Re: [css-d] What´s wrong
Reynier Perez Mira wrote:
.divBanner {
padding: .2em;
background: url(../theme_image/bannerbck.gif);
/*background-color: #dd; */
border-bottom: 1px solid gray;
}
Hi,
It may be something in your markup that is causing the problem or
perhaps a conflict with another class. The following works fine for me
in Firefox and IE on Win XP, SP-2.
div class=divBannerSome content for this div.../div
.divBanner {
background: #DDD url(../theme_image/bannerbck.gif);
border-bottom: 1px solid gray;
padding: 0.2em;
}
And how I can replace image when it doesn't exists with color
something like this
In the above, adding the background color (#DDD) to 'background:' will
provide a default color for the element in the case images are
unavailable or undesired.
--
Best regards,
Michael Wilson
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] What´s wrong
Adam Kuehn wrote: Michael Wilson wrote: In the above, adding the background color (#DDD) to 'background:' will provide a default color for the element in the case images are unavailable or undesired. Just a quick note that the background color is ALWAYS applied, not just when images are unavailable. Hi, It seems as though you are forever correcting me Adam and correctly as usual. ;). As I read the OP, I made the assumption (and you know what they say about that) we were dealing with a fall back method where one would not want the background to be transparent in the event a particular image was not displayed for /whatever/ reason. Indeed, when dealing with (semi)transparent images, the background color chosen will be (semi)visible and one should design accordingly. Thanks for the catch. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] an alternative to if ie hack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an alternative to the hack
!--[if IE]
style
div.logo {
margin-left: 10px;
}
/style
![endif]--
something I can put in the external style sheet?
Hi,
!--[if IE]
style type=text/css
!--
@import url(foo/foo.css);
--
/style
![endif]--
or
!--[if IE]
link rel=stylesheet type=text/css href=foo/foo.css /
![endif]--
HTH
--
Best regards,
Michael Wilson
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] site check - Omega-Tek.com
Travis Barden wrote: http://www.omega-tek.com/index.php Hi, Firefox v1.0.7, Windows XP-SP2 I don't think it's been noted yet, but at 800x600 I get a slight (about 30px) horizontal scroll. On http://www.omega-tek.com/contact/contact.php some of the content in the center column overflows the white background when viewed at 800x600. Specifically the following text: Look to the right to see if a technician is available. When font size is increased (2x), the form elements also overflow this box. On http://www.omega-tek.com/support/view_schedule.php, again when viewed at 800x600, table class=schedule falls behind the right column navigation. Everything else seems to work properly and allows for increased font-size and lower resolutions--my default setup of 1280x960 works well also. I should also note that I don't have the same problem as Christian does regarding Firefox's link highlighting. I do see the border Firefox /overlays/ when I focus (using tab) links, but they cause no strange behavior or additional horizontal scroll at any resolution I've tested. Good luck! -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Dreamweaver 8: is it's code truly standards-compliant?
