Tuesday, May 05, 2009

<ul>

I am experimenting with a new HTML-tag: begin-caret—ul—end-caret; indent.
I can’t actually do the tag in this body text, unless I do it with entities, not the actual caret character; e.g. <ul>.
Your browser would read it and indent everything after it.
By doing this tag, I apparently create a new text field below the tag, indented relative to the text above.
    Like so.
    </ul> ends the indent.
Like so. (The tag was before this, and is invisible.)
The old trial-and-error is at work; just like at the mighty Mezz.
Try this; see what happens.
If I don’t like the results; try something else.
The Messenger web-site was the guinea-pig, of sorts.
Don’t try anything that utterly mucked it up.
But, for example, there was an HTML-tag that created rules; separating lines across the field displayed.
I tried that, and <align=cntr> centered the rule.
I deduced this from trial-and-error.
“Whoa. Look at that!”
Whether these things (e.g. rules) were required was debatable; it was experimentation for the sake of fun.
I probably won’t be indenting stuff often, but it can be done.
I’ve noticed the indent tag seems to generate a two-line drop, and tried various workarounds to make it only one line.
I use <br> instead of the paragraph tag (<p>), because the paragraph tag generates a two-line drop instead of only one line with the break tag (<br>), which I prefer.
With the indent tag I have to change some of my break tags to paragraph tags to look consistent.
It’ll be interesting to see what Internet-Explorer does with my indent tags, since it has a habit of mucking up HTML display.
I had to fiddle my blog picture-inserts to look okay for Granny with Internet-Explorer. —I can’t use the picture-table HTML-tag. IE shoves a sliver of text next to it. FireFox doesn’t.

  • The “mighty Mezz” is the Canandaigua Daily-Messenger newspaper, from where I retired over three years ago. Best job I ever had. —During my final year there, I was doing the newspaper’s web-site.
  • All my siblings use Microsoft Internet-Explorer®, and loudly claim the Internet-browser FireFox is inferior.

    Labels:

  • 0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home