Gabriele Romanato wrote:
> Hi all!
> Please read the latest two posts on IE7 on my blog and tell me if I
> stumbled on something that's well-documented or not. Can you make up a
> static test? I used JavaScript to create spans in the following
> structure:
>
>
> Link
>
>
> Try to apply s
Hi all!
Please read the latest two posts on IE7 on my blog and tell me if I
stumbled on something that's well-documented or not. Can you make up a
static test? I used JavaScript to create spans in the following
structure:
Link
Try to apply some styles to :hover: nothing happens to links,
>> Brian M. Curran wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I need to make a small table for my website (For my rates of service.),
>> and so my question is, "Does anyone know of a resource for different
>> styles of CSS tables, so I can get some ideas on neat table
>> styles/layouts? Something akin to listamatic f
MB wrote:
> Bob Rosenberg said:
>
>> CSS is a way of changing the built-in defaults for how to display
>> text enclosed in the different tags.
>
> The "built-in defaults" ARE CSS. It's the CSS the browsermakers decided
> to have builtin. Technically, this is the case with Firefox anyway.
No, yo
Theophan Dort wrote:
>> A fast and dirty suggestion. Nothing wrong with using a dl I guess. I just
>> did it different.
>>
>
> It works -- it's perfect! I have to study up on that overflow hidden that
> seems to be a key in how it works even when the text in one div is short.
> I'll go ba
> A fast and dirty suggestion. Nothing wrong with using a dl I guess. I just
> did it different.
It works -- it's perfect! I have to study up on that overflow hidden that
seems to be a key in how it works even when the text in one div is short. I'll
go back to my books, and if I can't figure
Theophan Dort wrote:
> I am a volunteer webmaster for a couple of churches, and on one site all
> pages have a header div across the top, and below that a navigation div
> floated left with main content div flowing to its right.
>
>
>
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
>
>
> Theophan
>
Hi The
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org]
Subject: Re: [css-d] FW: tags
Because, if the developer uses some elements primarily for their browser
default CSS, then any element can be considered "presentational" for that
reaso
> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
> > fwiw, I don't agree.
>
> > If an author wants "italics" or "bold" then heshould,
> > must, use and.
> > To stay on-topic I won't mention semantics (should be a no brainer
> though),
> > but CSS: a User Agent does *not* have to make italics
> and
> > bold, but it
> Bob Rosenberg said:
>
> >CSS is a way of changing the built-in defaults for how to display
> >text enclosed in the different tags.
>
> The "built-in defaults" ARE CSS. It's the CSS the browsermakers decided
> to have builtin. Technically, this is the case with Firefox anyway.
They decide follo
Bob Rosenberg said:
>CSS is a way of changing the built-in defaults for how to display
>text enclosed in the different tags.
The "built-in defaults" ARE CSS. It's the CSS the browsermakers decided
to have builtin. Technically, this is the case with Firefox anyway.
__
I am a volunteer webmaster for a couple of churches, and on one site all pages
have a header div across the top, and below that a navigation div floated left
with main content div flowing to its right.
One page lists parish events of which we have photos and/or video elsewhere on
the site. Curr
At 20:08 + on 03/06/2010, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote about Re:
[css-d] FW: tags:
>Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
>> fwiw, I don't agree.
>
>> If an author wants "italics" or "bold" then heshould,
>> must, use and.
>> To stay on-topic I won't mention semantics (should be a no brainer though
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> fwiw, I don't agree.
> If an author wants "italics" or "bold" then heshould,
> must, use and.
> To stay on-topic I won't mention semantics (should be a no brainer though),
> but CSS: a User Agent does *not* have to make italics and
> bold, but it has to for and.
Al
> > is presentational. It says, "Make this bold."
> >
> > and aren't presentational. They say
> "emphasize"/"strongly
> > emphasize" this. They don't say HOW to emphasize/strongly emphasize
> it.
> > They're just saying that this text is more important than surrounding
> text,
> > so emphasize i
> I use use EM when I want italic and STRONG when I want bold, therefore I
consider them presentational tags.
That's like saying "I use CODE when I want a monospace font and LI when I want
bullets next to text, therefore I consider them presentational tags."
I hope you see how both of those are
Michael Stevens wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
> [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org]
>
> is presentational. It says, "Make this bold."
>
> and aren't presentational. They say "emphasize"/"strongly
> emphasize" this. They don't say HOW
Michael Stevens said:
>I use use EM when I want italic and STRONG when I want bold, sometimes I'll
>change the font color as well, therefore I consider them presentational
>tags.
Are your definitions the ideal we all should adhere to? I think not. Why
a specific developer choose to misuse a certa
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org]
is presentational. It says, "Make this bold."
and aren't presentational. They say "emphasize"/"strongly
emphasize" this. They don't say HOW to emphasize/strongly emphasize it.
The
19 matches
Mail list logo
