What do I do to write text in a paragraph BESIDE a picture?
So that . . And that the text The pic . . Goes on beside it Is Here . . Until it ends and
then goes on underneath it until the paragraph ends?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not sure you can have multiple lines of text beside a picture unless you use a table, or something like that.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
<img src="" style="float: left">Text goes here, and will flow around and below the image.
You can also float right.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Still, I would rather use tables to structure a webpage. Tends to avoid having a page looking like a simple Word-document.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You can also use the tag align="left" or align="right" inside the image tag. That works the same way.
But looking at Charles's recommendation, I'm guessing that the "align" tag is actually not considered valid HTML anymore? Or at least, not for the most recent specifications?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
According the O'Reilly HTML book I'm reading, the align tags (and several other presentation tags) are being phased out in favor of stylesheets and inline style commands (like what Charles posted).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Tables are eeevil! I will never forgive them... for the death of my site.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I love tables; they're so much fun. Especially when you nest them 10 deep. With vivid 50kb backgrounds and text augmented with the "blink" tag. Ooh, and you can't forget the embedded .mid with no visible control panel. Spot on!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: According the O'Reilly HTML book I'm reading, the align tags (and several other presentation tags) are being phased out in favor of stylesheets and inline style commands (like what Charles posted).
Ah, that's what I guessed when I saw Charles's tip. Thanks for the tip there!
I've made it a point to get as many of my pages as possible verified by the W3C's validator. I haven't gotten to all of them, but I know that I'm pretty close to clean code. (I use XHTML 1.0 Transitional.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
right now, the Trekker's Galactopedia contains 3.44 megabytes of HTML code.. i'm crapping myself trying to think about having to go debug old tags out of there. are definition lists (the DL, DD DT tags) still kosher?
posted
You're a step ahead of me, MinutiaeMan. The W3C's XHTML validator craps a brick whenever it reads any of my code. I've got a lot of deprecated tags to replace. My CSS isn't too bad, but my being generous with the quotation marks has caused Mozilla to tell me to screw off.
Mike, as far as I know, the definition lists are fine. It's generally the stylistic things that got bumped in favor of using styles (image and text alignment, margins, etc). The things that affect content (like lists, tables, etc.) remain. Hopefully, Charles will bounce back in here to do a better job explaining.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: You're a step ahead of me, MinutiaeMan. The W3C's XHTML validator craps a brick whenever it reads any of my code. I've got a lot of deprecated tags to replace. My CSS isn't too bad, but my being generous with the quotation marks has caused Mozilla to tell me to screw off.
I bought a copy of of Macromedia Studio MX a early back in the summer. It's almost -- though not perfect -- compliant with the W3C specifications from the get-go. I only had to add a few id tags to some of the images and tables.
I dunno if there's something equivalent for Windows, but there's a shareware program for Mac that can automatically send a whole string of URLS in succession to be validated by W3C. It's pretty handy.
But for checking individual pages, I've found that correcting one of the first problems can often remove a whole string of later errors reported in the first validator report.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
What is this crazy W3C thing, and can I have some pie?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
http://www.w3.org -- It's the World Wide Web Consortium. It's the organization that Microsoft and Netscape ignored when designing their browsers.
And, yes, you may have some pie.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
One imagines their Christmas parties consist of a lot of standing around sipping eggnog and getting all communally hissy about coders who don't put quotes around variables in HTML tags before retiring to the fireside and smugly congratulating the guy who realized W3C would be a whole keystroke easier to type than WWWC.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
