Hosting Provided By

Re: bgcolor=white and old Changes file (fwd)

From: Brian Behlendorf <brian(at)hyperreal.com>
Date: Mon Jun 02 1997 - 03:16:54 EDT

Grr, looks like this causes problems for some people. We can 1) remove the color attributes or 2) use #000000. I prefer #2. Thoughts?

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian(at)hyperreal.com http://www.apache.org http://www.organic.com/jobs

Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 97 21:13:35 CDT From: John Van Essen <vanes002@maroon.tc.umn.edu> Reply-To: vanes002@umn.edu To: brian@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: bgcolor=white and old Changes file

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 1997, John Van Essen wrote:
>> Can you please go back to allowing the user's preferences to be used
>> (i.e. remove the color settings)? Or else use numbers, like
>> bgcolor="#ffffff" to get white.
>
>Is it causing an error in your browser?

Not an error, but Netscape 1.22 attempts to interpret "white" using hex, and it apparently uses #0000e0, which is a darkish blue, which happens to be close to the default link color. I can barely see the blue links against the blue background. It's tough to read black text against dark blue, also.

There are a couple of other pages with blue backgrounds, too (from the bgcolor=white) that I've encountered at apache.org, like /info/jdk-102.html for example.

I'd prefer a user-friendly omission of the <body> arguments. :) :)

Do you need help?

John Van Essen <vanes002@umn.edu> Received on Mon Jun 2 00:16:57 1997

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "tes"
Previous message: Rob Hartill: "WWW Form Bug Report: "documentation amiguity" on OTHER: (fwd)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 24 2006 - 14:44:46 EDT