Re: [WSG] google and validation

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

tee wrote:

Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend 
extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of 
validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above 
example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or 
other scripts?


I rarely ever spend extra time on it, but I do like to save time on
debugging later by checking and cleaning up my own and third party's
code early - and often. If something is going to break anyway, it better
break early.


I use the "one click - 1/10 of a second processing in HTML Tidy"
shortcut all the time, which means I actually have problems creating or
leaving non-valid parts in a page even when wanting to - for
testing-purposes and alike.

Embedded scripts are automatically commented out by "my" Tidy - thus
ignored by the validator, so no problems there.

Google code and similar sometimes means "my" Tidy performs
doctype-downgrading, which isn't much of a problem either, IMO. If the
source-code is only good for "Transitional", then "Transitional" it is.

If I want a "pass" on "Strict" when Tidy says it is only "Transitional",
I'll have to perform the extra tidying and testing myself to make sure
it works, before calling on Tidy again to check and confirm.

Sometimes I even validate my work, but not often since "my" Tidy got it
right in 99.9% of all cases anyway. The validator does a better job at
informing me about what's wrong than Tidy does though, so if I'm more
confused than usual the validator is a "nice to have".


The cleaning-up process I'm very much depending on in my daily work,
seems to only work properly with the original, customized, Tidy-version
integrated in my old editor though, which is why I haven't changed basic
editing-tool for my own work for years. I'll probably have to customize
it, and "my" Tidy, for (X)HTML 5 one day, so it doesn't trip on new
elements and attributes.

I normally only use my much newer and more user-friendly editors when
I'm looking at other people's pages - like yours :-) - since I've found
their newer Tidy-versions (if they have one) and integration of it near
useless. They seem to have become too lenient, and many of the
integrated Tidy's are almost "set in stone" and can't be properly
customized through the interface no matter what.

I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored. 
But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as 
far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still 
trying  to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that 
may  create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the 
IE?


Validation _isn't_ important at all in itself, but making sure the
markup and whatever else is in there is actually in accordance with
specs before one starts to curse various browsers for their failures,
sure makes those curses more valid :-)

After all: most cross-browser problems are caused by invalid and/or
nonsensical markup and CSS, so quickly knowing in which direction one
should direct those curses saves time and frustration.

Can't say I've seen IE fail because of validity, but of course one in
rare cases has to add something (still valid) to the markup in order to
avoid an IE bug or two. Nearly all IE bugs can be fixed without touching
the markup though - if the source-code is valid and logical, and, as
mentioned, embedded scripts don't create validity-problems.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] min-might question

[Thierry Koblentz]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of tee
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:21 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] min-might question
> 
> 
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 2:57 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> 
> > tee wrote:
> >
> >> 'min-heigh' talls enough is the problem. If I can't forsee how long
> >> the content will be, how do I decide the set the value of min-height?
> >> http://lotusseedsdesign.com/opera-test/mh.html
> >> The design is the fixed width, but even with fuild layout, it's a
> >> problem not knowing how tall the content be
> >
> > Looks like you're trying to build a table with divs. Much better to
> > use
> > a real HTML table for that since none of the existing CSS solutions
> > are
> > supported well enough to replicate one. As you know, IE doesn't play
> > ball when served CSS table - support = zero.
> > In addition to that, Gecko can't A:P the  in a table-cell - real or
> > styled, so you'll have to give those  their own rows with cells.
> >
> 
> Well, Georg, actually it's already in a table but I was think it's
> more appropriate for div block with floated element and was going to
> get rid of table.
> 
> It's a product grid view listing, and semantically, the  (a button)
> belongs to the content in the min-height section, so it's not really
> appropriate to make the  to a new td cell and I don't feel
> comfortable to do that just to achieve the visual effect.
> 
> Right now the markup goes like this
> 
>   content here
>   a line of text
> 
> 


Hi Tee,

If you're willing to replace the table with some junk markup (spans for
companion columns), you could try this approach:
http://tjkdesign.com/test/tee.asp


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[Brett Patterson]

I understand what you are saying to a degree. But what YOU don't understand
is that by validating a page, you are more ensured that your page will work
for everyone. So it is an easy fix, but it has nothing to do with embedding
Google calendar or other scripts. It is just a link. Whereas embedding means
actually having the calendar visible in the page. A COMPLETELY different
story. If you don't validate then you cannot know any mistakes that may make
users frustrated and/or leave the site. Also, others, such as those who are
using the site through a screen reader may not be able to. That is the first
thing any halfway decent coder/designer/developer knows. And I am not
implying that you are no good, but you really need to rethink about
validation. As far as writing another IE script, is it that hard for you to
do? To help users that may view your site, view it trouble free?

