Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ladle/Challenge Board"
From Armagetron
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:See my screenshot (below yours) [[Image:Notfuckeduptables.png|thumb|This is how it shows with Safari]] --[[User:Durka|Durka]] 19:51, 12 November 2008 (PST) | :See my screenshot (below yours) [[Image:Notfuckeduptables.png|thumb|This is how it shows with Safari]] --[[User:Durka|Durka]] 19:51, 12 November 2008 (PST) | ||
::It looks OK, as MaZ guessed, but considering how semantically invalid this is and how it renders on mainstream browsers, the current (ie. mine) should be kept, but I will work on getting a semantically correct clone whenever I get time --[[User:Epsy|epsy]] 22:37, 12 November 2008 (PST) | ::It looks OK, as MaZ guessed, but considering how semantically invalid this is and how it renders on mainstream browsers, the current (ie. mine) should be kept, but I will work on getting a semantically correct clone whenever I get time --[[User:Epsy|epsy]] 22:37, 12 November 2008 (PST) | ||
| + | :::Yea Maz is right, which is why I didn't change it back for a 3rd time after I saw this and just posted my sexy screenshot :) --[[User:Durka|Durka]] 00:01, 13 November 2008 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 04:01, 13 November 2008
I am unsure whether the time conversion is correct? --Concord
Old challenge board table
Some ladles ago, I inspected why the challenge board tables rendered so hazardously. It led me to reformatting the table from the beginning(with the great help of the friendly manual) and it gave something decent to work with. It was also way easier to read in the source (especially with the help of indenting) and I think it should be easier for anyone to read it and edit it.
Now some days ago I've seen Durka revert it to the old one, which renders really quirky and does not really look good either. Can you Durka tell me why you reverted it? --epsy 11:26, 11 November 2008 (PST)
- The old challengeboard seems to render differently in different browsers, I guess Durka is using a browser where it looks ok. --MaZuffeR 12:23, 11 November 2008 (PST)
- See screenshot --epsy 12:28, 12 November 2008 (PST)
- See my screenshot (below yours) --Durka 19:51, 12 November 2008 (PST)
- It looks OK, as MaZ guessed, but considering how semantically invalid this is and how it renders on mainstream browsers, the current (ie. mine) should be kept, but I will work on getting a semantically correct clone whenever I get time --epsy 22:37, 12 November 2008 (PST)
- Yea Maz is right, which is why I didn't change it back for a 3rd time after I saw this and just posted my sexy screenshot :) --Durka 00:01, 13 November 2008 (PST)
- It looks OK, as MaZ guessed, but considering how semantically invalid this is and how it renders on mainstream browsers, the current (ie. mine) should be kept, but I will work on getting a semantically correct clone whenever I get time --epsy 22:37, 12 November 2008 (PST)
