Sunday, December 11, 2005
20 minutes of scare
I was flipping through the channels when I came across this documentary on Canal D. It talks about this epidemy that went on all around the world in 2002 that killed more than 6 million people.

I thought to myself: have I been living under a rock?

there were interviews with officials from the centre of disease control and family of the victims, and there were footages of the victims (and they looked horrible, red blisters all over their bodies). and they did a report on how the army in the States were deployed to maintain order and distribute vaccines, and how some 30,000 people died in new york city. then they explained it all started with a terrorist who used smallpox as a bioweapon, and they showed footages of security camera that caught him in action.

when it was over I looked up the event on google, and that's when I found out it was a fictional drama called Smallpox 2002 by BBC ("Variole 2002" in french). apparently, it stirred up quite a buzz when it was out, so I guess I HAD been living under a rock when I was still studying in university. anyway, am I glad it didn't really happen.... yet.

I built a quick webpage using HTML and CSS. it looked great in IE on first try, but took me 3 hours to get it to look half decent in firefox. I hate firefox.

revised: Firefox was only trying to be compliant with W3 standards. I don't hate FF anymore. I hate W3.
Comments:
Yeah, I checked it out on the weekend and didn't want to be the first guy to tell you that it looked bad in Firefox hahaha. I'm glad you fixed it though :)
Wake up!!! The W3 standards are the ONLY thing that should be used, and when it comes to W3 standards IE sucks. So forget IE... go with anything else, it doesn't even have to be Firefox, but for the LOVE OF GOD, FORGET IE!!!
take width and padding for example: if a DIV has a width of 100px and padding of 5px all around, you would expect a nested DIV's width to be 90px when you set its width to 100%. AGNNNN!!! wrong! Firefox sets the nested DIV's width to 100px and pushes its parent's width to 110px. I had to hardcode the width of the child DIV 90px, and you know what? every time I wish to change the parent DIV's width or padding I have to change the width of the child as well. does that make any sense to you? if I was mistaken, then please enlighten me.

Check out this example with both browsers and you'll know what I was talking about. The black image is 100px wide:
http://borntorule.com/csstest
I later found out it wasn't that the child box is pushing on the width of the parent's, it was W3's definition of width and padding that is fucked up

According to: http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=E0989953B6F20B41
It says W3 standards dictates that the the padding goes OUTSIDE of the defined width. WTF?!
That's right: IE always had it wrong (actually be careful: the next version of IE will have it right, meaning the same as Firefox).
I still don't think it makes sense to put "padding" outside of width.
Post a Comment

<< Home
Edmond O Wong
just day-to-day stuff
Counting...

my blogs:
code-head.blogspot.com
objectivity-zero.blogspot.com
dot-e.blogspot.com
my picture blog

friends:
heavenshock
nightbaron
roy
desmond

ARCHIVES
2005.07 / 2005.08 / 2005.09 / 2005.10 / 2005.11 / 2005.12 / 2006.01 / 2006.02 / 2006.03 / 2006.04 / 2006.05 / 2006.06 / 2006.07 / 2006.08 / 2006.09 / 2006.10 / 2007.02 / 2007.03 / 2007.05 / 2007.06 / 2007.07 / 2007.10 / 2007.11 / 2007.12 / 2008.01 / 2008.12 /


Powered by Blogger