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:00 PM, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Brett Patterson wrote:
>
>  This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to view.
>> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp
>>
>> Here is the code that works for me:
>>
>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15">You
>> can link here!
>>
>
>
> Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra
> time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when
> third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but
> how about embedding google calendar or other scripts?
>
> I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored. But as
> we in this list know it's not something that matters much as far as
> accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still trying to make the
> page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that may create problem in IE
> and then write another script to hack the IE?
>
> tee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] min-might question

[tee]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 2:57 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


tee wrote:

'min-heigh' talls enough is the problem. If I can't forsee how long  
the content will be, how do I decide the set the value of min-height?

http://lotusseedsdesign.com/opera-test/mh.html
The design is the fixed width, but even with fuild layout, it's a  
problem not knowing how tall the content be


Looks like you're trying to build a table with divs. Much better to  
use
a real HTML table for that since none of the existing CSS solutions  
are

supported well enough to replicate one. As you know, IE doesn't play
ball when served CSS table - support = zero.
In addition to that, Gecko can't A:P the  in a table-cell - real or
styled, so you'll have to give those  their own rows with cells.



Well, Georg, actually it's already in a table but I was think it's  
more appropriate for div block with floated element and was going to  
get rid of table.


It's a product grid view listing, and semantically, the  (a button)  
belongs to the content in the min-height section, so it's not really  
appropriate to make the  to a new td cell and I don't feel  
comfortable to do that just to achieve the visual effect.


Right now the markup goes like this

content here
a line of text




Hi Tee, I wonder if you are trying to achieve something like this? -

 

The minimum height in this case is 100% of the viewport - the "fix
footer to bottom" solution. The "Adobe reader" paragraph is positioned
just above the footer with absolute positioning from the bottom in  
EMs.


Cordially,
David


David, thanks. Yes, this is the idea I have, but without testing it, I  
am not sure if it can practically works though because  as my example  
shows, I have a row (rows) of column(s), so if one column has a much  
longer content than the others in the same row, I suspect at certain  
point the content in the min-height will overlap the , just as I  
see in the above layout when I enlarge fontsize couple more times.


tee

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[tee]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Brett Patterson wrote:

This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to  
view. http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp


Here is the code that works for me:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15 
">You can link here!



Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend  
extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of  
validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above  
example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or  
other scripts?


I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored.  
But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as  
far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still trying  
to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that may  
create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the IE?


tee






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Big Browsing Issues on clients PC Laptop AOL

[Steve Green]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Pennell
Sent: 18 October 2008 20:22
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Big Browsing Issues on clients PC Laptop AOL

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Kristine Cummins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I just launched a site, and it's browsing fine on my PC & Mac laptop
from IE5-8 browsers to FF etc. However, when my client visits her site on
her PC laptop using AOL, it is browsing (as if) the stylesheet is applying
only half way.  I've recommended her to download the latest IE or FF, but
she hasn't done it yet. When she goes to her place of work, it looks fine.
How could there be this huge discrepancy on her PC Laptop using AOL?


I can't speak for recently, but years ago AOL used to basically install
itself *as* your browser. The browser would be badged AOL, and it wouldn't
render quite like anything else that was around at the time. Now this was
probably around the time of IE4, so I would hope that things have changed -
I just checked the analytics account for a huge (180m pageviews/month) site,
and there are zero records of any browser with the string "AOL" in the
identification string, which suggests that there is currently no such thing
as an AOL browser.

Perhaps your stylesheet is cached by an AOL proxy?

- Matthew

-- 

Since AOL5 (and possibly earlier) the Windows version of AOL has used the
Internet Explorer rendering engine. If a suitable version of IE was already
installed it used that, otherwise it installed a newer version.

It would be interesting to see if the same problems occur when she accesses
the website using Internet Explorer.

