IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Internet Forum / OS X Firefox has scrollbars for HTML 4.0 DIV
Post #196,425
by SpiceWare
2/26/05 3:50:50 PM
2/26/05 3:52:06 PM
Reply
New OS X Firefox has scrollbars for HTML 4.0 DIV
However they are so small that they are difficult to use.

[image|http://spiceware.org/albums/Misc/DIV_HTML_4_0.png||||]
Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Collapse Edited by SpiceWare Feb. 26, 2005, 03:52:06 PM EST
OS X Firefox has scrollbars for HTML 4.0 DIV
However they are so small that they are difficult to use.

[image|http://spiceware.org/albums/Misc/DIV_HTML_4_0.png||||]
Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]
[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Collapse All History
     Question on Height attributes for DIV/SPAN tags - (ChrisR) - (12) - Feb. 26, 2005, 12:59:54 PM EST
         OS X Firefox has scrollbars for HTML 4.0 DIV - (SpiceWare) - Feb. 26, 2005, 03:52:06 PM EST
         Re: Question on Height attributes for DIV/SPAN tags - (admin) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2005, 08:52:51 PM EST
             That'll do the trick. Thanks. -NT - (ChrisR) - Feb. 26, 2005, 11:05:30 PM EST
         Height means nothing on a span tag - (JayMehaffey) - (6) - Feb. 28, 2005, 09:07:21 AM EST
             Makes sense for the most part - (ChrisR) - (5) - Feb. 28, 2005, 09:43:14 AM EST
                 Re: Makes sense for the most part - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - Feb. 28, 2005, 11:06:35 AM EST
                     Know it fixes problems related to well-formedness - (ChrisR) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2005, 11:35:12 AM EST
                         Seems to be the lack of unit identifier - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2005, 12:05:05 PM EST
                             That was what I was trying to grok. Thanks. -NT - (ChrisR) - Feb. 28, 2005, 12:07:48 PM EST
                 Have a rummage in here. - (static) - Feb. 28, 2005, 10:39:10 PM EST
         20 what? - (ubernostrum) - (1) - March 3, 2005, 04:53:40 PM EST
             Well, you'd think that have a default. - (ChrisR) - March 3, 2005, 04:55:15 PM EST

NaN
51 ms