Re: [WSG] css syntactical efficiency
Paul,
You could use a universal selector like this:
#article * { color: blue;}
This saves specifying elements within the container, but it will color ALL
elements within the container to blue - so it may be overkill for your
needs.
Well supported by modern browsers including IE5, 5.5 and 6 (unbelievable!) -
but not supported by NN4.
HTH
Russ
> When making a declaration about a group of selectors, and members of the
> group are descendant selectors, is it necessary to declare the parent every
> time? For instance, I would rather not declare the parent #article 12 times
> in a group selector with 12 members...
>
> #article h1, #article p, #article ul, #article ol {color:blue}
>
> Is there a shorthand for that? To prevent repetition of the parent?
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*
RE: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Yeah, I think were probably done on this topic. The point is that the scientific community's need for italicisation of species names IS a visual one and it predates the web by centuries. A wishy-washy or a span is wrong in this case as the goal is to specifically italicise not emphasise or otherwise separate from the flow of text. If that means I code these pages in the perfectly acceptable HTML 4.01 for the next x0 years, so be it. Let's not go down that road now. I maintain the need for both the literal (supported as long as I have been writing HTML and that's 9 or 10 years now and LYNX was still fairly popular if not dominant) and the semantic (which we do in fact generally use for this blowing away the argument but not the need and I'm planning a serious discussion with Russ about changing back to what I now believe to be the more correct for this purpose). P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
[WSG] css syntactical efficiency
When making a declaration about a group of selectors, and members of the
group are descendant selectors, is it necessary to declare the parent every
time? For instance, I would rather not declare the parent #article 12 times
in a group selector with 12 members...
#article h1, #article p, #article ul, #article ol {color:blue}
Is there a shorthand for that? To prevent repetition of the parent?
Thanks,
Paul
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Removing bullets
simon wrote:
I have contructed this navigation bar -->
http://simondodson.com/nav2.html and im having trouble removing the
bullet points from the list ...
every new browser will be happy with this:
#menu ul{
list-style-type: none;
}
nn4 will need this:
#menu ul, #menu li{
list-style-type: none;
}
--
Kristof
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
El vie, 07-05-2004 a las 17:37, Andy Budd escribió: > Manuel González Noriega wrote: > > > Well it's pretty tricky picking between two wrongs but i'd say wrong > > named classes are much less serious than wrongfully marked elements. > > Why is marking something up as italic wrong though? For one thing, it fixes the element to a medium (visual). If you 'span'n'style' it, you get back the freedom to export the meaning to different mediums. It's not wrong like it's a crime or unethical or something. It's just that every example i've seen of 'a fair use of i' could/should be reformulated. In every example (foreign language, scientific names, etc..) when someone tells me they want to mark something up as italic, i think 'no, you want to mark it up as belonging to a certain class *and then* saying that certain class should appear as italic. I'm aware is a fairly obscure technical-philosophical issue and that one man's 'true way' could be seen as 'markupbation' by others :-) It may go against > your belief of separating content from display, but it's a valid > (x)html element isn't it? Of course! If it wouldn't validate that would be quite the end of the discussion, wouldn't it? Still, a validator won't tell you if you're using the right tag for the job. That's a job for collective brainstormings like this. > > Seems like using or are pretty much the same. > In fact you could argue that using is better because it's a > standard html element (rather than a user defined class) and will thus > be understood by more systems. The incorrect naming of the span class is what it's making it pretty much the same. If the name of the class would describe the function rather than the visual presentation, then there would be a clear difference. > I'd still argue that the purpose of the element is to make > something italic, so that's exactly how it should be used (not saying > that's the only way to make something italicw). Using it to make > something bold however would be a shooting offence. The main issue is choosing between considering - a first-class citizen of the (x)HTML world - a piece of junk that smells bad and doesn't really has the right to be in a modern markup job, even though it hasn't been yet erased from the specs. (just kidding, , i just think your time has passed. No offense) > > Personally, i do it because i was told me girls dig semantic coding. > > You > > mean they don't? > > Some do. However some like it the old fashioned way. Girls who mix content and presentation are a sure mess to get undressed. BTW, sometimes i feel way beyond my written english skills, excuse me if my sentences sound aadvark sometimes. -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Manuel González Noriega wrote: Well it's pretty tricky picking between two wrongs but i'd say wrong named classes are much less serious than wrongfully marked elements. Why is marking something up as italic wrong though? It may go against your belief of separating content from display, but it's a valid (x)html element isn't it? Seems like using or are pretty much the same. In fact you could argue that using is better because it's a standard html element (rather than a user defined class) and will thus be understood by more systems. Are you saying that we are all guilty of laziness once or twice in a while and that we don't follow good practices all of the time? Boy, i'm glad i'm not the only one ;) Still, i don't think that's quite the same than writing a post about using an element in a way that's not the way it should be used. I'd still argue that the purpose of the element is to make something italic, so that's exactly how it should be used (not saying that's the only way to make something italicw). Using it to make something bold however would be a shooting offence. Personally, i do it because i was told me girls dig semantic coding. You mean they don't? Some do. However some like it the old fashioned way. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] XML declarations, ' and IE
Patrick Griffiths wrote: Doesn't appear to, which is a bit odd. ' is fine though. Thanks dog I've always wanted to say that :-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] floating thumbnails height causes line jumps
On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:08:12 +1000, Lea de Groot wrote: > I'm finding that some of the captions are longer than others, and when > an image+caption is shorter than one to the left of it, the following > row doesnt go all the way across the page, but starts just to the right > of the taller block. Well, I got one fix - I moved the caption into it own classed div and put a height of 5em on it. There's only about 2 captions that are bigger than that. Its not perfect but its better. Can you improve on that? Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] XML declarations, ' and IE
> This is probably a dumb question, but am I right in assuming that IE > will only correctly display an ' character entity if the XHTML > file has an XML declaration? Doesn't appear to, which is a bit odd. ' is fine though. Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
[WSG] XML declarations, ' and IE
This is probably a dumb question, but am I right in assuming that IE will only correctly display an ' character entity if the XHTML file has an XML declaration? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] IE navigation hitch
wow .. Bent ... thats awesome ... .thank you very much - Original Message - From: Siteman DA - Bent Inge Høiås To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] IE navigation hitch Hi there! I did some changes and now it seems 2 work fine in Opera, Explorer and Mozilla. Hope I could be of some help :-) Best regards, Bent Inge Høiås www.siteman.no - Original Message - From: simon dodson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: [WSG] IE navigation hitch I built this navbar http://www.simondodson.com/nav2.html and it seems to work fine in all major modern browsers besides IE. The nav bar elements seems to be showing half its hover state and im not sure why. I think im missing a certain height variant in my css. any suggestions?
