textarea rows

Firefox and IE count textarea rows differently. See
http://beta.timekeeperweb.com/t.html

Is there an html solution? (without javascript) Is there any solution that does
not involve detecting the browser type?
--
Sig
(add three to my address to avoid spam filter)

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:25:00 GMT, Sig put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Firefox and IE count textarea rows differently. See
>http://beta.timekeeperweb.com/t.html
>
>Is there an html solution? (without javascript) Is there any solution that does
>not involve detecting the browser type?

The best solution is not to bother about it. There can't be many
situations where it matters.

If it does matter, the best option is to check the browser string
using server-side scripting (eg, PHP, Perl, etc) and then build the
HTML as required. It won't be 100% reliable, but it will work
transparantly to the user.

Avoid javascript, as it won't work for users who have disabled it on
their browsers.

Mark
--
http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"There's just too much that time cannot erase"

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 2122 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:25:00 GMT, Sig put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>Firefox and IE count textarea rows differently. See
>>http://beta.timekeeperweb.com/t.html
>>
>>Is there an html solution? (without javascript) Is there any solution that does
>>not involve detecting the browser type?
>
>The best solution is not to bother about it. There can't be many
>situations where it matters.
>
>If it does matter, the best option is to check the browser string
>using server-side scripting (eg, PHP, Perl, etc) and then build the
>HTML as required. It won't be 100% reliable, but it will work
>transparantly to the user.
>
>Avoid javascript, as it won't work for users who have disabled it on
>their browsers.

I have a situation where it matters. I agree about javascript. Of course it can
be done detecting the browser. That's not what I asked.

The best I have found so far is style="height:12em"

--
Sig
(add three to my address to avoid spam filter)

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:55:40 +0100, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:

>What is the situation? There may be other solutions.

Without disagreeing with anything you said, I'd like to point out that some
people in this group have a tendency to answer the question they think I should
have asked, rather than the one I did ask.

It struck me as odd that a simple standard attribute, (rows in textarea) with
what I would have thought was an obvious meaning, is interpreted differently in
different browsers. So my original question was intended to elicit an
incantation to make textarea(a) equal textarea(b). Obviously, a simple thing
like row number could be fixed in a server script, but I was hoping that someone
had a better (and preferably cleaner) answer to the original question. I wanted
an answer to the question for its own sake. If I need to change my approach to
the page design, I can do that, but that's not the question.

The more I tried to find such an answer myself (doing things like specifying
line-height, font-size, etc.) the more I realized that all browsers are the
spawn of Satan, and I now doubt that there is a consistent meaning to 'rows'
even in one browser.

So I probably will redo the page to avoid this issue. But if anyone has an
answer to the original question (even if it turns out to be useless to me) I'd
still like to hear it.

--
Sig
(add three to my address to avoid spam filter)

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 0127 GMT, Sig put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:55:40 +0100, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What is the situation? There may be other solutions.
>
>Without disagreeing with anything you said, I'd like to point out that some
>people in this group have a tendency to answer the question they think I should
>have asked, rather than the one I did ask.

We've suggested the solution that will usually work, rather than a
kludge which may well not.

>It struck me as odd that a simple standard attribute, (rows in textarea) with
>what I would have thought was an obvious meaning, is interpreted differently in
>different browsers. So my original question was intended to elicit an
>incantation to make textarea(a) equal textarea(b). Obviously, a simple thing
>like row number could be fixed in a server script, but I was hoping that someone
>had a better (and preferably cleaner) answer to the original question. I wanted
>an answer to the question for its own sake. If I need to change my approach to
>the page design, I can do that, but that's not the question.

The best answer to your question, in the majority of circumstances, is
"change your approach to page design". That's not answering the
question we think you should have asked, it's answering the one you
did ask with an answer that you probably weren't expecting.

>The more I tried to find such an answer myself (doing things like specifying
>line-height, font-size, etc.) the more I realized that all browsers are the
>spawn of Satan, and I now doubt that there is a consistent meaning to 'rows'
>even in one browser.
>
>So I probably will redo the page to avoid this issue. But if anyone has an
>answer to the original question (even if it turns out to be useless to me) I'd
>still like to hear it.

The answer to your original question is that what you want cannot be
done with HTML. Period. There are some possible non-HTML workarounds,
of which one (redesign the page) is by far the best under almost all
circumstances.

Mark
--
http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"Shake off your golden shackles, children of time no more"

Hi sig,

This is something that I've never noticed before. I would go with
setting the height in the style like you said. I don't see (or think
there is) a better solution!

Adam

"Sig" <caff987@logsin.org> wrote in message news:435ae58b.34914739@felix...
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:55:40 +0100, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What is the situation? There may be other solutions.
>
> Without disagreeing with anything you said, I'd like to point out that
> some
> people in this group have a tendency to answer the question they think I
> should
> have asked, rather than the one I did ask.

Very true. This is something that happens the world over and in all forms of
communication.

Generally it is not a bad thing. People have a tendency to (sometimes)
phrase their questions in a manner that creates ambiguity. Helpfull people
will try to answer what they think the question is, when the orginal
question has no answer.

If you dont like the answers and think they arent appropriate then, fine,
you dont need to read them or implement them.

> It struck me as odd that a simple standard attribute, (rows in textarea)
> with
> what I would have thought was an obvious meaning, is interpreted
> differently in
> different browsers.

I agree that FireFox's implementation seems very strange. I cant work out
the reasoning behind adding a row to the attribute but all browsers have
implementation quirks.

> So my original question was intended to elicit an
> incantation to make textarea(a) equal textarea(b). Obviously, a simple
> thing
> like row number could be fixed in a server script, but I was hoping that
> someone
> had a better (and preferably cleaner) answer to the original question. I
> wanted
> an answer to the question for its own sake. If I need to change my
> approach to
> the page design, I can do that, but that's not the question.

Ok, the answer to the question is "it is not possible at this time" so you
may be better changing your approach to the page design.

> The more I tried to find such an answer myself (doing things like
> specifying
> line-height, font-size, etc.) the more I realized that all browsers are
> the
> spawn of Satan, and I now doubt that there is a consistent meaning to
> 'rows'
> even in one browser.

Yes. It is not possible to ensure that you have a consistent display over
every browser with HTML. But then that was never the real aim of HTML.

> So I probably will redo the page to avoid this issue. But if anyone has an
> answer to the original question (even if it turns out to be useless to me)
> I'd
> still like to hear it.
>

So would I.