I have made an example of the design here: http://roughtech.com/t/testali.html
It uses CSS only. It works in all modern browsers and IE6 and IE7. I
have tested it with different fonts and font sizes.
Using a table would not be appropriate. Tables are not for layout.
~Chetan
On 12/11/10 5:10 AM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
I have made an example of the design here: http://roughtech.com/t/testali.html
~Chetan
No offense intended:-) but beware the cross-over with font-scaling.
Best,
~d
--
:: desktop and mobile ::
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
Made a number of changes to the CSS. You can see the fixed page here:
http://roughtech.com/t/dropdown.html
The changes I made to the CSS can be seen here:
http://roughtech.com/t/dropdown_files/dropdown.css
I have commented the changes as my change.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:09 PM,
None taken :) Thanks for pointing that out.
I have now given the div#headingsanddescription a min-width of 37em
which should prevent overlapping at large font sizes.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Laakso
da...@chelseacreekstudio.com wrote:
On 12/11/10 5:10 AM, Chetan Crasta
Found some more things that needed fixing. Fixed them now.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Chetan Crasta chetancra...@gmail.com wrote:
Made a number of changes to the CSS. You can see the fixed page here:
http://roughtech.com/t/dropdown.html
The changes I made to the CSS can be seen
On 12/11/10 5:58 AM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
None taken :) Thanks for pointing that out.
I have now given the div#headingsanddescription a min-width of 37em
which should prevent overlapping at large font sizes.
~Chetan
http://roughtech.com/t/testali.html
That's nice I guess:-) . Have you
That's nice I guess:-) . Have you considered that some of us are on a
monitor wider than 1024?
Yeah, people with monitors wider than 1024 shouldn't be maximizing
their browsers.
Kidding :)
Then one should add a max-width of around 40em. Or one can just remove
the max-width and give
On 2010/12/11 16:54 (GMT+0530) Chetan Crasta composed:
Yeah, people with monitors wider than 1024 shouldn't be maximizing
their browsers.
Kidding :)
Kidding aside, one man's 1920 (16 laptop; 142 DPI) could easily be narrower
than another's 1280 (19 desktop; 86 DPI). Designers really ought
A client wants elliptical menu buttons with Comic Sans font,
Please give me your remarks.
And how this menu behaves in the different browsers and/or pplatforms
you use.
Thanks, Erik
__
css-discuss
On 12/11/10 6:45 AM, Erik Visser wrote:
Please give me your remarks.
And how this menu behaves in the different browsers and/or pplatforms
you use.
Thanks, Erik
uri, Erik?
--
:: desktop and mobile ::
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
Kidding aside, one man's 1920 (16 laptop; 142 DPI) could easily be narrower
than another's 1280 (19 desktop; 86 DPI). Designers really ought to quit
thinking in px. Px sizes bear no predictable correlation to the physical
world, and thus to legibility or appropriate line lengths.
Agreed.
Btw,
David Laakso schreef op 12/11/10 12:49 PM:
On 12/11/10 6:45 AM, Erik Visser wrote:
Please give me your remarks.
And how this menu behaves in the different browsers and/or pplatforms
you use.
Thanks, Erik
uri, Erik?
eeehhh..
http://beta.ottermeerhoeve.nl/index.php
On 12/11/10 6:45 AM, Erik Visser wrote:
Please give me your remarks.
And how this menu behaves in the different browsers and/or
pplatforms you use.
Thanks, Erik
http://beta.ottermeerhoeve.nl/index.php
Always a pleasure to land on a page with primary content set at default:-) .
O.K.
Hi.
I'm just seeking volunteers for a radical change in how we think
coding in general.
I respect the backward-compatibilty point of view but, nonetheless, I
can't say it's Gospel.
hope this would be useful for a stimulating discussion:
On Saturday, December 11, 2010 08:27:37 am Gabriele Romanato wrote:
Hi.
I'm just seeking volunteers for a radical change in how we think
coding in general.
I respect the backward-compatibilty point of view but, nonetheless, I
can't say it's Gospel.
hope this would be useful for a
On 12/11/10 8:27 AM, Gabriele Romanato wrote:
http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/web-development-without-internet.html
the firm I work for has already embraced my ideals. hope many more
will join us.
It is all good:-) .
For those who work for an employer, or have a client, who is
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Chetan Crasta chetancra...@gmail.com wrote:
Made a number of changes to the CSS. You can see the fixed page here:
http://roughtech.com/t/dropdown.html
The changes I made to the CSS can be seen here:
http://roughtech.com/t/dropdown_files/dropdown.css
I have
Chetan Crasta wrote:
I have made an example of the design here:
http://roughtech.com/t/testali.html
It uses CSS only.
It seems to use the positioning technique I outlined and demonstrated, but
it contains lots of features quite independent of the issue at hand, such as
odd line heights. In
The (eg ulli ) is the symbol for child selector. It only selects
child elements, not grand-child, great grand-child etc. Whereas the
simple space eg( ul li ), called the descendant selector, selects all
descendant elements -- grand-child, great grand-child etc.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at
@Jukka: Like I mentioned in my earlier email, I thoroughly tested the
solution. I doubt there would be any problems integrating it with any
kind of layout.
Take a closer look at the solution, there is only one px declaration,
for font size (in the container div). This was used for convenience
On 11.12.2010 15:49, David Laakso wrote:
For those who work for an employer, or have a client, who is also
progressive but require for whatever reasons to still hit Internet
Explorer might a viable alternative be to feed Redmond desktop content
in much the same manner as one might for
Chetan Crasta wrote:
I have made an example of the design here:
http://roughtech.com/t/testali.html
It uses CSS only.
I believe what the OP is after is inline-block:
http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/11/15/inline-boxes-with-bottom-alignment/
As a site note, table-cell would work too,
On 2010/12/11 22:24 (GMT+0530) Chetan Crasta composed:
Not using tables for layout is not a religious matter. It has been
about a decade since tables for layout have been deprecated. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableless_web_design
While true, that's not stopped their use, or promotion:
Not using tables for layout is not a religious matter. It has been
about a decade since tables for layout have been deprecated. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableless_web_design
While true, that's not stopped their use, or promotion:
On 2010/12/11 17:20 (GMT+0530) Chetan Crasta composed:
Btw, the CSS spec takes into account the fact that monitors'
pixel-densities differ. This is why, according to the spec, px is a
relative length unit.
The latest spec draft defines 1px as equal to 0.75pt, contorting the px into
a
On 12/11/10 1:44 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I believe what the OP is after is inline-block:
--
Thierry
After two months of guessing at what the OP is after today I no longer care.
~d
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
From: da...@dmcentral.net
So IMHO until MS makes IE 100% compliant or ships with alternative browswers
pre-instaled, it's a losing battle.
Things will definitely change next year when Google comes out with its own
operating system
I'm following an interesting discussion on www-style about new ideas
for new pseudo-elements in CSS3. Latest entries concern the ::first-
word pseudo-element. I quote the most relevant ones:
Understandably, sensitivities concerning ethnocentricity can be triggered
within such a discussion, but how about:
1) A definition which will work among the greatest majority of linguistic cases
-- languages that have a commonly accepted range of word delimiters (which I
think might include
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:24:52 -0800, Rick Gordon li...@rickgordon.com
wrote:
Understandably, sensitivities concerning ethnocentricity can be
triggered within such a discussion, but how about:
1) A definition which will work among the greatest majority of
linguistic cases -- languages that have
30 matches
Mail list logo
