolution will double every 18 months. The pixel
measurement eschews any knowledge of how big one pixel is and can result in really
ugly looking renderings. Sigh.

cheers
rickw



-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
      -- Spike Milligan