Re: [Groff] html styles

[Clarke Echols]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> I'm experimenting, trying to use STYLE attributes to allow for the various mm
> macro indents.  They come in various units, but I note especially the "pt" which
> is defined as "points".  Does anyone know how the html points relate to the
> various groff measurements (especially the groff points)?

AFIK, they are "theoretically similar/equivalent.  However, I'm very
skeptical in terms of how the Microsquish people seem so unwilling to
"play nice with the other kids" in the sandbox.

I do website design and creation in pixels, using 16px as my primary
text size and leading in percentage (typically 120%, more or less in
heads and other places, based on the visual effect I'm looking for).

I use CSS containers (no tables for layout -- just when I want a
bona-fide table for data), also defined in pixels for width (and
height where applicable).

My huge complaint is that pages that look just splendid on Safari
and Firefox screw up on (apparently older versions of) Explorer.  If
I have a 980px-wide wrapper with a 320px left-hand-column container
and a 660px right-hand (no margin, no padding on either), some versions
of Explorer decide the two containers can't fit side-by-side in the 
wrapper.  IE8 seems OK in this regard, but it bombed on a friend's
retail-store computer which probably is running older IE.

And I'm not sold on Joomla.  One client's home page took 90 seconds
to load.  My hand-coded XHTML with more content and more pictures
loads in about 15 seconds (both speeds on 56K-baud modem connection).

I use vi, not Word, or some other WYSIWYG "solution".  It took over
an hour to edit a Word file for my wife -- a task I could have done
with vi in less than 10 minutes!  "Cumbersome" doesn't even come close
to describing WYSIWYG.

  <snip rest>

CE