- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
On the last one I like the fact that NaN wasn't NaN enough for them, so they had to format it as "NaN.undefined". That's the double-plus good form of NaN.
Admin
And how would a negative width make sense in MS Word? Mind you, this is a rethorical question, not an invitation to share text processor abuse ideas, fueled by your desire to let MS know what you really think of them.
Admin
A negative width doesn't make sense. A negative position does, though, and there's a "position" tab on that dialogue box. So it may well be objecting to an invalid position, rather than an invalid width. Which is still a WTF - "the measurement" is incorrect, but I'm not telling you which one, and it's not even one that's visible on screen right now.
Admin
If you set your width to a negative number, you see through the looking glass to Alice's document.
Admin
Guessing here. It could be that a negative number for width results in the image being flipped horizontally (and I would assume the same for height flipping vertically) which might explain why it has the same range (up to 22" in either direction for width.)
Admin
It's possible that the field it's complaining about is not easily seen, given that it's positioned at -22px from the top.
Admin
Too late to write the usual "First".
Well... ehm...
NaNth!