I was wrong to say "You're welcome"?

--

Walt


"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g6a2se$d8f$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Wrong, but who's counting? 8)
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Adobe Community Expert
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> ==================
>
>
> "Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
> news:g6a2m1$d2g$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>> "mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:g6901t$5g9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>> "Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g68tq3$3f9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>>> margin: 0 auto;
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>
>

Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
news:g6a7je$i9d$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>I was wrong to say "You're welcome"?
>
> --
>
> Walt
>
>
> "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
> news:g6a2se$d8f$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Wrong, but who's counting? 8)
>>
>> --
>> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
>> Adobe Community Expert
>> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
>> ==================
>> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>> ==================
>>
>>
>> "Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
>> news:g6a2m1$d2g$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Walt
>>>
>>>
>>> "mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g6901t$5g9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>>> "Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:g68tq3$3f9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>>>> margin: 0 auto;
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

.oO(Murray *ACE*)

>Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.

???

Micha

margin:0 auto, with no width.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9n8h84panj56e4u4f2llmnsolef76a2vds@4ax.com...
> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>
>>Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.
>
> ???
>
> Micha

Agreed. Although I am prone to see it as incomplete rather than flat-out
wrong, perhaps a distinction without a difference, but a distinction
nonetheless. :-)

--

Walt


"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g6a8fu$j8o$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> margin:0 auto, with no width.
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Adobe Community Expert
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> ==================
>
>
> "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:9n8h84panj56e4u4f2llmnsolef76a2vds@4ax.com...
>> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>>
>>>Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Micha
>

So, only half a you're welcome, then? Perhaps just a "welcome" would do?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Walt F. Schaefer" <walt@waltswebworx.com> wrote in message
news:g6af0r$qb2$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Agreed. Although I am prone to see it as incomplete rather than flat-out
> wrong, perhaps a distinction without a difference, but a distinction
> nonetheless. :-)
>
> --
>
> Walt
>
>
> "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
> news:g6a8fu$j8o$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> margin:0 auto, with no width.
>>
>> --
>> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
>> Adobe Community Expert
>> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
>> ==================
>> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>> ==================
>>
>>
>> "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> news:9n8h84panj56e4u4f2llmnsolef76a2vds@4ax.com...
>>> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>>>
>>>>Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Micha
>>
>
>

.oO(Murray *ACE*)

>margin:0 auto, with no width.

Ah, OK.

<excuse mode="lame">
The use of 'width' was implied, because it was totally obvious.
</excuse>

Micha

Return very_lame.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news3hh84dnifidcu7jq22ibdg00slemckpmn@4ax.com...
> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>
>>margin:0 auto, with no width.
>
> Ah, OK.
>
> <excuse mode="lame">
> The use of 'width' was implied, because it was totally obvious.
> </excuse>
>
> Micha

"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news3hh84dnifidcu7jq22ibdg00slemckpmn@4ax.com...
> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>
>>margin:0 auto, with no width.
>
> Ah, OK.
>
> <excuse mode="lame">
> The use of 'width' was implied, because it was totally obvious.
> </excuse>
>
> Micha

I got that I needed a fixed width, don't worry. It worked well in both
browsers.

"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g6a2vm$dbc$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Naturally, because <div> can't hug content like tables can.
>
> This is not a detriment.

In what way is it a positive?

>> Why does no width have to mean 100% width?
>
> That's how all block tags work (<p>, <h#>, <div>, etc.).

Didn't say it wasn't. Merely asked why it was so. The logic behind it, if
you will.

Honestly, what is there to be gained by forcing 100% width on anything
without width specified, when human logic would call for it to adopt the
width of the content? Like tables do.

>> I can't think of any good reason why divs can't hug content the way
>> tables do, UNLESS they're specified to be 100% wide.
>
> You are tilting at windmills as a way of avoiding the truth of HTML.

I'm not avoiding anything; I'm asking questions you have no answers for.
There's a difference.

You clearly accept convention for what it is, and I respect that. But don't
go pitying the windmill tilters. For it is us who demanded CSS be invented
in the first place. ;-)

Others would have been happy 'accepting the truth of HTML'... and use
individual font tags forever.

To each their own. ;-)