Steve



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Big Browsing Issues on clients PC Laptop AOL

[Matthew Pennell]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Kristine Cummins <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I just launched a site, and it's *browsing* *fine on my PC & Mac laptop
> from IE5-8** browsers to** FF* etc. However, when my client visits her
> site on her *PC laptop using AOL*, it is browsing (as if) the stylesheet
> is applying only half way.  I've recommended her to download the latest IE
> or FF, but she hasn't done it yet. When she goes to her place of work, it
> looks fine. How could there be this huge discrepancy on her PC Laptop using
> AOL?
>
I can't speak for recently, but years ago AOL used to basically install
itself *as* your browser. The browser would be badged AOL, and it wouldn't
render quite like anything else that was around at the time. Now this was
probably around the time of IE4, so I would hope that things have changed -
I just checked the analytics account for a huge (180m pageviews/month) site,
and there are zero records of any browser with the string "AOL" in the
identification string, which suggests that there is currently no such thing
as an AOL browser.

Perhaps your stylesheet is cached by an AOL proxy?

- Matthew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[Brett Patterson]

This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to view.
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp

Here is the code that works for me:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15";>You
can link here!


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[Hassan Schroeder]

designer wrote:

which refers to the '=' before the utf8. Or is it all & that cause the 
problem?  That single URL finds 24 errors altogether.


Did you change them all? Because that's all I had to do to make your
sample validate...

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[designer]

From: Svip
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org


Care to tell us what exactly the validator tells you is wrong?

/Svip


2008/10/18 designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hello all,

A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located
(there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps).

The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to
get to the map. An example is:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15";>

Just changing the &'s to &'s doesn't seem to do it . . .

I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it?

Thanks,

Bob



Hi Svip,

There are several ampersands as you see, but also this:

Line 84, Column 77: reference not terminated by REFC delimiter.
…maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789If 
you meant to include an entity that starts with "&", then you should 
terminate it with ";". Another reason for this error message is that you 
inadvertently created an entity by failing to escape an "&" character just 
before this text.


which refers to the '=' before the utf8. Or is it all & that cause the 
problem?  That single URL finds 24 errors altogether.


???

Thanks,

Bob




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Big Browsing Issues on clients PC Laptop AOL

[Kristine Cummins]

I just launched a site, and it’s browsing fine on my PC & Mac laptop from IE5-8 
browsers to FF etc. However, when my client visits her site on her PC laptop 
using AOL, it is browsing (as if) the stylesheet is applying only half way.  
I’ve recommended her to download the latest IE or FF, but she hasn’t done it 
yet. When she goes to her place of work, it looks fine. How could there be this 
huge discrepancy on her PC Laptop using AOL?

Site is www.dianebrinker.com
Screenshots she sent me: http://www.dianebrinker.com/diane_screenshots.jpg
 
Thanks in advance for any help!
Kristine


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] min-might question

[David Hucklesby]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:24:03 -0700, tee wrote:
> Maybe this is something impossible with CSS, still I hope I am wrong and hope 
> someone
> who knows better than me able to tell me yes, it can be done.
>
> In a block where I have min-height declared, something like this:
>
> 
> content here
> a line of text
> 
>
> I cannot control or foresee how long the content in the 'set- minheight' div 
> be. What
> do I do to have the  tag always stay at the bottom of the block?
>
>

Hi Tee, I wonder if you are trying to achieve something like this? -

  

The minimum height in this case is 100% of the viewport - the "fix
footer to bottom" solution. The "Adobe reader" paragraph is positioned
just above the footer with absolute positioning from the bottom in EMs.

Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

[David Hucklesby]

> On 17/10/2008, at 12:27 AM, Charles Ling wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys/Gals,
>>
>> I would like to get some opinion from you all, that would Flash 10 or ++ 
>> will replace
>> JavaScript in the future? According to this blog : 
>> http://ajaxian.com/archives/flash-
>> 10-and-the-bad-news-for-javascript-interaction .
>>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:01:07 +1100, Simon Josephson replied:

> I don't know of the appropriateness here (etiquette) being a newbie...
>
> though Adobe's agenda is to make Flash an entire environment within which to 
> work...
> AKA - Air
[...]
>
> Adobe is hoping it becomes ubiquitous to the web
>

It's my understanding that Adobe's AIR brings web technology to desktop
applications, rather than extending the Web itself. And, no, AIR
does not *require* the use of Flash. You can use AJAX for the client-
server interaction instead, if you wish.

Others already mentioned that the article you cited concerns the use
of Flash to get around some limitations of JavaScript.

To respond to the original question - no, I do not believe that
Flash will replace JavaScript. They are two very different technologies,
each with a place in Web design. I do think that Flash will become
less relevant when more browsers support HTML 5 and CSS 3.

