Boojum

Really? I thought BBEdit had recently developed a Windows version, but perhaps I mistook an intent for an actuality. If indeed BBEdit is still not available, I have read recommendations to edit HTML for Windows in Notepad. Of course, there are probably more specialized HTML editors available that would be more cognate to BBEdit.

No, Andy. You're just suffering from Cetacean Spongiform Encephalopathy. Otherwise known as Mad Dolphin Disease.

Signal. (Jikrantz. Green --> stoplight? Had your color vision checked lately?)

Hortense.

Nat, The resolution issue has been a bugbear of mine as well. My monitor (the one I'm using on this computer) has no settings higher than 832 x 624, at which I generally keep it. I try to design my pages to be accessible in all browsers and under all parameters, so I do check them with, among other things, all the resolutions available to me. That's not difficult with the lower settings (640 x 480 to 800 x 600), but for anything above my default, I actually have taken to putting a debugging copy of a "local" version of my Home subdomain template onto a Zip disk and opening it on my G3. Looks, however, as though my G3 needs a better video card along with a new modem: Its resolutions reach a maximum of the rather unlikely 1152 x 870. My point (and I do have one ... look; there it is ... right on top of my head) is that the answer to both your questions is a qualified yes. You should probably, if you want the greatest possible number of potential visitors to find your site accessible and usable, redesign it not only for 800 x 600 but also so that it can be viewed without undue inconvenience at both 640 x 480 and 1600 x 1200. In general, most web designers I've read have recommended designing one's pages with the lowest commonly used resolution in mind; originally this was 640 x 480, and pages were supposed to fit within 600 horizontal pixels; today, I think very few people use that setting, and I have essentially optimized my pages (for now—I intend to look into relative tables myself) for 800 x 600. My rationale for doing this is that although pages designed for low resolutions may possibly appear odd at higher ones, they will nonetheless appear and function more or less as intended. But just try viewing a page inflexibly designed for a 1600 x 1200 monitor on an 800 x 600 sometime! And you will find it advisable, as you surmised, to reset your resolution to a variety of settings (not just your default and 800 x 600) as you design and debug. You don't absolutely have to do this—and it is all too clear that plenty of web designers don't—but it is the only logical way to check your work. Brian

Fatima.

Bringing in the sheaves.

Michael Jackson. Er ... that is ... I mean ... uh ... tree.

Wind in the Willows. [Exits, with wife, to find some hay.]

Weekends are irrelevant. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

I've never used Dreamweaver, but from what I read, it tends to generate inefficient HTML. I think the only way to make these WYSIWYG programs work effectively is to be prepared to proofread their output minutely. If you get tired of this, and want to write your own clean code, you may want to try BBEdit. It should be possible to integrate the code you write yourself in that program with the Dreamweaver output for optimal results.

Thank you, Dick. The reason the flag doesn't center, I think, is just that I haven't inserted a <div align=center> tag ahead of the main table yet. (By the way, there is a closing body tag; it's under the footer section.) I appreciate your taking time to figure this issue out.

I'm having a problem with the background image on my site. It looks fine at lower resolutions (up to 832 x 624). It is also all right at higher resolutions--provided one does not expand one's browser window much past 832 pixels wide. In that latter case, however, it appears off center, and even seems to repeat on the right. Is there any way to overcome this that won't create problems at lower resolutions? Ideally, I'd like the image centered behind the page (which I'm recoding to center) and do not want it to repeat.

Whether to use absolute font-size declarations (10 px) or relative ones (x-small) is a vexed question. There are those who argue that absolute declarations, by depriving the visitor of control of his/her display, make your site less accessible and can drive away people whom the declarations do not suit. On the other hand, my feeling is: Why bother using a style sheet if you're not going to take real control of attributes? After all, that kind of fine-tuning seems to me to be the raison d'etre for CSS. I think you are right to have chosen the absolute option if you want real control over the look of your pages. Set it relative, and you have no idea how it will look to someone with exotic browser settings. That said, one caveat: I know next to nothing about CSS, so I could well be misguided.

Simon of Athens Better do what he says!

Ventricle.

Xie. (A Chinese name.)

That is precisely what makes it most remarkable: All the greatest works of art in nature seem born of such events. A distant star explodes, and such are the laws governing light and matter that today, hundreds of thousands of years after the event, we can look upon the result and be impressed by its beauty. So, I imagine, will our own galactic center's annihilation look to distant observers thousands of millennia hence. Perhaps the inherent paradox of destruction and renewal, of birth from death, of beauty distilled from unimaginable violence, more than dark matter and exotic particles, forms the defining framework upon which our universe is hung.

Quinella.

Dodge.

Mangled Movies has been withdrawn for lack of players.

Odessa.

Imposing. Magnificent. Overwhelming. By the way, the Helix Nebula is the basis for the background on my site, but I'd had no idea how immense it really is.

Actually, I think we're living in the Roper Galaxy. Roper, of course, is the brand of appliances named after Mr. Roper, the landlord from "Three's Company" who always came up to fix things and made them worse.

Born in the USA.