In article <8h681vsehuqtq66qtnk145c02vqcntqnuj@4ax.com>, abx### [at] abxartpl 
says...
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 11:18:14 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
> wrote:
> > > I have checked xhtml output in validators but noticed only report about missed
> >
> > Don't tell me that is all the testing you did???
> 
> As it already appeared in this thread several browsers were checked.
> 
> ABX
> 
Gah... And I thought M$ HTMLHelp's tendency to try to connect to the net 
in some odd cases and the insistence of some programs to try to display 
HTML help files in IE was a nightmare.. Just one question. Why the &$^$% 
does everyone insist on using something to display help that is such a 
resource hog. Yes HTML is more flexible, but to put it in terms I have 
used before, having to rely on IE (or most other browsers) to display 
help files is like using the Exxon Valdize, complete with drunken pilot, 
to deliver a loaf of bread. I don't wouldn't mind using it, but I get 
just a bit tweaked that it rarely works exactly right, wastes so much 
system resources, won't use the browser I tell it too in some cases and 
refuses to stay offline when all the needed files are actually on my 
local machine. Now we have this CSS nonsense, etc.

Sorry about the rant, but as limited as the 'old' help files where, I 
never had as many problems with them and this supposed solution leaves 
something to be desired imho.

Post a reply to this message