Re: [css-d] position with div in stead of table
On Apr 10, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Ghodmode wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David Hucklesby huckle...@gmail.com wrote: ... Nice one, Vince. One small issue: The div.colimg (float) sitting beside div.coltxt (new block formatting context) -- your second solution -- does not need the 100px left margin. For some reason Webkit makes div.coltxt 100px too short, and you end up with a 100px gap on the right. Remove margin-left and Webkit agrees with Mozilla. Thanks David. That's a good catch. That left margin is entirely unnecessary. I should've tested it in webkit. I think that margin was left over from an earlier attempt in which I had the left block (colimg) absolutely positioned. I think I understand why it's shorter than intended. Since I didn't set a width and it's not floating, div + margin should take up the width of the div.fourthbannertxt -100px for div.colimg... I think. Not really, it is a bug, still present in release Safari and (I think… ) release Chrome. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79046 (bug has been fixed in nightly webkit builds) Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] how hard would it be...
How difficult would it be for browser manufacturer's to create their CSS parsers so that they could also accept the international spelling of CSS properties eg color + colourcenter + centregrey + gray It seems to me like it really would not be that difficult - so why is it not this way? It would certainly have saved me some time debugging in my early days!I imagine there is a good reason why not, but wanted to hear if anyone actually knows the reason. I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. Cheers! __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] [OT] how hard would it be...
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 00:23, Christian Hanvey wrote: [snip] I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. Cheers! Completely OT for this list IIUC. The W3C has mailing lists too. The original authors of HTML were American. First in. first served. -- Michael __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] how hard would it be...
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Christian Hanvey wrote: How difficult would it be for browser manufacturer's to create their CSS parsers so that they could also accept the international spelling of CSS properties eg color + colourcenter + centregrey + gray It seems to me like it really would not be that difficult - so why is it not this way? It would certainly have saved me some time debugging in my early days!I imagine there is a good reason why not, but wanted to hear if anyone actually knows the reason. Historically, US English has always been the normative language for W3C specifications. Allowing an additional, different spelling in parallel would significantly increase the complexity of writing such specs. Similarly, for browsers, having to implement -and maintain!- such aliasing mechanism wouldn't come cheap. But I agree with you. Colour ftw! After 10+ years I still spell it wrong. (I've always been of the opinion that the W3C specs should have been written en Français) I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. I don't think it is referenced normatively. Best place to ask is the CSS WG’s www-style mailing list, though. Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] how hard would it be...
On 04/10/2012 02:46 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Christian Hanvey wrote: How difficult would it be for browser manufacturer's to create their CSS parsers so that they could also accept the international spelling of CSS properties eg color + colourcenter + centregrey + gray It seems to me like it really would not be that difficult - so why is it not this way? It would certainly have saved me some time debugging in my early days!I imagine there is a good reason why not, but wanted to hear if anyone actually knows the reason. Historically, US English has always been the normative language for W3C specifications. Allowing an additional, different spelling in parallel would significantly increase the complexity of writing such specs. Similarly, for browsers, having to implement -and maintain!- such aliasing mechanism wouldn't come cheap. But I agree with you. Colour ftw! After 10+ years I still spell it wrong. (I've always been of the opinion that the W3C specs should have been written en Français) I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. I don't think it is referenced normatively. Best place to ask is the CSS WG’s www-style mailing list, though. In fact, it has been discussed earlier, in the thread starting at [1], and in particular Tankek Çelik's response at [2]. HTH Ms2ger [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0475.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0518.html __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] mobile css problems
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Norman Fournier nor...@normanfournier.comwrote: Hello, I am working on a website here: http://www.wwater.com/pharmacists/ Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Norman There's more than one way to skin a cat. Cursory checked in Android/2.2.2, Opera Mobile, and Opera Mini. http://ccstudi.com/4.html Best, David Laakso * * -- Chelsea Creek Studio http://ccstudi.com __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] [OT] how hard would it be...
At 01:42 +1200 4/11/12, Michael Adams wrote: On Wednesday 11 April 2012 00:23, Christian Hanvey wrote: [snip] I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. Cheers! Completely OT for this list IIUC. The W3C has mailing lists too. Yes, it really is, although I'd be interested to see a thread on how to adapt LESS, Sass, or similar systems to handle non-American spellings up front. Or even just a list of plugins for such systems, if the plugins already exist. Either way, it could make use of CSS more practical (as in simpler) for those not used to American spellings of things like 'color', and who are willing to take on the extra cognitive load of switching between their localized spelling and all the other CSS they'll come across on the web. Otherwise the thread should end. The original authors of HTML were American. First in. first served. Interestingly, the original authors of HTML and CSS actually weren't American. Tim Berners-Lee is English and Robert Cailliau is Belgian, whereas Håkon Lie is Norwegian and Bert Bos is Dutch, but they were most likely used to working in American due to their fields of study and the fact that most programming languages were (still are) basically American in language. Not that there's anything there that can help us with practical uses of CSS, but it's an interesting bit of context, no? -- Eric A. Meyer (http://meyerweb.com/eric/), List Chaperone CSS is much too interesting and elegant to be not taken seriously. -- Martina Kosloff (http://mako4css.com/) __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] how hard would it be...
My take on this issue having traveled throughout Europe and Middle East and looking at the American policies from a different perspective is the extended 'American Pride'. Same as, why don't we use the International accepted metric system? Yes there would be an initial cost, but why continue manufacturing using the other system? I believe the open source in time will remedy this situation. Monopoly of proprietary products will eventually dissolve and become a chapter in the annals of IT history. Felix Diaz On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Christian Hanvey chrishan...@hotmail.comwrote: How difficult would it be for browser manufacturer's to create their CSS parsers so that they could also accept the international spelling of CSS properties eg color + colourcenter + centregrey + gray It seems to me like it really would not be that difficult - so why is it not this way? It would certainly have saved me some time debugging in my early days!I imagine there is a good reason why not, but wanted to hear if anyone actually knows the reason. I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. Cheers! __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ -- Felix __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] how hard would it be...
Thanks Philippe,It was a hypothetical question aimed at understanding why the spec or browser manufacturers does not include this. I think that might not have been clear in my original email judging by some of the other responses.I'm certainly not about to try advocating it - what a waste of energy that would be! I was just looking for the reasons that make it problematic. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] should i use css3
Hi I'm fairly new to website designing, and to css. Just finished an online course on css3 and loved it. I'm very keen to use it css3 for a website but i also want to cater to IE people. I'm veering towards writing a separate css file for IE8 and IE9. What is the best solution. Best meera __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] should i use css3
On 4/10/2012 10:42 PM, meera kibe wrote: Hi I'm fairly new to website designing, and to css. Just finished an online course on css3 and loved it. I'm very keen to use it css3 for a website but i also want to cater to IE people. I'm veering towards writing a separate css file for IE8 and IE9. What is the best solution. It depends on the CSS3 properties you intend to use. IE9 actually has pretty good support - at least for the designer-oriented properties such as box-shadow, border-radius, stretched backgrounds, and more. IE10, which is close to release, looks like it will have full support. This is a good read: http://www.impressivewebs.com/css3-browser-support/ -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com The Finest Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets Since 1998 __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
