At 10:24 PM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote:
Part of it is a generational gap between younger web designers and
older. I never knew that table based designs were ever ok. The books
always talk about table based layouts as if the Civil War were still
raging, and the victory of the good North (CSS)
At 10:51 AM 1/18/2009 +, Christian Heilmann wrote:
Cool, then show the sidebar on the left. Doesn't require a hack with CSS :)
What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know
what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it
off with ease (if you can
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Ron Koster wrote:
What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know
what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it
off with ease (if you can explain what you mean better).
Christian means: move that sidebar (right column
At 08:31 PM 1/18/2009 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Christian means: move that sidebar (right column in your code) to the
left of the page, without modifying your html code. That is very easy
to do with a (decently) stylesheet.
Ah, okay. Well, sure, I see what you mean, and how that would be
As a guy who grokked HTML in the days of table-based layouts, I loved, and
still love, tables -- especially for tabular data or simple columns.
As a guy who these days writes a ton of dynamic apps for delivery to
multiple clients, I have love for CSS. And yes, CSS pwns font styling, no
question.
I know this topic has come up here before (because I've searched the
list archives), but I couldn't find what any ultimate recommendation
is over what to do.
I've got the CSS for one of my sites validating with no errors,
except for the styling of the scrollbars (for IE only, of course),
i.e.
Ron Koster wrote:
And I can create a site with tables, and -- assuming that I'm happy
with my design -- I *don't* have to subsequently look at, analyze and
improve on the code, having to come up with all sorts of hacks and
fixes to make it work right (and always worrying, still, if I did
At 08:55 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Adam Ducker wrote:
So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you
need a zillion fixes and hacks to make it work? I haven't had to do
that kind of development in years.
Well, that's what I meant -- *I* don't need all sorts of fixes/hacks
in
Ron Koster wrote:
I've got the CSS for one of my sites validating with no errors,
except for the styling of the scrollbars (for IE only, of course),
i.e. scrollbar-track-color, scrollbar-face-color, etc. --
this/these alone are causing the CSS file to not validate. In
searching the list
At 04:00 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
If total validity matters and you want to keep the proprietary styles,
Conditionally Commented stylesheets for IE only stuff is an option.
This approach doesn't make the styles valid, but for most hidden is
good enough. Besides: the stuff will not
Ron Koster wrote:
But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and
fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next
decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the
meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with
something
Ron Koster wrote:
Hmm... I haven't got a clue what you're talking about -- never heard
of conditionally commented style sheets before.
http://reference.sitepoint.com/css/conditionalcomments
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
At 04:53 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
If we all fell back to layout tables and minimal use of CSS, there would
be very little incentive for growth.
snip
Layout tables will stay at 1998 level for a long time - probably for as
long as HTML is in regular use. Thus, they're stable enough
At 09:38 AM 1/18/2009 -0600, m...@winternet.com wrote:
I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most perfect
web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working
with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything
I've ever seen. Don't your clients
Ron Koster wrote:
[...] there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem
and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I
*wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS.
Sure, but we handle/serve such non-CSS solutions on other lists/forums,
since [CSS-D] is mainly
At 04:58 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Hmm... I haven't got a clue what you're talking about -- never heard
of conditionally commented style sheets before.
http://reference.sitepoint.com/css/conditionalcomments
Oh! Thank you! I was going to just go search it
out myself (just
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ron Koster r...@psymon.com wrote:
-
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:06:01 -0500
From: Ron Koster r...@psymon.com
Subject: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Message-ID:
At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
one of more important reasons is speed .
CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top
of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net --
Hey Ron,
You said:
I'm curious: why is this approach frowned upon? Please don't get me
wrong, because I do fully understand that the *goal* of CSS is for
the purpose of layout, etc., and tables were never really meant for
that, but at the same time I can *easily* create a site using tables
and
At 11:44 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, bj wrote:
I suspect you are just complacent and don't wish to make the effort to learn.
snip
What are you waiting for?
Thanks for your comments, BJ -- in response, please see my previous
posts. In the meantime, back to this never-ending learning stuff for
me (about
My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what
you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you
have to implement 'behind the scenes'
Let me just say that I have made perfectly functioning CSS sites without any
hacks or fixes
The interests and motivations are different. If I am asked to do a pretty
newsletter for Word's rendering engine behind Outlook, I would like to tell
them to ask an HTML table guy. It took me a few years to learn CSS, but I
won't spend time with learning tables.
Some don't like CSS because of the
Hi all,
I have thus far successfully coded my css without any hacks apart from this
set where I have to use !important to adjust bottom padding on some
thumbnails. This is my codeL
http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/ http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/
Am I doing something wrong?
Many thanks
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of
boring reasons):
1/ border-radius
2/ box-shadow
3/ text-shadow
Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me...
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/index.php
--
A thin red line and a salmon-color
Karl Bedingfield wrote:
This is my code:
http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/
Am I doing something wrong?
Line 15 is certainly a troublesome piece of code which should be
avoided. Can you show us the code in use on a page? That will make it
easier for us to see what's wrong.
