HTML code help
-
Why not just try using the <hr> tag. It create a nice horizontal line and works on all browsers. It's very old school HTML. Been around a long time.
It works like like <br> there is no closing tag. http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_hr.asp
-
@Chamele0n said:
Why not just try using the <hr> tag. It create a nice horizontal line and works on all browsers. It's very old school HTML. Been around a long time.
It works like like <br> there is no closing tag. http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_hr.asp
aw, but it doesn't work any more on IE 10 or 11. I can't say if it works like the old way in FF or Chrome, etc.
<hr> had it's definition changed in HTML 5. While it will draw a line (sorta) it looks different than a plain o' black line. And for legal documents that's unacceptable.
The above CSS code with the background option changed to none has solved my issue.
-
HTML is not a format for legal documents
Also, you choose the standard. It's only HTML 5 on those new browsers if you make it that. Use XHTML 1.1 if you want.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
HTML is not a format for legal documents
Also, you choose the standard. It's only HTML 5 on those new browsers if you make it that. Use XHTML 1.1 if you want.
It's all outside my control.
The legal document side is the paper document created by the HTML - (maybe the vendor supports XHTML - who knows).
-
@scottalanmiller LOL, I was only correct about Safari. Reading what you said about FF an Chrome made me smh! Since there are times I have had to write CSS differently for FF and Chrome! Thanks for pointing out my misinformation!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble....Chrome is just Chrome...
Chrome is using Blink since last year:
-
Ah ha, thanks. I've been a little out of touch as to web browsers the last few years. So Blink is Google's in house developed rendering engine.
MangoLassi runs on Google V8. That's what powers the entire site.
-
@RoguePacket said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble....Chrome is just Chrome...
Chrome is using Blink since last year:
Thanks for the links: It seems my retention for odd information but not remembering when it was relevant.
From the techcrunch article: "In an unusual move – and after a lot of back and forth between the KHTML team and Apple – Apple announced in 2005 that it would open source WebKit, and Google then adapted it for its Chrome browser. Interestingly, Google actually used a forked version of WebKit in the early days of Chromium but later reconciled its fork with the rest of the project."
-
The info is odd. Helps better define "browser issues". In this case it is more clearly seen as architectural decisions made earlier in the software development process.
Meanwhile, "Why can they all just get along?"
=:-o -
@RoguePacket said:
The info is odd. Helps better define "browser issues". In this case it is more clearly seen as architectural decisions made earlier in the software development process.
Meanwhile, "Why can they all just get along?"
=:-oCuz everyone wants to show off their new shiny toys and ideas first. HOWEVER I will say that IE is the worst offender. It's like they have never seen the W3C information.
-
Wonder if that was more a Ballmer thing (the guy of the "I will f@cking destroy those guys" fame)
Considering Netscape wasn't good enough so they made IE
Java wasn't good enough, so j#
C/C++ wasn't good enough, so C#
Flash wasn't good enough, so Silverlight -
@technobabble said:
Cuz everyone wants to show off their new shiny toys and ideas first. HOWEVER I will say that IE is the worst offender. It's like they have never seen the W3C information.
Well they actively didn't want to follow the W3C, at least not originally, because it didn't fit their vision. That is changing now as their vision failed, but that was the original intent.
-
@RoguePacket said:
Wonder if that was more a Ballmer thing (the guy of the "I will f@cking destroy those guys" fame)
Considering Netscape wasn't good enough so they made IE
Java wasn't good enough, so j#
C/C++ wasn't good enough, so C#
Flash wasn't good enough, so SilverlightNot that they weren't good enough, they just weren't proprietary. It was all an attempt to move people to Microsoft platforms.
-
Can't forget... they didn't want to use JavaScipt so they made JScript.
-
Too true and although there are many MS things along the way I have liked, most of what you mentioned was wasted time on programming much like Office Accounting. MS giveth and MS taketh away. Look for my upcoming RANTs on MS OneNote and Outlook 365.
-
J++ was the original replacement to Java. It was just a really crappy version of Java. I had a Visual J++ kit once up on a time.
J++ was replaced by J# in 2004 which kept the Java syntax but switched from Java VM underneath to the .NET system. Making it "easy" for Java people to move over to the .NET world.
But that too was discontinued in 2006 as C# itself was always a Java replacement, not targeted at C/C++ but at Java. Java is a C derivative in syntax as is C#, so in a way it's all C, sort of, but conceptually Java and .NET are pretty far removed. C# goes after Java though, not C. Microsoft maintains Visual C++ as their C/C++ replacement.
-
-
LOL...I should have said the Office 365 Outlook browser web app.
-
@technobabble said:
LOL...I should have said the Office 365 Outlook browser web app.
Oh, that's just normal OWA.
-
But it opens different than straight OWA.