Matt Poyner wrote: We are getting ready to upgrade to Dreamweaver 8 here and I am wondering if anyone has had time to work with it much yet? Does the program do CSS layout by default, or does it mix tables and css together, or can you choose? Hi, I've been using version 8 since the demo was available and have had pretty good luck with it. Your main question is somewhat difficult to answer because, although Dreamweaver has a design view, the markup the editor generates has always (as far as I know) been left up to the developer--you can work with any tag you need. Whether you wish to work with tables or with more semantic markup when appropriate, Dreamweaver can accommodate you. In the end, though, *you* still have to direct the markup, CSS, and methodology used. I guess the best answer is: you can choose the markup and the CSS and mix them any way you like. The standards and CSS support in version 8 is allot better than previous versions and the design view handles CSS layouts pretty well. I've still managed to wreck it with some off the wall stuff, but most of the basic layout methods I've tested work great. That being said, I still don't rely on design view for accuracy. All I care about is that it is close enough for me to get and idea of how things look and that it allows me to edit copy quickly. I do all of my formal testing in browsers and all of my markup in code view. Altogether, I love it. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Good looking fluid-width sites
Al Sparber wrote: I honestly think your browser is not set up correctly. That's the only explanation. Yeah... the only explanation is that we (those of us who have seen the issue) are idiot n00bs. Of course your work is flawless... wtf were we thinking? I don't use IE for anything other than testing. Why would I care how it's set up or change anything? I want a default installation for testing -- right out of the box with SP2 all Windows updates in place--I've changed nothing. If the browser is not set up correctly you can blame Microsoft. I don't know what else to tell you other than I am done with this thread and with any attempt to try and help with the issue. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] New article on PIE - In Search of the One True Layout
Donna Casey wrote: 1)http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/example/rounded 2) insert cursor just before text Block2 in the green inner box As well, you cannot get the boxes back by reloading the page or hitting back button and returning, though you can click the example link on : Anyone else, since Alex needs confirmation? I get the exact same in Firefox v1.0.7. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Good looking fluid-width sites
Al Sparber wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: OK, but when testing this flubber layout in IE, I see that it's fixed. LOL, it's not fixed :-) Test it again. Do you have an unfixed stanalone IE installation per chance? Hi, I thought the layout was fixed in IE myself until I reloaded the page. It seems that, at least in my Win XP, SP2, IE 6 installation, when I first load the page all is well regardless of my browser size. If, however, I resize the browser (especially when I maximize, then resize), the page snaps to what looks like about 1000px fixed width. If I refresh the page everything falls into place. @ 800x600 After initial load http://www.961media.com/__temp/ll1.png After initial load and manual resize: http://www.961media.com/__temp/ll2.png After initial load, manual resize, and manual (F5) refresh: http://www.961media.com/__temp/ll3.png -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] site check mepush.com/sandbox/village/
Christian Heilmann wrote: http://www.mepush.com/sandbox/village/ Decided to knock another one out tonight, well at least get started on it. This one is really basic right now, just a nav bar content section, and a couple of absolute positioned images. no links work, just the front page right now. Any comments would be helpful, CSS image maps might be sexy, but turn off images in your browser as a test and you cannot use the page at all any longer. Hi, I agree, the map looks nice (although it took me a second to realize it was the navigation--maybe not so intuitive), but with images off, I can't use the page. I can use it just fine with CSS disabled or CSS and images disabled. I also found the italicized text a little difficult to read. It may be because of the volume of content or the ipsum-filler--I don't know, but whatever the reason, the lines keep blurring on me. Other than this, the page worked well for me. HTH -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Which browsers do you support?
I support: * Internet Explorer 5.0+ * Firefox * Mozilla * Safari * Netscape 6.0+ * Opera 7+ (6+ if I can) For older and other browsers, I just try to make sure the site is usable and I don't concern myself much with the look and feel of things. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Allegedly simple positioning problem with CSS
Thomas W. Bickle wrote: http://tombickle.com/files/test/board_only.html I simply want one group to sit to the right of the other group, on the same horizontal plane. I have placed a simple table below the first two images to illustrate what I want, if it helps. Hi, This may not be an exact match for your needs, but it should get you on the right path. In this particular example, rather than clearing to create a columnar effect, I chose to enclose the profiles in a div, which, is sized to force a wrap and accomplishes the same goal. You may need to tweak a bit for IE 5.x, but this should look OK in IE 6 and Firefox 1.0+. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Newbie-Question: Problem with Background Image
Oliver Saager wrote: http://develop.saager.ch http://develop.saager.ch/css/screen.css The pencils in the header are supposed to cover the entire space and NOT leave white space on the left and on the right side. Hi, Try changing the selector #contentheader h1 to just #contentheader. You can also remove the font-size: 14px; rule since you already specified that in your h1 rule set. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] using percentages, paragraph too small within tables
Bruce Gilbert wrote:
scroll down until you see the paragraph 'directions', and underneath
that you will see 'from I-85...below that you will see really tiny
text that says 'why am I so small?'. This is the text I am referring
to.
Hi,
You have .content p set to 70%. Change this to 1.0em or 100% and you
should be squared away. I recommend setting a percentage on the body and
then using em for additional font-size declarations. I generally set
something like 76%/1.4 on the body and then use 1.0em on the container
(wrapper). I find this provides a relatively consistent font-size across
platforms and browsers and makes it easier to control inheritance--it's
not perfect, but very few things are. :)
.content p {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 0 10px 2px;
color: #333;
font: 1.0em /150% Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}
Additionally, you may want to revisit the organization of your CSS. It
seems you could clean things up a bit and it may be possible that your
cascade or specificity is being thrown off by your grouping methods. You
have table td p{font-size:100%;} declared after .content p, however;
because .content p has a higher specificity, the latter rule is ignored.
HTH,
Michael Wilson
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS list numbering - non-contiguous lists in XHTML 1. 1
David Balch wrote: Unfortunately, this is not valid XHTML as p isn't allowed inside ol. p as a child of ol is not valid, however, p as a child of li is perfectly valid. For a moment I thought there was an easy solution when I was looking for a difficult one ;-) I've used the following on several occasions without issue or a guilty conscience: http://www.iqmax.com/downloads/mike/css-examples/list-item-notes/ Conceptually one doesn't find paragraphs in lists - only list-items. One could argue that something that isn't a list-item within a list should be treated as if it weren't in the list, regards formatting at least. In contrast, one argument in favor of block-level content within list items may be that just because something is a list item doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't warrant further elaboration or structure. A complex set of step-by-step instructions, for example, may require more than a few words wrapped in li to properly convey meaning. I believe this is the reason the spec allows for block level content within list items. If the content in question isn't an integral part of a list item, then it should be placed outside the list; perhaps before as an introduction or after as a footnote. At the end of the day, I don't think you will be committing semantic hara-kiri by using this method to structure your list. Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Win (2k?) IE 5+ odity
Hi, I posted this issue to another, broader scoped list (Webdesign-L) yesterday to try and get a handle on what my issue is and I believe it may be CSS related, so I thought I would seek help here as well. Overview: I ran a site I'm working on through BrowserCam and noticed that on Widows 2000 in IE 5.01-6.0 the floated sidebar on one of the pages [01] was missing from the captures. Before posting elsewhere, I believed this issue to be prevalent only in a 800x600 resolution, but it seems to be apparent at other resolutions as well, but only on the products page. The really odd thing is that the sidebar only drops on first load. If you refresh the page, everything seems to pop into place. I haven't been able to reproduce this under Windows XP, but I'm not ruling out the possibility that it does in fact occur... in fact, I think I would be better off it it is a Windows + IE problem rather than a Windows 2K + IE problem. I would appreciate any feedback, screen shots, or information on a known bug or error in my CSS [02] that might be causing this problem. I don't currently have Windows 2K installed, so I can't test more thoroughly myself, but I plan on booting a box up with it some time in the next day or two. I'd also like to know if this can be confirmed on a Windows XP box. [01] http://www.wateroutflashing.com/products.htm [02] http://www.wateroutflashing.com/css/wof.css Best regards, M. Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Browser compatibility information?
CSS wrote: I'm a new poster here, and am looking for a handy reference to browser compatibility with CSS. Hi, Here are a couple I've come across, but I'm not certain as to how complete or accurate each may be. http://www.westciv.com/style_master/academy/browser_support/index.html http://www.corecss.com/properties/full-chart.php -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] order of content
Kelly Miller wrote: You know, there IS a way to clear floats without an extra div element. Chris Ovenden wrote: another is the detritus that floats usually produce - unneccessay, semantic-free clearing elements. Can't help feeling, though, that there must be a better way than both. And that way would BE... http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html Aside from that issue, I prefer floats because in my experience they are more predictable across browsers. There are instances where floating can't help me stack content on the screen the way I want and in those cases I fall back on absolute positioning, but over all I find floats to be much more forgiving and easier to work with. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