-Adam Ducker
Karl Bedingfield wrote:
Hi all,
I have thus far successfully coded my css without any hacks apart from this
set where I have to use !important to adjust bottom padding on some
thumbnails. This is my codeL
http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/ http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/
Am I doing
Ron Koster wrote:
one of more important reasons is speed .
CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top
of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net --
at least on my
On 19/01/2009, at 5:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote:
At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
one of more important reasons is speed .
CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top
of my head, seems
David Laakso wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of
boring reasons):
1/ border-radius
2/ box-shadow
3/ text-shadow
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/index.php
Tested in XP/VirtualBox on Ubuntu Ibex:
Safari and Chrome both appear to recognize
Bill Brown wrote:
David Laakso wrote:
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/index.php
Tested in XP/VirtualBox on Ubuntu Ibex:
Safari and Chrome both appear to recognize your border-radius,
box-shadow and text-shadow settings as they stand now.
Hope it helps. Would have responded earlier,
This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity
pulling toward trolling)
Time to stop.
- CC
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Ron Koster r...@psymon.com wrote:
At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
one of more important reasons is speed .
CSS pages
At 02:38 PM 1/18/2009 -0700, Cyber Cog wrote:
This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity
pulling toward trolling)
Sorry, folks -- didn't mean to beat a dead fish, er, horse. :/
I do appreciate/have appreciated this thread, though, and it has been
genuinely
David Laakso da...@chelseacreekstudio.com wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of
boring reasons):
1/ border-radius
2/ box-shadow
3/ text-shadow
Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me...
David Laakso wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot
of boring reasons):
1/ border-radius 2/ box-shadow
1/2 combination:
Safari - OK,
Chrome - FAULTY (looks terrible)
3/ text-shadow
2:
Safari - YES,
Chrome - NO.
Known issues: there are
David Laakso wrote:
Farewell. Time to break-out the coil of rope and take it to the woods...
~d
Hey ... that's *my* line!
G
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
David Laakso wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot
of boring reasons):
1/ border-radius 2/ box-shadow
1/2 combination:
Safari - OK,
Chrome - FAULTY (looks terrible)
3/ text-shadow
2:
Safari - YES,
Chrome - NO.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:22:05 -0500, David Laakso wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of
boring reasons):
1/ border-radius
2/ box-shadow
3/ text-shadow
Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me...
peter hyde-smith wrote:
In Chrome 1.0.154.43 on Win Vista SP2, see screen shot here...
http://www.fatpawdesign.com/laaksoscreenshot.png
www.fatpawdesign.com
Oh, my...
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star
--
A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming.
Ingo Chao wrote:
How about a discussion like: how do we use CSS 3 with an IE6-userbase
of greater than x% in years to come?
I suggest we use this method...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_12.html
...and this...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_16.html
...and bog those
On 18/1/09 23:32, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
I suggest not using the browser-specific variants for real - only the
standardized ones, and wait till browsers catches up with and stabilizes
on the relevant standards - and us.
If we use browser-specific extensions outside our sandboxes, we may
One of the issues that I've been having is with drop caps, and in
looking for a solution I found this page...
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DropCaps
...which recommends this code...
p:first-letter {
font: 2.5em/80% serif;
float: left;
padding: 0.2ex 0 0 0.2ex;
David Hucklesby wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:22:05 -0500, David Laakso wrote:
Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of
boring reasons):
1/ border-radius
2/ box-shadow
3/ text-shadow
Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me...
Ron Koster wrote:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DropCaps
p:first-letter {
font: 2.5em/80% serif;
float: left;
padding: 0.2ex 0 0 0.2ex;
margin: 0;
overflow: visible;
}
and so I'm just wondering if there's a particular reason why...
a) 2.5em/80% is
At 08:09 PM 1/18/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote:
2.5em is the size of the font in relation to the parent element. In
your example, the first letter of every paragraph on the page would
be 2.5 times the height of the font of the paragraph.
80% is the line-height, which does not require a unit, so I
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Neither using experimental vendor-specific CSS properties or using
unprefixed proposed CSS3 properties (they're not standardized!) is
safe. But I'd have thought the former is safer, since vendors try not
to implement two experimental versions and the proposed
On 19/1/09 02:10, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Vendor-specific CSS properties are for the most part safe to use in that
they don't end up disturbing other browsers - although I have seen that
happen too.
I can imagine implementations of vendor-specific CSS properties changing
between versions (but
Ron Koster wrote:
...will it break in some browser or other? For one thing, for example,
I'm not sure why extra padding is needed (or suggested) on two sides of
the drop cap.
Ron,
I'm just leading horses to the Kool-Aid...I can't make 'em drink it.
--
!--
! Bill Brown macnim...@gmail.com
Browser's support is still improving. My opinion is:
if we are using CSS for professional purposes, we should take into
account also obsolete versions.
otherwise, we should drop our support to these browsers.
see http://transcendingcss.com
^.^
http://www.css-zibaldone.com
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Why do you think the two interoperable implementations rule means we
need to author mainstream CSS based on guesses about how future
implementations will work?
The amount of guesswork can be kept at a minimum by checking up on
proposals, experimental
49 matches
Mail list logo
