[thelist] Re: WARNING: Very odd browser behavior -- anybody else seeing this?

Marc Seyon seyon at delime.com
Mon Jun 17 13:46:01 CDT 2002


Message from Techwatcher (6/17/2002 11:51 AM)

>One important design criteria is that different pages should share a
>similar look across the site. Naturally, most clients wanted the site
>to display a recognizable name, as a sort of online logo.

Sounds like a template. Using includes would have made your life a lot simpler.

>  So most of us
>who began coding Web sites in the mid-90's used banner.gif

Actually I was always more partial to masthead.gif (or .jpg) myself.

>  Examples and tutorials supported this very common practice.

There comes a point where you can follow examples and tutorials too
closely. I'm sure they were not meant to teach you precisely what names you
should give your files. The analogy would be, if your tutorial is teaching
about password protecting and it suggests "user:pass" as the login, surely
you wouldn't use that for every account you set up.

>You might want to use something like *BK Replace'Em* to alter the name of
>the banner.gif graphic *within* all those files (but this utility works
>offline).
>The only replacement programs I know of that could do this for you
>automatically *online* are very expensive. (I used to have a demo CD of
>one, but I can't find it now.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you just open the files up in
your editor of choice (assuming that's not notepad) and do a SnR on all
open files?

Again, this is the reason people use includes - so common elements in pages
can be easily modified once, and the changes propogated across all files.

>Norton's decision to make all files named banner.gif invisible is a
>disaster...

I've got a question at the end of all this, since I don't use the Norton
product in question. Is the ad-blocking option on by default or does the
user have to specifically turn it on? And is it configureable at all?

regards.
-marc



More information about the thelist mailing list