On 26/05/06, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any idea why the doctype would matter concerning the following CSS?
Some ... decided that it would be a good idea to use a person's choice of Doctype (and thus perhaps their knowledge of markup, of the knowledge of market of the person they copy/pasted from, etc) to decide how well they know CSS. [ insert 5 minutes of the sound of someone's forehead repeatedly connecting to a desk ] So some Doctypes will trigger Standards Mode where browsers try to do The Right Thing as much possible, and some Doctypes will trigger Quirks mode where they have deliberate mistakes (such as assuming that when given an integer when a length is expected that it means "pixels" or putting padding inside the width of an element). > When used with a HTML transitional doctype it works as expected with > the included image aligned to the bottom of the inline a element. > When used with a XHTML strict doctype it does not line up with the bottom > of the inline a element, but rather only lines up with the baseline. Sounds like the old "Should the browser leave room for descenders" issue. The vertical-align property applied to the image lets you specify this explicitly. > I have now tried this with other doctypes, it seems to be a matter of strict > vs. transitional. It isn't that simple. http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html http://dorward.me.uk/www/bookmarklets/qors/ might also help. -- David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk><http://blog.dorward.me.uk> ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
