David Bartosik said:Actually I built that for them. Versions 2002 and 2003 code CSS2, which
provides for absolute positioning and for layering objects. So these
versions can save each object independently and then tell the browser how to
render them.
Now in version 2000 if you set the target browser setting to it's lowest
setting it codes in plain html, but if you set it to the highest setting it
brings in CSS. I don't recall if it also uses some CSS2 to any extent. So if
you are not using the high setting you could try it and see what you get.
Just be sure to save the files in a separate location from your existing
files.
David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com
DavidF said:One of the reasons I asked about this is because of a site that David
Bartosik used as an example of a design workaround for centering a page.
Apparently http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ was built with Pub 2002, and
I
am wondering how the site was built with images and additional text boxes
seemingly on top of the white text box frame, without converting
everything
within and on top of that white frame to a GIF. Do you have any idea? Was
this a change with Pub 2002 from 2000? David if you read this, can you
explain?
DavidF
years
of 2005
is in
a
DavidF said:Thanks. I do have one page where the design would be easier to do if I
could
layer an image, so I will try it. I do have everything set at the lowest
setting...
DavidF
David Bartosik said:Actually I built that for them. Versions 2002 and 2003 code CSS2, which
provides for absolute positioning and for layering objects. So these
versions can save each object independently and then tell the browser how to
render them.
Now in version 2000 if you set the target browser setting to it's lowest
setting it codes in plain html, but if you set it to the highest setting it
brings in CSS. I don't recall if it also uses some CSS2 to any extent. So if
you are not using the high setting you could try it and see what you get.
Just be sure to save the files in a separate location from your existing
files.
David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com
DavidF said:One of the reasons I asked about this is because of a site that David
Bartosik used as an example of a design workaround for centering a
page.
Apparently http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ was built with Pub 2002, and
I
am wondering how the site was built with images and additional text boxes
seemingly on top of the white text box frame, without converting
everything
within and on top of that white frame to a GIF. Do you have any idea? Was
this a change with Pub 2002 from 2000? David if you read this, can you
explain?
DavidF
There is a line on our website that reads
05
1930-2005
95
The 19 is 65 font
The 05 30- and 90 are 16 font
The 2005 is 65 font
and through the 2005 are the following three lines
Cento anni di buona fortuna!
Settantacinque anni di buona fortuna!
Dieci anni di buona fortuna!
The 05, 30 and 95 are anniversary dates. The three lines read, "100 years
of
good fortune.", "75 years of good fortune." and "10 years of good
fortune."
The 19 is one text box, the 05, 30- and 95 are another text box, the 2005
is
another text box and the three lines of good fortune are another text
box.
I
was having trouble getting the three lines of good fortune to place in
the
center (left/right) of the 2005.
Publisher 2000 creates a gif of the entire group.
You can see it at;
www.vanusa.org
ciao,
don
Hey Don, Can you put a text box upon a text box without it resulting in
a
GIF? Which article in particular are you referencing? Thanks.
DavidF
I thank the folks who offer the site, www.publishermvps.com.
'Saw how to place text boxes upon text boxes. It solved a display
problem
I
was experiencing on my site.
A valuable site that now resides in my Favorites.
David Bartosik said:if you try the high setting look at the source code of the 2000 page for the
following,
position:absolute
z-index
the latter indicates the layering of objects and the prior indicates an x/y
coordinate to render the object.
David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com
DavidF said:Thanks. I do have one page where the design would be easier to do if I
could
layer an image, so I will try it. I do have everything set at the lowest
setting...
DavidF
howActually I built that for them. Versions 2002 and 2003 code CSS2, which
provides for absolute positioning and for layering objects. So these
versions can save each object independently and then tell the browser
tosettingrender them.
Now in version 2000 if you set the target browser setting to it's lowest
setting it codes in plain html, but if you set it to the highest
itSobrings in CSS. I don't recall if it also uses some CSS2 to any extent.
ifresultingyou are not using the high setting you could try it and see what you get.
Just be sure to save the files in a separate location from your existing
files.
David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com
One of the reasons I asked about this is because of a site that David
Bartosik used as an example of a design workaround for centering a
page.
Apparently http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ was built with Pub 2002, and
I
am wondering how the site was built with images and additional text boxes
seemingly on top of the white text box frame, without converting
everything
within and on top of that white frame to a GIF. Do you have any idea? Was
this a change with Pub 2002 from 2000? David if you read this, can you
explain?
DavidF
There is a line on our website that reads
05
1930-2005
95
The 19 is 65 font
The 05 30- and 90 are 16 font
The 2005 is 65 font
and through the 2005 are the following three lines
Cento anni di buona fortuna!
