[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this is ok to ask. This subject is of great interest to me and I can't
find the original message it: Tim Berners-Lee - Keeping Web Universal. I
haven't check this mailbox in a week so I've got hundreds of messages and may
have accidentally deleted the original
I hope this is ok to ask. This subject is of great interest to me and I can't find
the original message it: Tim Berners-Lee - Keeping Web Universal. I
haven't check this mailbox in a week so I've got hundreds of messages and may
have accidentally deleted the original post. Would someone
Fluid Shadows:
http://www.thoughtanomalies.com/archives/2004/06/20/fluid_shadows/
Structural Naming:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/06/26/structural-naming/
Integrated Web Design: Strategies for Long-Term CSS Hack Management:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=170511
Hi Peter,
I can confirm that your site's menu was flickering in firefox 0.8 last
Monday when I first looked at it, but this morning it isn't. Have you
fixed the problem? I was having the same problem on a site I'm working
on and was curious how you got around the problem.
Thanks
-Avril
I was reading the article Integrated Web Design: Strategies for Long-Term
CSS Hack Management: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=170511
Referred to by Russ in his very useful links for light reading and I read
this article.
Amongst other things it suggests not putting hacks into
Mike
You're right, a typical site i develop already has
* main style sheet
* imported style sheet for older browsers
* print style sheet
which is complex enough, at worst I might consider a single hacks.css
file but only as a last resort
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT
Michael Kear spoke the following wise words on 28/06/2004 10:05 AM EST:
Fair enough. I understand the point, I think, except that I don't think you
gain anything at all by it, except more complexity in the site's file
structure. Every hack now represents one more file that has to be uploaded,
Tim Lucas wrote:
My compromise is to place all hacks for [insert your favourite buggy
browser] into it's own CSS file.
CSS hack techniques are forever changing.
CSS fundamentals are set in stone.
I'm with Mike on this. I don't see a benefit. In fact, when I read the
article it looked like more
On Monday, June 28, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Lachlan Hardy wrote:
I'm with Mike on this. I don't see a benefit. In fact, when I read the
article it looked like more work to me :
1. Hacks in main CSS file - Hack gets outdated, edit CSS file and
remove hack
2. Hacks in separate CSS file - Hack gets
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
There may be an extra file involved, but I know which is faster...
Hmmm... I guess it is a case of whatever works for the individual. I
don't have a problem with running the search as I comment use of all
hacks, so I just find 'hack' and I'm there...
So the benefit is
I'm working on an accesssable version of the YPslideOutMenu.
You can view it at www.v2.shockmedia.com.au, I have feed back that it
doesn't work that well in IE5 (Mac) and Safari, however it is my intention
to make it work.
It works perfectly in pretty much all the windows compatable browsers but
Lachlan Hardy spoke the following wise words on 28/06/2004 1:53 PM EST:
So the benefit is one of speed? Or segregation - keeping the clean code
from the dirty nasty hacks?
CSS hacks are only a technical workaround and provide little meaning to
the CSS when viewed by somebody other than the
Kay,
Back in March, Kristen Morgan posted a link to the UDM website. The
canned solution they have come up with looks expensive, and it's not
lean and mean, but it seems to solve the compatibility issues pretty
much.
http://www.udm4.com/
-Hugh Todd
The original Suckerfish menus *do* work in
13 matches
Mail list logo
