Without knowing or understanding some basics, I get the
feeling that I'm building on quicksand, and thinking fondly of tables.
I totally sympathize but you hit the nail on the head... to master any
piece of web technology (or just about anything really) you've got to
get a thorough
I did my first CSS site, and I am ready to go back to
tables Please look at my site and tell me what I did
wrong. I feel like such a looser - all that work
and it the CSS doesn't work. http://www.wminc.biz
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I think we can all sympathize
it won't give u the registration code if your using a browser
other than Opera. just in case you tried it like me and all
you got were blank boxes.
Seems to work with Safari.
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
background: transparent url(filename).
This is a shorthand method for writing CSS rules. This rule has
multiple values, that are space-separated. The first value sets the
background color to transparent; the second value is the server path or
URL where the browser can find the image.
The same
Despite 5 people saying it, this is actually technically
incorrect, and the difference (although minor) is probably
worth pointing out.
Indeed and glad you've clarified. But for someone just beginning to
learn CSS, would it help to distill it down to:
But be careful with using shorthand
I agree with Alan -- it *does* look terrible. The points
which the bullets are supposed to signify are *much* harder
to locate with the eye. And the quotation marks sticking out
into the margin area -- I have *never* seen that in the
thousands of books, magazines, newspapers, etc. that
There is something about some CSS 2 / XHTML compliant
websites that bothers me, compared to table layed out websites..
What it is, is looks
Yes, I've heard this before but have you seen all the different layouts
at csszengarden.com? There's definitely a few unique ones in there and
the
