- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 07:45:20 +0100
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: QA-dev Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
* olivier Thereaux wrote: >Rationale behind some of the choices: > >- block width: very long lines, permitted by our non-limited window >width, are really hard to focus on. Books seldom go past 15 words per >line, newspapers even less. Without going that far, I tried to limit >the width of the window so that it doesn't go past 20 words in a >reasonable font. Maybe you did not know, but the standard response to this is that you should configure your browser such that this is not a problem, e.g. by re-sizing your browser window or by using a user style sheet with e.g. width or max-width for the html/body elements. You should probably cite more convincing reasons why validator.w3.org should be different from pretty much the rest of w3.org. >The design is not fully decided yet and there are a few things to fix, >but once this is done, and barring strong disagreement, I wish to use >this as the default style for the markup, css validators and checklink >starting at their next respective releases. Once again, I don't think we should use our main development branch for experimental code, specifically not code that makes the site unusable in Internet Explorer 6 :-( You can use http://www.danvine.com/iecapture/ and similar services like http://www.browsercam.com/ to test. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 06:45:22 UTC