Rich wrote:

> rmu### [at] t-onlinede (Ralf Muschall) wrote in <388E4B7E.2DAE21BC@t-
> online.de>:
>
> >Nathan Kopp schrieb:
> >
> >> I guess I worded that poorly.  I was hoping for answers like:
> >>   "I use unix, and I'd like _____."
> >> or
> >>   "I use Windows, and I'd like ______."
>
>         I use Windows, Amiga, Lynix and Mac.  HTML would be my choice above
> all others!  <smile>  I really don't see how HTML is a bad choice for
> printing.  All it takes is a bit of pre-planning; put each page in a fixed
> width table, so the format when printed will look exactly like the format
> on screen, and make sure each page will fit on a printed page.

No
nononononooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

arggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp.


Sorry. It's just that fixed width tables in HTML should be avoided at all
costs. You probably don't know how many pixels to set it to match my fonts to
make things work. Also, MSIE does horrible things to font sizes, but Netscape
does not. Also, even MSIE is maybe 10% off on font sizes between Mac and
Windows...

Also, I think HTML is a good choice, but that the crud that MS Word puts out
and calls HTML is not.

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message