[thesite] Those pesky TEXTAREAs

[aardvark]

> From: Simon Coggins <ppxsjc1 at nottingham.ac.uk>
[...]
> I didn't realise it would be as few as that. That's why I suggested
> using pixels for the fonts, but even so I agree it's not ideal.

i hate beating up on rudy, but do you think he'd dig that with his
fonts otherwise set to absurd?

[...]
> That was my first thought too, but I see a couple of pretty
> fundamental problems with using CSS:
>
> - The layout will still break in pre-CSS browsers

agreed... which is part of the reason i had suggested waiting to v3,
since i've heard rumblings that v3 might eschew tables and go full
CSS... but no decision has been made that i know of (i hope to be
the one coding it either way, and i'm pretty impartial)...

> - I can't see any way round having either (a) horizontal scrolling or
>   (b) forced-wrapping. (a) leads to the same problems as the
>   textareas, while (b) causing the cutting and pasting problems.

(b) is a bigger issue, IMO...

(a) allows the scrolling container to at least have the right height
(as opposed to the arbitrary number of rows we have on the
textarea), and still use a more semantically correct tag... IMO, that
cuts one problem out, making it a better idealized solution than the
textareas...

> Those long lines have got to go somewhere...

straight to hell...

> Still, I'll keep plugging away. Sorry if I'm retreading old ground - I
> must have missed the original discussion.

please do... you may find something i didn't, which is entirely
possible...