You wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Matthew Brealey wrote:
> | You wrote:
> | > First, there is no support for Absolute Positioning.
> |
> | Not true. It does support absolute positioning, albeit badly.
> Try this:
>
> <HTML>
> <HEAD><TITLE> Positioning test </TITLE></HEAD>
>
> <STYLE>
> P { font-family:\"Arial, sans-serif\"; font-size:10pt}
Please, font-family: Arial, sans-serif.
Quoting the whole thing is *invalid*; there are four tokens there - STRING (AIR),
DELIM, S and IDENT, and you are trying to get by with only one (STRING). Quoting is
only permitted for non-reserved words (i.e. things not built into the language).
Sans-serif is built in and therefore shouldn\'t be quoted anyway. Quoting Arial is
permissible but superfluous (quoting is only necessary when the token is not a valid
IDENT).
> P.bluetext { font-weight:bold; color:darkblue; font-size:11pt}
> P.reverse { font-weight:bold; color:white; font-size:10pt}
> H2 { font-family:\"Arial, sans-serif\"; font-size:18pt;
> font-weight:bold; color:darkblue}
[Note: avoid extended colour names and point sizes (use pixels or omit).
> <DIV STYLE=\"position:absolute; top:0; left:400; width:150; height:300;
> background:darkblue\">
These are invalid. You have 400 (a NUMBER) token whereas these propeties expect LENGTH
({num}, immediately followed by a valid two-character length symbol). E.g., 400px is
valid.
> <IMG SRC=\"myimage.gif\" STYLE=\"position:absolute; top:20; left:25\">
Netscape has problems with style used inline on the IMG element. It has very limited
and poor support of positioning, but it is support nonetheless.
> <DIV STYLE=\"position:absolute; top:245; width:400; left=:0\">
Left: 0 is correct.
> <H2 STYLE=\"color=darkred; line-height:200%\"> My wonderful
> text</H2>
> <IMG SRC=\"img2.gif\" STYLE=\"position:absolute; top:0; left:50;
> z-index:-1\">
> </CENTER>
> </DIV>
>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> Rendered correctly in Explorer.
Not really. The correct rendering would be to do more-or-less nothing; Explorer\'s
acceptance of invalid code causes its perpetuation.
> | > Mozilla has partial support,
> |
> | Actually the best and most complete support of any browser on any
> | platform.
> Microsoft, you mean?
Huh? Read http://richinstyle.com/bugs/mozilla.html. Then cf.
http://richinstyle.com/bugs/ie5.html.
> | > Unfortunately, Mozilla has even CSS1 issues. Just try my page
> | > http://kde2.newmail.ru - menu on left side
> |
> | is
> |
> | [snip]
> |
> | > rendered
> | > correctly both in
> | > Netscape and Mozilla.
> |
> | You use _ as an IDENT character (i.e. your class name
> contains a _), which
> | is not permitted. The _required_ behaviour in response to
> this (that is the
> | error recovery behaviour) is to ignore the associated
> ruleset[s]. (see
> | http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/grammar.html for tokenizer, and
> | http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2 section 5 (can\\\'t remember
> the URL) for error
> | recovery rules)
> And?
> Microsoft and Konqueror render correctly.
If you put garbage in, you shouldn\'t complain when you get garbage out.
In addition, they most particularly *do not* render correctly; the correct rendering
is Mozilla\'s garbage disposal policy.
> Again speaking about Netscape? Well, IMHO, with Netscape\'s
> marketshare
> dropping from 80% to current 15%, there is no reason to worry
> about Netscape.
That depends. For most companies 15% represents bankruptcy or survival. For NPOs or
individuals it represents laziness and arrogance in insisting on user \'upgrading\' to
bloated garbage like IE (completely unstable - hangs the system), with its attendant
*massive* security holes. (For example:
1. write a vbscript
2. on default security, browser pops up misleading msg (for which Microsoft should be
sued) \'The page is trying to interact with the browser, is this ok?\'
3. Click ok.
4. All system files destroyed. Compuer useless.).
Thanks for the feedback
