Thierry Koblentz wrote:
As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
authors to use an ID on html (which can be handy).
That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?
Thank you,
Bill B
Bill Braun wrote:
That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?
As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
believe it to be useful ? I ask because there can
(and
On Apr 2, 2010, at 8:23 PM, Bill Braun wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
authors to use an ID on html (which can be handy).
That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?
In html4 strict, the only
On Apr 2, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
believe it to be useful ? I ask because there can
(and must) be exactly one instance
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
html.is-ie-6 body { display: none; }
or something like that... :-)
Oh, if only html.ishtml5 {visibility: hidden} :-)))
** Phil.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?
As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
believe it to be useful ? I ask because there can
(and must) be exactly
#WeKnowJSisAvailable .widgetPanel {display:none;}
This is much better than using a class or ID on body as it will prevent a
reflow.
---
Hmm, this wouldn't reflow?
_clint
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
#WeKnowJSisAvailable .widgetPanel {display:none;}
This is much better than using a class or ID on body as it will prevent
a
reflow.
---
Hmm, this wouldn't reflow?
No, it would not
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS
Chris Blake said:
What gives, I can't even pass 100% before writing anything!
You are mixing the syntax of HTML and XHTML. I wouldn't be using XHTML
unless I had specific reasons for that. From a pure CSS perspective the
reasons for choosing HTML or XHTML are close to nil. However, if you're
Norman Fournier wrote:
Try using XHTML, which is cleaner markup, with this doctype:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml;
Unfortunately this would introduce a further
Chris Blake told:
Sorry! This document can not be checked.
When i try to validate anything that is UTF8.
If you kept reading you would see that the validation page says further down:
I am unable to validate this document because on line 35 it contained
one or more bytes that I cannot
I have struggled for the longest time to understand the obvious. For
some reason the differences between HTML 4.01 and XHTML were completely
lost on me.
And now? Eureka, the dawn finally breaks. Thanks to Chris, Norman,
Thierry, MB, and Philip. I don't know that you said anything terribly
At 12:47 +0200 on 04/01/2010, MB wrote about Re: [css-d] doctype:
Chris Blake told:
Sorry! This document can not be checked.
When i try to validate anything that is UTF8.
If you kept reading you would see that the validation page says further down:
I am unable to validate this document
From a pure CSS perspective the
reasons for choosing HTML or XHTML are close to nil.
As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
authors to use an ID on html (which can be handy).
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra
HI,
Although it's not a CSS question it is strongly related to validation
which is something we all care about at css-discuss so I am sticking
my neck out a bit but hope to get an OK response.
I have validated a very simple layout and although it validates I am
getting a few warnings:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Chris Blake wrote:
HI,
Although it's not a CSS question it is strongly related to validation
which is something we all care about at css-discuss so I am sticking
my neck out a bit but hope to get an OK response.
I have validated a very simple layout and although
Hi,
So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish
about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it
seems that it can't be validated.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd
html
head
On 2010-03-31, at 9:27 PM, Chris Blake wrote:
Hi,
So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish
about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it
seems that it can't be validated.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
Hi Chris,
So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish
about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it
seems that it can't be validated.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd
This is HTML
Hello,
I'm currently building a website to go into an ecommerce package but
have run into a snag as I originally coded the layout into an XHTML
doctype and the ecommerce package has an HTML doctype. This meant that
although everything rendered perfectly in each browser when I had
initially
I have a side navigation column that is a normal verticle list of links.
when I give the link a display: block; rule I seem to get an extra
bottom margin of 15px. The only browsers that seem to display properly
are Opera and Safari?
Since you didn't provide a demo link, I could only guess you
2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html
IE is the only browser I'm avare of that makes a clear distinction
between what it supports in which mode.
The author clearly didn't do much
David Dorward wrote:
2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html
IE is the only browser I'm avare of that makes a clear
distinction between what it supports in which mode.
The author
I have come across some pages that do not used a DocType so does that
mean you don't need a Doctype on a page and if so how do these pages
work around this so that there page validates ?
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/16 Majestic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have come across some pages that do not used a DocType so does that
mean you don't need a Doctype on a page
The Doctype is mandatory in most versions of HTML.
Documents served as text/html with no Doctype trigger Quirks modes in
browsers which leads to
Majestic wrote:
I have come across some pages that do not used a DocType so does that
mean you don't need a Doctype on a page
Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html
...although most web designers need a doctype to assure some
Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in FireFox...
http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new.html
but if I take out the XHTML DOCTYPE from the file it works fine?
http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new2.html
The CSS is common...
Michael Stevens wrote:
Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in
FireFox... http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new.html
Any ideas?
Sure, the simplest solution is to add...
#Table_01 img {display: block;}
...and all spaces will be gone - not only those in the
] On Behalf Of Julian
Merrow-Smith
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?
Michael it (your html) doesn't validate you shopuld start there.
On 2/2/07, Michael Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is there a space
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?
Michael Stevens wrote:
Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in
FireFox
Jim Nannery wrote:
If your document is in Standard mode browsers will use the modern Box
model. In Quirks mode browsers will render the mark up using the old IE
5x box model.
Just to clarify -- not all browsers will use IE 5's box model when in
Quirks Mode, just IE 6 will. Other
On 18/01/06, Uwe Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1)The document declaration is primarily used, in order
to validate a document.
Well. In theory, ...ish. The Doctype states the markup language being
used. This can then be tested against.
In practise, browsers look at it to do doctype
What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*? I know it determines how the
browser
should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen if
you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's standards, but served your
website as HTML 4.01 Transitional? How out of whack would it throw
Uwe et al. Another article about doctype that you might find helpful. It
explains what doctype does re the rendering engines of the different
browsers re quirksmode and such. VERY detailed, and might prove helpful
if you're looking to fix a problem in a specific browser.
Shelly,
On Jan 17, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Design Groups wrote:
What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*? I know it determines how the
browser
should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen
if
you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's standards, but served
your
Afternoon Shelly
You wrote
Here's a question that was brought to my attention today...
What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*? I know it determines how the
browser
should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen if
you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's
Try this article:
http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=E2F258C46D285FEE
On 1/17/06, Uwe Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
--
Keith Sader
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.saderfamily.org/roller/page/ksader
http://www.jroller.com/page/certifieddanger
Hi :)
mozila gives me hurd time with pictures in a page the declare imself as
HTML-STRICT (as seen below)
http://dogma.co.il/margin.gifhttp://pegasus.myboxnetplace.com/~zimmeri/tzimerim/images/Untitled-1.gif
you can see in that example that moz makes a margin:2px between the
pictures.
IE dosent
On 09/11/05, shlomi asaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IE dosent makes me problems. why is that?
It's the correct way of displaying the image. As it's a inline
element, it shall keep a bottom margin to characters that require
more room down, like j or g. You can try to use images as block,
but
Hello all, I'm pretty new to this group, and to CSS in general. I'm a
quick learner but I'm stuck at a couple of things.
First off, whenever I use a !DOCTYPE tag in my pages, they stop
rendering properly. I've tried both strict and transitonal, to no
avail. Specifically what goes bad is my
5:02 PM
Subject: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! oh my!
Hello all, I'm pretty new to this group, and to CSS in general. I'm a
quick learner but I'm stuck at a couple of things.
First off, whenever I use a !DOCTYPE tag in my pages, they stop rendering
properly. I've
be very rewarding!
Kate
http://urlygrl.com
- Original Message - From: Dan Gooch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems!
oh my!
Hello all, I'm pretty new to this group
42 matches
Mail list logo
