Hi [WSG],
I'm wondering if anybody can help. I'm having real problems positioning
an element absolutely on Mac IE 5. It works fine in IE 5.23 on Mac OSX
but is out on IE 5.1 on OS9.
Does anybody know a way of targeting IE 5.1 on OS9 without effecting IE
5.23 on OSx?
Thanks in advance,
joe
you can use IE's conditional comments, which let you target specific
versions of IE:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp
regards
kemie
Joe Leech wrote:
Hi [WSG],
I'm wondering if anybody can help. I'm having real problems
positioning an element absolutely
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:27:46 +0100, kemie guaida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you can use IE's conditional comments, which let you target specific
versions of IE:
Unfortunately, conditional comments are Windows only :(
--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
I can't find the exact webpage, but it is possible to arget IE on
Mac...like this...it's an odd hack that does work...
.innerbox {
/* commented backslash for IE5-Mac \*/
background: url(../imgs/bg-menu-test.png) repeat !important;
/* end hack */
background: #666;
height: 36px;
padding: 6px 0 0
Vaska.WSG wrote:
I can't find the exact webpage, but it is possible to arget IE on
Mac...like this...it's an odd hack that does work...
.innerbox {
/* commented backslash for IE5-Mac \*/
background: url(../imgs/bg-menu-test.png) repeat !important;
/* end hack */
background: #666;
height: 36px;
I dont know if Kevin Leitch is part
of this list, so I thought I would post this on here for him.
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/projectnew/index.php
Basically Kevin Leitch has started something called
Project: New. The goal is a syllabus of material aimed at the new web designer
or
Title: Message
I am not sure if
this is on topic or not but I have to issue a cry for help. There are a series
of pages I am working on that have different floor plans that you can click on
and you get a different floor plan image (http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/room_208.php
). The client is
It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and
cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes,
sometimes not.
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: alphanumeric.cz | janbrasna.com
Stop IE! - http://www.stopie.com/ | http://browsehappy.com/
Paul wrote:
1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to
make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading?
First of all, why do you have #anchor appended to each link? There's
no real need for it, from what I can see.
You *could* provide an additional bit of
I'm looking at the pages with a T-1 line and they are still flickering. I think
you have an issue with it re-building the structure of the page. Are you doing
something unusual with the watermark double text? Are you using a table to get
the zebra effect? Are you using sifr flash replacement
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:29:14 +0100, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and
cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes,
sometimes not.
True. You can't do much about it. If your client can't stand
Hello WSG:
I wrote a separate print.css for this page:
http://www.watchhilldesign.com/92/ so I could turn off items that aren't
needed in the printout, etc. And I'm using a smaller image for the printout
as well (using a background for a div). All looks good in the print preview,
but when I
At 08:18 AM 2/14/2005, Paul wrote:
I am not sure if this is on topic or not but I have to issue a cry for
help. There are a series of pages I am working on that have different
floor plans that you can click on and you get a different floor plan image
(
The anchor links are to ensure it stays on the low side of the page
where the floorplan images are located...why the floorplan images are
455-500 pixels down the screen...it was graphically designed by a print
graphic artist who doesn't do web.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm on a dialup connection, so the fact that it is reloading is quite
apparent. It doesn't bother me all that much, but if the client is
really hard set on no reloading here's my suggestion. Keep the basic
format as it is now, so that non js users can still use it fine, load
all the images
note to all: IF IN DOUBT, add position:relative; -- it fixes many,
many IE bugs :)
Would it be excessive or treacherous to declare for Win IE:
* html * { position:relative; }
?
Is the default of position:static; important?
Off the top of my head, I think this would only negatively affect
I don't think it is possible to get at these two browsers individually
through CSS alone.
I would be inclined to optimise for the OS9 (IE5.1) version as that is
the last decent browser for that platform (Mozilla 1.3 aside), and leave
some rendering bugs in the OS X version. Mac OS X users (IE
note to all: IF IN DOUBT, add position:relative; -- it fixes many,
many IE bugs :)
Would it be excessive or treacherous to declare for Win IE:
* html * { position:relative; }
Yes, I think so. One instance I can think of is that links within a
scrolling div will not scroll (in
Wow, I only just realised that Gmail would have to have the WORST
accessibility for everyone.
I just wanted to get the HTML code for the site.
And there have to be about 10 frames inside frames.
This is the most code I could get without having to open each frame
individually...
I feel for the
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:42:14 +1100, Chris Stratford
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I only just realised that Gmail would have to have the WORST
accessibility for everyone.
I just wanted to get the HTML code for the site.
And there have to be about 10 frames inside frames.
Yeah, Mark Pilgrim
James Bennett wrote:
For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best
method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all
of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going
on.
Yesh thats what I used to get that deep.
But the DOM inspector
My opinion.
Dont use it if it doesnt work for you.
While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people
HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while
there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone
with accessibility issues from
-Original Message-
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:28 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible!
My opinion.
Dont use it if it doesnt work for you.
While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing
I actually don't use any systems.
For one of my jobs I needed to have a similar styling to gmail.
So i wanted to see the source.
and that is how I came to my issue.
Gary Menzel wrote:
My opinion.
Dont use it if it doesnt work for you.
While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says
Also, it's beta, and it's FREE, so don't complain, really.
Francesco
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:28:27 +1000, Gary Menzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
My opinion.
Dont use it if it doesnt work for you.
While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people
HAVE to produce a
I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this..
There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available.
Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone?
And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the
right to shoot
-Original Message-
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:55 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible!
I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious
about this..
There are plenty of accesible
It seems like we are making the world less free by forcing
companies/corporations/individuals to conform to equality laws. Isn't
this just another form of conformity and regulation?
Francesco
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:51:05 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I dont use GMail, I just thought I would raise the issue because GMail
is like Francesco said still a Beta.
So Google are already walking in the wrong direction of standards.
Just so you know, I think that google and gmail SHOULD try and be as
accessible as possible.
If you disable javascript
Francesco,
It seems like we are making the world less free by forcing
companies/corporations/individuals to conform to equality laws.
at the risk of sounding terribly cynical, corporations in particular
are by their very nature selfish. They exist to generate shareholder
profit. To the extent
possibly a more interesting question to be asking is exactly what
'standard' should gmail be following?
WCAG doesn't seem appropriate to me, as this is certainly more an
application than a web page
so does this mean we should use a standard like ATAG (authoring tools
accessibility guidlines
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to
everyone?
To continue evolving into a society that treats everybody equally, there is
no reason why companies should
32 matches
Mail list logo
