Simple (I hope) HTML/CSS question
I want to use an image as a background, OK, fairly easy I think, I put the following into my CSS style file:- body { background: white url(sky.jpg) no-repeat; } I only want the image once at the top of the page, hence the "no-repeat". However, big problem, is there any way to tell my browser to fit the image to the width of the browser page rather than the other way around? It's easy enough if I'm displaying an image using the HTML IMG operator as I can set the "width=100%" and the image is scaled to fit across the browser's window but I can't see any easy way to do this when the image is set as a background. I can sort of understand that this might not be possible but it would be really nice if it was possible by some means as I want to use the image as a backdrop for all my page headings. If I can't do it using CSS "background" how can I get two images (or an image and a heading) to be put one on top of the other? -- Chris Green
Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
However, big problem, is there any way to tell my browser to fit the image to the width of the browser page rather than the other way around?
No. In-browser scaling is usually fugly and best avoided if possible. The trick I usually use is to have a repeat-x image on the background and position another image with whatever distinctive feature on the title block element (usually h1) in front of it. To do that, you need to set the top margin, padding and border all to 0 on html, body and the title block, or use absolute positioning with top:0 on the title block. This is pretty off-topic here, but hope that helps, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 11:31:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
This is pretty off-topic here, but hope that helps,
Not that off topic, though... On a different topic, what would it take for you to just reply to the list? It appears that you don't honour the posters wishes (M-F-T was set to the list...), and although we don't have a currently list policy, I would assume the same list policy as the debian mailing lists - i.e. don't cc the sender, just post to the list *unless* they have explicetly asked to be copied. Ho hum, -- Brett Parker
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
On a different topic, what would it take for you to just reply to the list? It appears that you don't honour the posters wishes (M-F-T was set to the list...), and although we don't have a currently list policy, I would assume the same list policy as the debian mailing lists - i.e. don't cc the sender, just post to the list *unless* they have explicetly asked to be copied.
I changed my preset for all user group lists a while ago because of problems (at mailman.lug.org.uk and lugog.org.uk among others) which were delaying messages. Often user group mailing list messages are cries for help and sometimes it's important that messages get to the recipient fast (directly), as well as fairly reliably (by the list). I can change it back for ALUG if people want, but I didn't think there were strong opinions about this here. Are there? M-F-T is a buggy non-standard header (see IETF DRUMS WG discussions of it) and mail clients should ignore it. If someone has strong views on where replies should go, put it in your sig, not hidden in DJB's pet header. On a different topic, what would it take to stop Brett Parker drive-by flaming me on ALUG main? At least this one wasn't a total fabrication. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 02:20:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I changed my preset for all user group lists a while ago because of problems (at mailman.lug.org.uk and lugog.org.uk among others) which were delaying messages. Often user group mailing list messages are cries for help and sometimes it's important that messages get to the recipient fast (directly), as well as fairly reliably (by the list).
Very unlikely for this list to suffer such delays as it's run by a competant person (*waves at Noodles*), on a reasonable box... For really slow lists, see Brighton LUG... quite often 10 mins before a mail gets through that.
I can change it back for ALUG if people want, but I didn't think there were strong opinions about this here. Are there?
M-F-T is a buggy non-standard header (see IETF DRUMS WG discussions of it) and mail clients should ignore it. If someone has strong views on where replies should go, put it in your sig, not hidden in DJB's pet header.
Just because it's a buggy non-standard header (which I'm fairly sure I covered all ready), doesn't make it impossible for you to honour it... surely you can configure your mail client to show you this header if it exists... And you appear to be suggesting that people read sigs more often than headers... I don't know about other members of the list, but I tend to skip anything after the magical "-- " line, as it's probably not relevant.
On a different topic, what would it take to stop Brett Parker drive-by flaming me on ALUG main? At least this one wasn't a total fabrication.
Not a lot, Mr Mark Ray. -- Brett Parker
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 02:38:05PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 02:20:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I changed my preset for all user group lists a while ago because of problems (at mailman.lug.org.uk and lugog.org.uk among others) which were delaying messages. Often user group mailing list messages are cries for help and sometimes it's important that messages get to the recipient fast (directly), as well as fairly reliably (by the list).
Very unlikely for this list to suffer such delays as it's run by a competant person (*waves at Noodles*), on a reasonable box... For really slow lists, see Brighton LUG... quite often 10 mins before a mail gets through that.