Meanwhile, I am avoiding Flash for two reasons. First, I found it
beyond my abilities to understand how to make Flash fully accessible.
Second, Flash is not universally available. "Smart" phones like iPhone
don't currently support Flash, and Flash blockers are very popular.

This is a personal choice, of course.

Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] google and validation

[Svip]

Care to tell us what exactly the validator tells you is wrong?

/Svip

2008/10/18 designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  Hello all,
>
> A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located
> (there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps).
>
> The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to
> get to the map. An example is:
>
>  href="
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15
> ">
>
> Just changing the &'s to &'s doesn't seem to do it . . .
>
> I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] google and validation

[designer]

Hello all,

A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located
(there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps).

The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to
get to the map. An example is:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pl28+8js&ie=UTF8&ll=50.524341,-5.02367&spn=0.017789,0.038624&t=h&z=15";>

Just changing the &'s to &'s doesn't seem to do it . . .

I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it?

Thanks,

Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

[Simon Josephson]

I don't know of the appropriateness here (etiquette) being a newbie...

though Adobe's agenda is to make Flash an entire environment within  
which to work... AKA - Air


It is very neat and you may find of interest the Flex developer  
website found here... http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/


Adobe is hoping it becomes ubiquitous to the web


Simon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On 17/10/2008, at 12:27 AM, Charles Ling wrote:


Hi Guys/Gals,

I would like to get some opinion from you all, that would Flash 10  
or ++ will replace JavaScript in the future?
According to this blog : http://ajaxian.com/archives/flash-10-and-the-bad-news-for-javascript-interaction 
.


I found that alot of media website started to replace Javascript to  
play their audio/video and of course Flash required to be install as  
third
party plugin and had to be updated (which is annoying). Did you guys/ 
gals use alot of flash in your past projects that you were working  
with?


Cheers,
Charles.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

[Andrew Brown]

Flex is terribly brittle and has very strange conventions.
I don't see flash replacing javascript.

Maybe will all be using flash browsers one day.

On 18-Oct-08, at 11:01 AM, Simon Josephson wrote:


I don't know of the appropriateness here (etiquette) being a newbie...

though Adobe's agenda is to make Flash an entire environment within  
which to work... AKA - Air


It is very neat and you may find of interest the Flex developer  
website found here... http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/


Adobe is hoping it becomes ubiquitous to the web


Simon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On 17/10/2008, at 12:27 AM, Charles Ling wrote:


Hi Guys/Gals,

I would like to get some opinion from you all, that would Flash 10  
or ++ will replace JavaScript in the future?
According to this blog : http://ajaxian.com/archives/flash-10-and-the-bad-news-for-javascript-interaction 
.


I found that alot of media website started to replace Javascript to  
play their audio/video and of course Flash required to be install  
as third
party plugin and had to be updated (which is annoying). Did you  
guys/gals use alot of flash in your past projects that you were  
working with?


Cheers,
Charles.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] min-might question

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

tee wrote:

'min-heigh' talls enough is the problem. If I can't forsee how long 
the content will be, how do I decide the set the value of min-height?


http://lotusseedsdesign.com/opera-test/mh.html

The design is the fixed width, but even with fuild layout, it's a 
problem not knowing how tall the content be


Looks like you're trying to build a table with divs. Much better to use
a real HTML table for that since none of the existing CSS solutions are
supported well enough to replicate one. As you know, IE doesn't play
ball when served CSS table - support = zero.
In addition to that, Gecko can't A:P the  in a table-cell - real or
styled, so you'll have to give those  their own rows with cells.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] min-might question

[tee]

On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:32 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


tee wrote:
I cannot control or foresee how long the content in the 'set- 
minheight' div be. What do I do to have the  tag always stay at  
the bottom of the block?


For the example it's pretty strait forward as the  will always stay
below the 'set-minheight' div, no matter how much or how little  
content
that div is given, and 'set-min-height' must just be styled tall  
enough

to push the  to the bottom of the 'box' - if that's what you want.
The 'box' must also be able to expand if the content in 'set-min- 
height'

pushes it taller.



Hi Georg,

'min-heigh' talls enough is the problem. If I can't forsee how long  
the content will be, how do I decide the set the value of min-height?


http://lotusseedsdesign.com/opera-test/mh.html

The design is the fixed width, but even with fuild layout, it's a  
problem not knowing how tall the content be


tee

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***