Re: Fw: Netscape and <FRAMESET>

David Perrell (
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:15:46 -0800

Message-Id: <>
From: "David Perrell" <>
To: "Peter Flynn" <>, <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Netscape and <FRAMESET>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:15:46 -0800

Peter Flynn wrote:
> No, but you can say WIDTH="100%" on an image in a frame, and it will
> be resized to fit, won't it?

Yes, but all the careful pixel-level editing needed to make an
intricate logo or graphic look good on a coarse display is lost when a
UA does a bad job of remapping to a different grid.

I mailed a message 11/12 responding to "This is the best argument I've
ever seen for NEVER using pixels as the unit... ", but I never saw it
on the list. I agreed that font-relevant measurements such as points or
basefont ems would be nice. But pixels are the measure of a display and
there is no need to interpret a pixel measurement at all.
Pixel-dimensioned frames are sized perfectly in IE at any display
resolution or window size, and I'll be surprised if this isn't the case
with the Mac beta as well. 

"You can specify the size of the first frame as a fixed number of
pixels, and the size of the other frames become relative to the
available remaining space." -- Netscape

if (specify != get && possible == true) {
     product_quality = "dubious";