That's not correct. The ALUG lists have greylisting enabled on them, so there is a potential delay before a new poster to the list will get a message through. I can't say I really think that anyone with an urgent time critical enquiry should be expecting their local LUG list to answer it. If 10 minutes delay matters that much it simply doesn't seem the right place to ask. J. -- "Coming off Usenet is worse than coming off heroin." -- Peter Corlett
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote: [...]
slow lists, see Brighton LUG... quite often 10 mins before a mail gets through that.
I was meaning in the order of hours, sometimes days.
M-F-T is a buggy non-standard header (see IETF DRUMS WG discussions of it) and mail clients should ignore it. [...]
Just because it's a buggy non-standard header (which I'm fairly sure I covered all ready), doesn't make it impossible for you to honour it... [...]
Oh, it was covered already? That a relevant Internet Engineering Task Force Working Group saw unresolvable flaws in it, but clearly they're lamers and everyone should follow Brett Parker instead?
On a different topic, what would it take to stop Brett Parker drive-by flaming me on ALUG main? At least this one wasn't a total fabrication.
Not a lot, Mr Mark Ray.
Nuking Brighton? Regards, -- MJR/slef
On 08-Sep-07 13:20:12, MJ Ray wrote:
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
On a different topic, what would it take for you to just reply to the list? It appears that you don't honour the posters wishes (M-F-T was set to the list...), and although we don't have a currently list policy, I would assume the same list policy as the debian mailing lists - i.e. don't cc the sender, just post to the list *unless* they have explicetly asked to be copied.
I changed my preset for all user group lists a while ago because of problems (at mailman.lug.org.uk and lugog.org.uk among others) which were delaying messages. Often user group mailing list messages are cries for help and sometimes it's important that messages get to the recipient fast (directly), as well as fairly reliably (by the list).
I can change it back for ALUG if people want, but I didn't think there were strong opinions about this here. Are there?
M-F-T is a buggy non-standard header (see IETF DRUMS WG discussions of it) and mail clients should ignore it. If someone has strong views on where replies should go, put it in your sig, not hidden in DJB's pet header.
In my opinion, one should not depend on one's mailer's settings nor on message headers for replying. I adopt a flexible policy: Reply to list, and not to OP nor Cc: addresses, UNLESS Sender has reqested a private reply/copy OR It strikes me that it sould be useful for the sender (or others) to receive a private copy directly (before the list gets round to distributing it) -- e.g. it looks like they need the answer NOW! (or Cc: addresses may be colleagues of the OP who may not be on the list, for instance, and one judges it would be useful for them too). Normally (e.g. to ALUG), if I click on "Reply" I get a question: Include all recipients? If I click on "No" it goes only to the OP. If I click on "Yes" I get the OP's address (as "To:"), the list address as "Cc:", and any other Cc: addresses. I can then choose which to delete, and if replying to the list I will change its "Cc:" to "To:". For some lists (e.g. a Google Groups list I'm on), the initial response to clicking "Reply" is the question: Reply to sender (blah@blah.blah = list address)? If I click "Yes" at that, then it simply goes to the list. If I click on "No" I get the choice of who to reply to (list vs OP vs any others). So, in any case, I simply need to decide what is the most appropriate modality for reply. That's a matter for my judgement. And, if there happens to be a strict list policy (which I know about ... ), then I can choose to adhere to that. So, therefore, absolutely no problem! The issues being discussed in this thread do not arise (unless I make a wrong judgement). Best wishes to all, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 08-Sep-07 Time: 15:09:37 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 11:31:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
However, big problem, is there any way to tell my browser to fit the image to the width of the browser page rather than the other way around?
No. In-browser scaling is usually fugly and best avoided if possible.
The trick I usually use is to have a repeat-x image on the background and position another image with whatever distinctive feature on the title block element (usually h1) in front of it. To do that, you need to set the top margin, padding and border all to 0 on html, body and the title block, or use absolute positioning with top:0 on the title block.
OK, thanks, I'll have a play.
This is pretty off-topic here, but hope that helps,
Why is it off topic? OK, it's not specifically Linux but it's very computer'y. -- Chris Green
participants (5)
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Jonathan McDowell -
MJ Ray -
ted.harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk