Re: [css-d] Double space after a period]]

2006-10-15 Thread Mike Dougherty
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:15:59 +0100
  Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> declare:
> 
> i   {padding-right : 1em;   }
> 
> then use . in the text.  Not brilliant, certainly not semantic,
> but it seems to work. I wanted to avoid a long 'span' and use a simple
> (short) tag.
> 
> I doubt that anyone can spot an italicised period. .  :-) !

you could also apply a style to make the period not be italicised too.

Maybe I missed the point, but why not use   in this case?

I thought the idea was that the text was being inserted without formatting, and 
that the author is 
looking for a way to apply two spaces to "as typed" text that otherwise is 
having whitespace 
compressed.  The first 3 thoughts I had would not work.  I then went to using 
unobtrusive 
javascript to "fix" the markup after it's delivered to the browser, (assuming 
server-side 
intervention is not possible) but that is definately not a CSS solution.
__
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/


Re: [css-d] Four that could be two

2006-05-26 Thread Mike Dougherty
I think the active state is used if you keyboard navigate the links without 
activating them.  The 
link that will be followed by pressing the space/enter key can be "active" 
without sharing the 
"hover" status.  True, many people navigate solely with the mouse.  As a 
general rule, I would 
suggest being extra explicit about your selectors and rules rather than relying 
on default 
behaviors.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:20:32 -0700
  "skye estes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Scott Haneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no problem. also note that if your hover and active states are the same,
> only specifying rules for the hover state will be enough, as you have to be
> hovering over a link in order for it to be active.
> 
__
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/


[css-d] Selector complexity

2006-05-19 Thread Mike Dougherty
Is there any known performance impact to possibly overly specific selectors?

ex:
#CategoryList li.Category ul li.product ul li.ciDsc a:hover {}
(vs.)
li.ciDsc a:hover {}

The first case is extremely specific and clues the reader to the structure of 
the document

Does the second case incur less parse/render overhead?

I normally opt for readability, but I have recently executed a styled list of 
links from what was 
once a table-based layout.  The page display performance is pretty terrible.  I 
would post a url, 
but this is part of a redesign rollout that is not yet public.
__
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/


[css-d] menu help

2006-02-10 Thread Mike Dougherty
Can someone explain to me why IE removes the background from Menu11 when the 
browser is resized so 
the viewport is smaller than the top menu bar?

http://www.pgi_products.com/test/cssmenu2.asp?CM=3  (remove the underscore)


I know the graphic and color schemes are terrible, and a coworker was 
complaining about font size 
and family, etc.  This proof of concept is close enough to working to be 
promising: css only 2 
line menu (except for IE .htc) - but if I can't figure out why IE is rendering 
incorrectly, I will 
have to find a new solution.  (The latest version on our developement server is 
reliably crashing 
IE)
__
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/


Re: [css-d] class vs. id

2005-12-14 Thread Mike Dougherty
I think the idea was that the wiki would stay "evergreen" while the past 
discussion would not be 
as available to new members (or existing members who don't feel like searching 
archives)  Wiki 
pages are  also more easily referred to in response to new questions than an 
old discussion 
thread.


On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:54:40 -0500
  brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Start a blog, add a page to the wiki. This is where I put things like
>>  that, as it is meant to be remembered, right?
> 
> Go start your own blog. The last time i looked, the d in css-d stood for 
> 'discuss'
__
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] Help my design team move away from nested tables

2005-11-29 Thread Mike Dougherty
If a page is composed entirely of a 'cut up' Photoshop image, what value is CSS?

If the page is created and managed as a photoshop document, is there any useful 
presentation 
feature offered by CSS?  There is no font control (sizing, face, etc.)  there 
is no color control, 
there is no (real) hope of liquid layout, there is no alternate stylesheet.  If 
marketing decides 
to 'tweak' the page, you're going back to the original photoshop document.  I 
don't see how a site 
made of pages like this is much different than an interconnected PDF that pops 
up in your browser.

Our webmaster draws pictures in photoshop and gets approval for pages using 
those images, then 
he'll create a FrontPage mockup - which is essentially the photoshop document 
polluted with 
Frontpage markup.  The multipage mess is then handed over to me to "make 
functional" by adding 
infrastructure that should have been built first.  Am I wrong to believe this 
is not a 'best 
practice' way to go about web design?  (sorry for the wandering rant)

...Anyone have a favorite URL for 'best practice' web design?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:58:36 +0300
  "Nick Wilsdon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> 
>> If we want to produce good clean markup using CSS we have the basically
> rewrite much of the output from the design team. This seems like double
> work, Considering this is more a tool issue than the fault of the designers.
> What alternatives are there for this?
> 
> 
> This tool doesn't exist, sorry Paul. It just sounds like you need a web
> designer. You're essentially using Adobe ImageReady to 'make' your web sites
> at the moment. Once they finally launch a 'CSS web designer tool' then a lot
> of us are out of work! *g 
> 
> I have 2 people here (and myself) hand coding up the Photoshop layouts from
> the designers - I couldn't imagine doing it any other way. 
> 
> There are tools which make working in CSS easier - TopStyle by Nick Bradbury
> is one that really helps me. You can also pick up layouts at glish.com and
> bluerobot.com which will save your team time. 
__
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] Text decoration help

2005-11-25 Thread Mike Dougherty
em is a tag that semantically implies emphasis

If your CSS does not get applied, the default rendering of the em tag should 
still provide 
emphasis, while the p tag with a class does not have the same implicit meaning.

font-style controls italics
text-decoration controls underline

does this work?:
em { font-weight: 900; font-style: normal; text-decoration: underline; }


On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:57:04 -0800
  Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Angus,
> 
> Try CSS something like..
> 
> .shout-it { font-weight: 900; text-decoration: underline; }
> 
> Then html like:
> 
> This is bold underline
> 
> Using em as a class or id name is probably a bad idea.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On 11/25/05, Angus at InfoForce Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> In my style sheet, I have:
>>
>> em {
>> font-weight: 900;
>> text-decoration: underline;
>> }
>>
>> And the text between the  appears as bold italic and not bold
>> underline. Anyone now why?
>>
>>
>>
> __
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> __
> This message was scanned by ATX
> 4:57:49 PM ET - 11/25/2005

__
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] Why add an .img class?

2005-10-18 Thread Mike Dougherty

define "uncluttered"

Good markup should describe the content.  If there is semantically correct information about the 
tags that is not immediately used by the current stylesheet, that does not mean the information is 
'clutter.'  I would prefer the content creator add appropriate classes describing the content 
(though not the layout preferences) so that the presentation layer (css) has more opportunity to 
specifically style the content.  It becomes very difficult to later isolate specific elements in a 
document if those elements do not have appropriate classes.



On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:45:53 -0400
 "Charles Dort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MANY thanks to all who have so helpfully replied to my question!

As a beginner, perhaps I've focused too much on the value of uncluttered
markup.

So far as I can see, I was able to complete all of the tasks of that chapter
(including changing margins, etc.) without "cluttering" the markup with a
class that to this beginner seemed unnecessary.  I would have supposed that
if in the future I made a change such as adding text to the  with an
image, then I would need a class and could then add it at that point, and I
wondered why do it until/unless it's needed.

I gather from the replies that experienced CSS coders would often prefer to
"be prepared" for such a possible future need, even though it may mean
adding classes to the html markup that aren't actually needed, at least at
this time.

It's helpful for me to think about these things, and I thank all of you for
your help.

Charles


__
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/


__
This message was scanned by ATX
12:19:13 PM ET - 10/18/2005


__
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] Music Files and CSS

2005-07-20 Thread Mike Dougherty

By that definition there should be no background: url(anything)

I know it's difficult enough to find support for current levels of CSS specs, but the user 
experience on the Web will likely continue to evolve to a point where audio will be as much a part 
of a site's "style" as the images or fonts. [perhaps body{background-audio: url(mymusic.mp3);} ]


I don't think it was unrealistic for Peggy to ask the question.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:00:35 -0500
 Matthew Ohlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Peggy Bart wrote:

Any information on how to add mp3 files to be played by visitors to my web site using CSS 
would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Peggy Bart


Peggy:

I don't think CSS is going to help you there. Here is the definition of CSS straight from the 
spec:


   "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a simple mechanism for adding style
(e.g. fonts, colors, spacing) to Web documents."

