"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.vcvnwvmkvxi10f@biotronic-pc.home...
>
> There is also the issue of the Phobos documentation not having the updated top box. "D 2.0 Home" is labeled "D", "Library Reference" is "Phobos", etc.
>
> Once you've gotten to the library documentation, it being labeled Phobos is not that important, though.
>

As long as we're on the topic of minor issues on the digital mars site, there seems to be a stray '>' floating around in the header of the D1 Language Reference pages (also D1 Home and D1 Comparisons).

Charles Hixson wrote:

> /usr/bin is for system installed executables.  It's bad practice to put other things there.

Actually that is not the case. /usr/bin is for system installations and general practice when using a system with package management is to leave it for packages installed by the package manager. But is intended as the programs shared by all systems on the network and /usr/local/bin are the programs that are installed to the local machine.

That is /usr would be mounted to a network drive, possibly read only, and administered by the main administrators. And /usr/local would be mounted to a harddrive in the machine /dev/sda1 allowing access to those using the system but not everyone on the network.

It is not bad practice. If the setup works and you have a reason for doing it different from the norm all is well.

Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
<snip>
>>>> I'm using firefox. Even on their main
>>>> developer.apple.com/iphone/index.action, most of the text is light grey
>>>> on white.
>>>>
>>>     Text is black here. But it is very thin, are you sure this isn't an
>>> anti-aliasing issue?

In Windows Vista at least, anti-aliasing (whether Standard or ClearType) clearly isn't a straight average, considering that zooming out doesn't cause it to fade.  AIUI, part of M$'s patent on ClearType is about how it differs from straight average anti-aliasing by colour stripes.  I don't really know how it works.  Nor do I know how the anti-aliasing in other OSs compares.  But there, there's also the issue of system gamma vs. CSS standard gamma (well, sRGB) and whether or not the browser corrects.

>> It's #323232
>>
> 	Well, that's dark grey, not light grey like Walter said he gets...

Which text?

In the top half, most of the text is #333333 (obscure grey, according to the VisiBone naming).

In the bottom half, most of the text is #666666 (dark grey) or #777777.

(Firefox 3.6.3, examined using Firebug)

Stewart.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:hspj3m$1c9b$1@digitalmars.com...
<snip>
>> Web sites should avoid setting specific font sizes, so low vision users can enlarge it.
> 
> I agree a lot with most of this, but any web browser that doesn't scale so-called fixed-size fonts when zooming has a broken, archaic zoom function, period.
<snip>

Correct.  Indeed, here's a post I once made here
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2384051749
----------
"6. For partially sighted persons, there is no way to adjust text size. You say "wow, they are demanding", this is something really easy to do."

Yes there is a way. Just stop using Internet Exploiter and get yourself a real web browser. But still....
----------

But you could well ask: Is it right to punish people for using broken browsers?  Especially if you're going out of your way to do so by specifying font sizes in pt or px.  I've always told people it just shouldn't be done.

Moreover, some have sensibly pointed out that web authors shouldn't change the body text size from the default, since the user's default is the size the user is comfortable with.

But maybe it's acceptable if all you're doing is compensating for the font you've chosen looking a little bigger or smaller at the same point size than the default Times New Roman.  That said:
- somebody might have set a different font as default in browser settings or a user stylesheet
- who decreed that the factory default in all graphical browsers shall be Times New Roman, anyway?

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> But maybe it's acceptable if all you're doing is compensating for the font you've chosen looking a little bigger or smaller at the same point size than the default Times New Roman.  That said:
> - somebody might have set a different font as default in browser settings or a user stylesheet
> - who decreed that the factory default in all graphical browsers shall be Times New Roman, anyway?

With style sheets, you can set the font size as larger or smaller than the default. This should be good enough. Setting fonts as pixel sizes is just wrong.