Je suis bloquer !!!
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title></title>
<meta name="keywords" content="">
<meta content="fr" http-equiv="content-language">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html"; charset="iso-8859-1">
<link rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' href='style.css' />
</head>
<body>
<div id="entete">
<h1>Enttoooo</h1>
</div>
<div id="conteneur">
<div id="gauche">
dazedzaedzdddazdazdazd
zaedaazre taereytyryr
reyzyrzytrrt
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhety
trhyerkitluitkrjt
rtzjkrliutkyj
tryjkulitko
fdzadfaezrfgzegz
azerfae"ztegfzef
zefgzetgertg
ezrfazereztez
ezrfzerzerezr
ezrzerezrezrezrez
ezrfazereztezezr
zefgzetgertgez
rze
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyrez
rez
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyez
rzeez
rzeezre
readonlye
rzer
er
erez
ezrfazereztezezre
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyezr
ezadfgtkjryhtrj
</div>
<div id="contenue">
<p>For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft.
t exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software
developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by suggesting
that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through its rule that copylefted software
could not be in the X Distribution.Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do
with their definition of success. The X Consortium defined success as popularity--specifically,
getting computer companies to use the X Window System. This definition put the computer
companies in the driver's seat. Whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help them get it.
Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted free software
developers to donate their work for such use. If they had asked for this directly, people
would have laughed. But the X Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as
an unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software developers,” they said,
suggesting that this is a noble form of self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,”
they said, suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice.But self-sacrifice is not the issue:
tossing away the defense that copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community,
is sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium's request entrusted the
community's future to the good will of the X Consortium.This trust was misplaced. In its last year,
the X Consortium made a plan to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it will not be free
software. They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary software developers, but to our
community as well.There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you not to
use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license and restrict its version of your program,
along with the code for the core of X.The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down
and transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now carrying out a similar plan.
To give them credit, when I asked them to release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their
planned restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They were firmly against staying
with the old X11 distribution terms.) Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed
for another reason: the XFree86 group follows the X Consortium's old policy, and will not accept copylefted software.
</p>
<p>For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft.
t exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software
developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by suggesting
that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through its rule that copylefted software
could not be in the X Distribution.Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do
with their definition of success. The X Consortium defined success as popularity--specifically,
getting computer companies to use the X Window System. This definition put the computer
companies in the driver's seat. Whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help them get it.
Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted free software
developers to donate their work for such use. If they had asked for this directly, people
would have laughed. But the X Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as
an unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software developers,” they said,
suggesting that this is a noble form of self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,”
they said, suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice.But self-sacrifice is not the issue:
tossing away the defense that copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community,
is sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium's request entrusted the
community's future to the good will of the X Consortium.This trust was misplaced. In its last year,
the X Consortium made a plan to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it will not be free
software. They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary software developers, but to our
community as well.There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you not to
use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license and restrict its version of your program,
along with the code for the core of X.The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down
and transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now carrying out a similar plan.
To give them credit, when I asked them to release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their
planned restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They were firmly against staying
with the old X11 distribution terms.) Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed
for another reason: the XFree86 group follows the X Consortium's old policy, and will not accept copylefted software.
</p>
</div>
<div id="droite">
dazedzaedzdddazdazdazd
zaedaazre taereytyryr
reyzyrzytrrt
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhety
trhyerkitluitkrjt
rtzjkrliutkyj
tryjkulitko
fdzadfaezrfgzegz
azerfae"ztegfzef
zefgzetgertg
ezrfazereztez
ezrfzerzerezr
ezrzerezrezrezrez
ezrfazereztezezr
zefgzetgertgez
rze
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyrez
rez
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyez
rzeez
rzeezre
readonlye
rzer
er
erez
ezrfazereztezezre
ezadfgtkjryhtrjhetyezr
ezadfgtkjryhtrj
</div>
</div>
<div id="pied">
piede de pazs,dlzkdzed,zled,data
</div>
<div id="pied">
piede de pazs,dlzkdzed,zled,data
</div>
</body>
</html>
-------fichier style.css-----------
Remarquer ici que IE ne chope pas min-width : 800px;
max-width : 1280px;-------------
Je ne sais plus quoi faire de plus .le border des colonnes sur IE sont bizards et
il y a un debordement du texte dans la colonne droite !!!
body {
margin : 0;
padding : 0 20px;
text-align : center;
background-color : #fff8dc;
font : 12px sans-serif;
text-align : left;
}
div#entete, div#pied, div#conteneur {
border : 1px solid black;
min-width : 800px;
max-width : 1280px;
}
div#conteneur {
position : relative;
margin : 0 auto;
}
div#entete {
margin : 10px auto -1px auto;
}
div#entete h1 {
margin : 5px;
}
div#gauche {
position : absolute;
top : 0;
bottom : 0;
left : 0;
width : 160px;
padding : 5px;
border-right : 1px solid black;
}
div#contenue {
margin-left : 161px;
background : white;
border : 1px solid white;
padding : 10px;
margin-right : 161px;
}
div#droite {
position : absolute;
top : 0;
bottom : 0;
right : 0;
width : 160px;
padding : 5px;
border-left : 1px solid black;
}
div#pied {
margin : -1px auto 0 auto;
}
