 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <2ubb9uc70mfovpmpgdo5s29p84esaromg9@4ax.com>, abx### [at] babilon org
says...
> Yes. At begining sigs appear properly from "new of Warp" they seems broken.
> Also all sigs are separated with empty line in original file.
I can't reproduce this. Maybe it is a bug in your browser (wich one)?
> Note that pair digit-token ("0translate" for example) isn't highlited
> properly. It also isn't highlited in POV-gui but perhaps you can force this
> :-)
I didn't even know the parser accepts such things...
Lutz-Peer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:52:50 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > Yes. At begining sigs appear properly from "new of Warp" they seems broken.
> > Also all sigs are separated with empty line in original file.
>
> I can't reproduce this. Maybe it is a bug in your browser (wich one)?
I'm using IE5. Take a look at urls:
result of your script: http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_ie5.png
the same source in POV-Win editor:
http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_pov.png
> > Note that pair digit-token ("0translate" for example) isn't highlited
> > properly. It also isn't highlited in POV-gui but perhaps you can force this
> > :-)
>
> I didn't even know the parser accepts such things...
It is unofficial feature for sig writers ;-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:Xns### [at] povrayorg ingo wrote:
> I tried to make a converter too this weekend, using python. It uses
> css, but it has no file i/o yet, also replacing >,< etc. by proper
> html esc- characters is not done yet.
>
It all works now:
http://members.home.nl/seedseven/povsdl2html.py
Fancy but probably useless things to add later, some more color-
dictionaries to choose from, optional line numbers, optional links from
identfiers and macros to the place where they where declared. A project
mode, feed it the top scene and it will do all associated include files
and generates appropriate links, maybe even for the standard includes. If
I feel like it, that is.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4psb9ustotrcdg8qj6v0bksk8ceufosdmi@4ax.com>, abx### [at] babilonorg
says...
> I'm using IE5.
> Take a look at urls:
> result of your script: http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_ie5.png
Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
> the same source in POV-Win editor:
> http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_pov.png
Thats how it should look like, and it does in Netscape and Opera.
I'll find a fix for this (however the HTML and CSS code I used is legal
according to validator.w3.org).
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.17005ab86702672c9896ed@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge
<lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
<br> tags don't belong inside a <pre> block. It is "pre" as in PREformatted.
So why would anyone add *formatting* tags while at the same time saying it is
preformatted? I would recommend to learn more about <pre> tags or use a
WYSIWYG editor :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c964e9a@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trfde says...
> <br> tags don't belong inside a <pre> block.
Maybe it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but it is legal syntax.
The reason I'm using a <pre> is because Netscape 4 had some problems when
I tried to replace the <pre> with a <div> or <p>, so I left it that way.
> It is "pre" as in PREformatted.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that additional formatting isn't
allowed.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.17007534bd17b8a59896ee@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge
<lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Maybe it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but it is legal syntax.
Indeed, the DTD allows it. Probably it is for backward compatibility also I
don't know many browsers that support(ed) it...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:42:18 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > I'm using IE5.
> > Take a look at urls:
> > result of your script: http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_ie5.png
>
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
I'm no good with english langauge details but I feel it can depend on
interpretation of specification. We can read at
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-BR
"The BR element forcibly breaks (ends) the current line of text."
But what it should do when there is a break by <BR> already ?
When you write <B><B>word</B></B> is this word more bold ?
I suggest to use different handling of line breaks.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lutz-Peter Hooge" <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:MPG.17005ab86702672c9896ed@news.povray.org...
>
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
>
IIRC (and ignoring the oddity of having html tags within a <pre> block), that is
the correct behaviour. Multiple <br> or <p> tags should collapse. You need to
put a between each <br> if you want them maintained.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <soud9ucn05tt3h9qbsuiup1im475juefct@4ax.com>, abx### [at] babilonorg
says...
> "The BR element forcibly breaks (ends) the current line of text."
> But what it should do when there is a break by <BR> already ?
But IMO breaking a line also creates a new (empty) line.
This is how it works everywere else, and the specification doesn't say
in HTML it should behave different.
Also, for the P element the specification explicitly says that empty
blocks should be ignored. It does NOT say this for BR.
Furthermore I don't see a reason why an empty line should not be allowed
(multiple <BR> tags are the only way to achive it)
And last: all browsers (at least those I have here) do interpret multiple
BR's as expected. IE does it too, except if inside a PRE block.
I've now removed that silly <pre>, the problem I had with NN4 without it
is gone, probably fixed by some other changes I did before.
So I hope it will now work correctly everywere.
> When you write <B><B>word</B></B> is this word more bold ?
Thats a completely different problem (the BR's were not nested).
The correct question would have been:
If you write <b></b><b/>word</b>, should the user agent render the first
B block (containing zero characters) bold, or just skip it? ;-)
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