[WSG] floating thumbnails height causes line jumps
I'm trying to implement a gallery style application, where the thumbnails are floated. I've used Russ' http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/tutorial0401.htm as a base. I'm finding that some of the captions are longer than others, and when an image+caption is shorter than one to the left of it, the following row doesnt go all the way across the page, but starts just to the right of the taller block. Has anyone figured out a way to avoid this? Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Trouble with safari
The top right links are not positioning properly in ie 5 mac either. _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] IE navigation hitch
Hi there! I did some changes and now it seems 2 work fine in Opera, Explorer and Mozilla. Hope I could be of some help :-) Best regards, Bent Inge Høiås www.siteman.no - Original Message - From: simon dodson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: [WSG] IE navigation hitch I built this navbar http://www.simondodson.com/nav2.html and it seems to work fine in all major modern browsers besides IE. The nav bar elements seems to be showing half its hover state and im not sure why. I think im missing a certain height variant in my css. any suggestions? Title: wadigi nav
[WSG] IE navigation hitch
I built this navbar http://www.simondodson.com/nav2.html and it seems to work fine in all major modern browsers besides IE. The nav bar elements seems to be showing half its hover state and im not sure why. I think im missing a certain height variant in my css. any suggestions?
Re: [WSG] Is this a good placeholder page
Thanks Ben You jogged my memory into remembering what happens to email addresses that are displayed as plaintext on websites ... spam ! I'll have to remove the email address while I whip up a PHP email enquiries form. I can't "throw in a logo" as the client doesn't have one yet. -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy Ben Smith wrote: I would show their email address, rather than "enquiries"... maybe throw a logo on there if they have one. B Neerav wrote: Is something like http://www.austravelexp.com.au/ Which I just whipped up using a few shades of grey, a good temporary placeholder solution for a client who: * Has registered their domain name * Has delegated it to their webhost * Hasnt decided on any colour scheme or initial content yet, and is unlikely to for a while? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Is this a good placeholder page
I would show their email address, rather than "enquiries"... maybe throw a logo on there if they have one. B Neerav wrote: Is something like http://www.austravelexp.com.au/ Which I just whipped up using a few shades of grey, a good temporary placeholder solution for a client who: * Has registered their domain name * Has delegated it to their webhost * Hasnt decided on any colour scheme or initial content yet, and is unlikely to for a while? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
[WSG] Is this a good placeholder page
Is something like http://www.austravelexp.com.au/ Which I just whipped up using a few shades of grey, a good temporary placeholder solution for a client who: * Has registered their domain name * Has delegated it to their webhost * Hasnt decided on any colour scheme or initial content yet, and is unlikely to for a while? -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] reply from ACA
Get a visually impaired friend to send the ACA an email based on this: http://www.bca.org.au/ddacomp.htm Maybe that will raise the profile of the problem? Chris www.cogentis.com.au On Fri, 07 May 2004 02:08:02 -0400, Ryan Christie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Damn man... I haven't laughed so hard in quite awhile. > For christsake -- someone please get the Australian .gov's to validate > proper. > There's an army of you guys over there. Makes me want to pack my bags > and jet :) > > (and, I loved this guy's grammar and spelling.) > > -Ryan > > > > Neerav wrote: > > > The following line from the ACA's source code explains most of the > > problem: > > > > > > and the less said about their "accessible sitemap" at > > http://www.aca.gov.au/help/sitemap.htm (a mess of table cells and font > > tags) the better > > > > * > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > * > > * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Question on javascript
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 08:24, Mordechai Peller wrote: > > A much better solution is to handle it server side. One simple reason > (but far from the one) is that no browser is required to support > JavaScript (either by design or through user choice), but they are > required to support HTTP. Likewise, never rely solely on javascript based form input validation, you should always check form inputs server side. Until Xforms http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/ becomes more mainstream we are all stuck with the limited set html inputs types. DOM / javascript allows us to improve the situation some what allowing such things as calendar selectors and multicolumn lists that have sorting. Also until all browsers support CSS pseudo-classes on every element, javascript can fill in the gaps. For a good example of the right way to do this take a look here. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tableruler/ I used to think reliability was an issue, but that changed one I realised that most modern browsers all maintain a standard DOM interface. Now if I could only poke into the DOM with CSS... ;) Regards Chris Blown http://hinterlands.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
