Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Kornel Lesinski
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:31:27 +0930, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is a child selector: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/selector.html#child-selectors html#wrap means element with id=wrap inside html (but not inside other element inside html). If its not body id=wrap (or head) then it

Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Andrew Krespanis
' ' is CSS for 'child of'. In this instance - html#wrap - it means any element with an id of 'wrap' that is a child of the html element. The reason they've used it here is probably because IE does not understand that selector, so it will ignore the rule. Hope that cleared it up a bit for you :)

Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Andrew Krespanis
' ' is CSS for 'child of'. In this instance - html#wrap - it means any element with an id of 'wrap' that is a child of the html element. The reason they've used it here is probably because IE does not understand that selector, so it will ignore the rule. Hope that cleared it up a bit for you :)

Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Kornel Lesinski wrote: So, in this case it's CSS hack. AFAIK IE5/win ignores and + selectors and iterprets it as html #wrap. Still trying to find out which browsers mistakenly apply this. IE5/5.5/6 seem to rightly ignore the rule. The closest I came was the star-7 hack

Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Kornel Lesinski
Kornel Lesinski wrote: So, in this case it's CSS hack. AFAIK IE5/win ignores and + selectors and iterprets it as html #wrap. Still trying to find out which browsers mistakenly apply this. IE5/5.5/6 seem to rightly ignore the rule. The closest I came was the star-7 hack

Re: [WSG] Please explain use of html#____

2004-12-21 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh
On 22 Dec 2004, at 9:25 am, Kornel Lesinski wrote: Today I've ran into problems with IE5.01/win: dt.active + dd {} was applied to all dd elements, even changing to: * dt.active + dd {} didn't help - IE5 still stubbornly saw the rule. If there is white-space around the '+', than IE5.0 applies the