Settantacinque anni di buona fortuna!
Dieci anni di buona fortuna!
The 05, 30 and 95 are anniversary dates. The three lines read, "100 years
of
good fortune.", "75 years of good fortune." and "10 years of good
fortune."
The 19 is one text box, the 05, 30- and 95 are another text box, the 2005
is
another text box and the three lines of good fortune are another text
box.
I
was having trouble getting the three lines of good fortune to place in
the
center (left/right) of the 2005.
Publisher 2000 creates a gif of the entire group.
You can see it at;
www.vanusa.org
ciao,
don
Hey Don, Can you put a text box upon a text box without it
ina
GIF? Which article in particular are you referencing? Thanks.
DavidF
I thank the folks who offer the site, www.publishermvps.com.
'Saw how to place text boxes upon text boxes. It solved a display
problem
I
was experiencing on my site.
A valuable site that now resides in my Favorites.
DavidF said:David,
Thanks, I think. Changing to the high setting does allow for layering an
image or a text frame on top of a text frame without converting it all to
a
GIF. And yes, position:absolute is in the source code, but not z-index. I
looked at the source code of http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ and saw
what
you meant by having both.
I say thanks, I think, because this seems to open up all kinds of
different
design options for me with Publisher 2000. I pretty much knew what I could
and could not do with the low setting, but will have to experiment a lot
to
see what I can do at the high setting.
I already realize that the high setting seems to create a lot more code.
Will the page also take longer to load?
While experimenting a little, I inserted some JavaScript I use, and it
seems
to work ok, but the code for 'Top of Page' does not on the first try,
whether it is layered or not...at least not in preview. This leads to a
general question. What do you suppose that I am going to have to give up,
if
I design in the high setting? What's the downside? I can remember in the
past you recommending to folks that they change to the lowest setting to
solve some problems, but I don't remember what those problems were.
No rush responding as I won't have time to experiment with this until the
weekend, but I do appreciate your advice. Its great to learn a new
capacity
for Pub 2000...I think. ;-)
David Bartosik said:inline...
DavidF said:David,
Thanks, I think. Changing to the high setting does allow for layering an
image or a text frame on top of a text frame without converting it all to
a
GIF. And yes, position:absolute is in the source code, but not z-index. I
looked at the source code of http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ and saw
what
you meant by having both.
I say thanks, I think, because this seems to open up all kinds of
different
design options for me with Publisher 2000. I pretty much knew what I could
and could not do with the low setting, but will have to experiment a lot
to
see what I can do at the high setting.
I already realize that the high setting seems to create a lot more code.
Will the page also take longer to load?
the more code the longer the load time. but, if you have a few smaller
images versus one large one, the time might be a wash since a few smaller
images will load faster then a larger one.
a good way to check the total size of a page is to view the page in IE, go
to File, Save As, select file type .mht, and save the page. Then browse to
the .mht file and look at the size of it. The mht file contains all the code
and the images and so should be an accurate indicator of total page size.
The larger of which translates into longer download time. If you wanted to
get real creative you could browse your favorite sites and save their page
as mht and then compare their page file size to yours.
While experimenting a little, I inserted some JavaScript I use, and it
seems
to work ok, but the code for 'Top of Page' does not on the first try,
whether it is layered or not...at least not in preview. This leads to a
general question. What do you suppose that I am going to have to give up,
if
I design in the high setting? What's the downside? I can remember in the
past you recommending to folks that they change to the lowest setting to
solve some problems, but I don't remember what those problems were.
well back in the days of 2000 lots of people still used NS 4x, and in
general there were lots of complaints about browser compatibility, even in
older versions of IE. And CSS wasn't as commonplace as it is today. So
moving the default high setting to low provided for traditional html that
was more widely supported and of course is cleaner and faster to load.
But now, 2 versions later and a few years past, it's a different world. NS
has pretty much vanished, IE is more dominant, and there is a new player.
Now CSS is a must and CSS2 is more widely used to varying degrees. And
Publisher walked away from traditional html and shrugged off browser
compatibility. And also ISP connections have gotten faster and broadband has
grown rapidly. So today there isn't any real reason why a 2000 customer
shouldn't feel free to try out the higher settings for their web. I haven't
gotten into 2000 in quite awhile but if I recall correctly the target
setting would vary the amount of CSS and CSS2 used versus traditional html,
so feel free to slide it somewhere in the middle range and compare.
No rush responding as I won't have time to experiment with this until the
weekend, but I do appreciate your advice. Its great to learn a new
capacity
for Pub 2000...I think. ;-)
David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
http://www.publishermvps.com
http://www.davidbartosik.com
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.