CSS is used for styling, not content. I think what might work better is the 'object' tag, or 
maybe you could create a Flash applet. I think JavaScript might be able to handle sound, but don't 
quote me on that one.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-object.html - Object 
Tag
[2] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ - CSS Specs
__
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] Inline links, background images and MSIE

2005-06-21 Thread Mike Dougherty
I would suggest for the sake of the future, (where the CSS gets moved to another directory and you 
have to update the markup to reflect the change) that the only relative paths you use are relative 
to the root:  /images/whatever.gif  Otherwise, you may have to update the markup referring to the 
CSS as well as go through the CSS to change paths to images that haven't even been moved.  

Also, for security reasons some administrators may uncheck the "allow parent paths" checkbox to 
disable the ".." directory from working.


YMMV


If your images were in a images folder (or directory) this would be  the 
correct way:
 - - - O R - - -
a {
background: #fff; url(../images/arrow-selected.gif) 0 50% no- 
repeat;

padding-left: 1em;
}


__
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] hiding and displaying table rows FF vs. IE

2005-06-17 Thread Mike Dougherty

1. inline styles are less than ideal.
2. if an object is display: none; why bother setting its visibility?

how about this instead:
#mytable tbody {display: none;}
#mytable tbody.show {display: block;}

then in javascript:
mytbody.className = 'show' ;  /* show the tbody */
or
mytbody.className = '' ; /* remove the "show" class = return the default style 
= display: none; */

The idea is to keep the presentation details in CSS (preferrably in an easier-to-maintain external 
CSS file) and the behaviors for changing the presentation (via obj.className) isolated to the 
javascript.


Note: If you want to use multiple classes on the object, you will need to tweak the javascript - 
which is beyond the scope of this simple example and completely off-topic for css-d.


BTW, Are you doing anything to accommodate browsers with javascript unavailable?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:28:52 -0400
 Jason Kohls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi all,

I'm having issues hiding and displaying table rows contained within a
tbody, specifically, Gecko-based browsers.

The initial state is to hide the rows. In order to do this in both IE
and FF, I used the following:

...

 ...

Using javascript, I'm changing these styles to "visibility:visible"
and "display:block" in a function using an onclick event.

This works fine in IE; the rendering order is maintained and life is
wonderful.
In FF, however, the display: none is taking it out of the rendering
context (like it's supposed to) so when I change the
display/visibility attribute, the now visible tbody/tr's show up last
in the rendering order (below the tfoot even).

I've tried playing with positioning, etc.  is there:
a) a better way to do this?  If the initial state was to show the
rows, this works fine, but thats not what I need.
b) a way to force the rendering order using some CSS hack goodness? :)

Thanks in advance,
J
__
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/


__
This message was scanned by ATX
9:41:47 AM ET - 6/17/2005


__
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] layout issue with floats and wide content

2005-05-10 Thread Mike Dougherty
the current site: http://pgiproducts.com/pgi.asp
my attempt at removing the layout table: 
http://pgiproducts.com/skins/pgimsd/demo1.htm
Resize your viewport small enough that the #content wraps below #nav
I "fixed" my design proof in Firefox by #content {overflow: visible} but my proof used long 
strings of static text, which is not accurately representational of the actual dynamic contents. 
The markup that goes inside the #content div is out of my control, but I have to make sure the 
existing content is displayed properly. A small viewport causes the floated #content to wrap under 
the floated #nav. I tried using absolute positioning, but could not figure out the #footer. Since 
IE does not allow content to be visible outside the containing box, I set an arbitrarily large 
width on the #middle div to try to prevent the wrapping when #content got too big. None of this is 
working the way I think it should.

Many of the links I've googled have simple examples of two-column layouts with header & footer. 
The problem is that they do not expect the #content to scroll right out of the viewport. I know 
horizontal scrolling isn't fashionable, but I can't enforce a redesign of existing pages which 
have been allowed the freedom of infinite right extension.

What else can I try before admitting I've spent too much time on this already and leave the 
table-based layout in place?
__
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/