At 02:20 PM 1/14/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote:
Well, tables and CSS are not mutually exclusive. That is, they can be
used together, though using them for layout is generally frowned upon by
the CSS Overlords.
I'm not sure who these Overlords are, but I presume they're the ones
referred to when
At 08:22 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote:
Ask a person who uses a screen reader to answer why tables shouldn't
be used for layout. You'll get your answer soon enough.
Pardon my ignorance, but how is it that a CSS layout wouldn't have
the same potential issues?
Ask a person who has had to
At 10:26 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Erika Meyer wrote:
Here's a short response: if you have not yet drank the w3c web-standards
kool-aid, now's the time.
Well, it's been a long, long (and I do mean long) time since I
dropped any acid, but if you think that's the way to go... ;)
Just do it. The Web
At 07:57 PM 1/17/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
I have no idea who they are either, and finding out is off-topic on this
list. We're here because we need or are able to provide help to solve
CSS related problems, and advance the use of efficient, CSS based,
design solution.
Well, I *do*
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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;
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
At 01:16 PM 1/19/2009 +, Bobby Jack wrote:
Which validator are you using? It does sound like a flawed warning -
the validator should be intelligent enough to determine that a
background image/color will show through (and, thus, 'protect' the
color), at least in the trivial case.
Actually,
At 08:43 PM 1/18/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote:
I'm just leading horses to the Kool-Aid...I can't make 'em drink it.
Okay, apparently I didn't explain my questions well enough, it would seem.
Once again, on this page...
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DropCaps
...is the following
Firstly, thanks for your reply, Holly -- and also thanks to Jen, too,
for the tip (in a separate message) on the book to look for
At 11:59 AM 1/19/2009 -0600, Holly Bergevin wrote:
As with most things CSS, you'll need to test the effect you want in
the environment it's going to be placed. Oh,
At 11:18 PM 1/19/2009 +0100, bruce.som...@web.de wrote:
condiional comments are claptrap of the top order.
Can you explain what you mean by that? As suggested here, I tried it
out (specifically to implement just those IE scrollbar features)
and it seems to work just fine.
Ron :?
At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote:
At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
snip
Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the
luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Kevin Doyle wrote:
It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how
quickly your computer can download the page; however, it's mostly
how quickly you can download a page because the processing load of a
single web page, no matter how complex, is
At 01:32 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote:
I know this whole thing is did to death already...
Actually, I agree, believe it or not -- I don't know what else could
be said, really, about the whole tables vs. CSS layouts thing. I only
popped back in under that subject heading, though,
At 04:18 PM 1/21/2009 -0600, Del Wegener wrote:
I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so
insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising
company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG
image of the desired page and I was
At 11:14 PM 1/21/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
FWIW: the basic layouts on my private site...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_26.html
...are just overbuilt and overstyled versions of negative margins...
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins
Once you've understood how
At 12:48 AM 1/24/2009 +, Bobby Jack wrote:
The problem is those businesses - and they do exist - that enforce
IE6 usage with no alternatives available.
If we can't convince them, maybe google can:
http://www.fiveminuteargument.com/blog/google-save-us
That would be a *horrible* idea --
At 03:11 PM 2/16/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote:
IIRC, those stats only come from visitors of the W3Schools website,
and thus are highly swayed toward web designers who are using FF and
away from IE.
I would agree with that. My busiest site (Psymon) gets a couple of
thousand unique visitors every
At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote:
I find that these percentages work best
cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%.
Interesting. As an avid typophile -- and someone who still,
admittedly, has a lot to learn about CSS -- I've been trying to
follow any
At 07:45 PM 2/17/2009 -0600, Brian Funk wrote:
The 100% is needed as a base to avoid problems in certain browsers -
others can explain this in detail far better than I. With regard to
respecting users settings it seems more important to create in a way
that the text /can/ be scalable to let
At 10:51 PM 2/17/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
...have nothing to do with the Golden Section, and to me would look
I have to wonder if more than a tiny fraction of professional web designers
know that that is. Probably far fewer of the zillion hack designers or the
junkware they use to create
At 08:03 AM 2/18/2009 -0600, Cheryl D Wise wrote:
Where did you get 14px as the recommended size for general readability?
I've been creating websites since 1993 and never recall seeing that size
mentioned.
That's basically when I started, too, and then I was on webdesign-l
for many years
At 09:30 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, David Laakso wrote:
What's so difficult about keeping it simple and honoring user default?
body {font: 100%/1.4 sans-serif;}
#primary-content p {/*inherits default*/ }
#secondary-content p {font-size:95%;}
#tertiary-content p {font-size:90%;}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {/*set
At 04:04 PM 2/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
We web designers create illusions, but there's no reason for us to live
in them. Pixel sized text doesn't guarantee the right size anywhere
but on our own screen(s) and in our own browser(s), and that's just
something all web designers _have to
At 11:39 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
maintain realistic expectations
That much I already learned, many years ago!
Are you really really sure?
Not really really, just really...
...maybe.
Ron ;)
__
css-discuss
Just to change the subject...
At 05:12 PM 2/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Check out what happens when those sizes meet 'minimum font size' and
other barriers across browser-land.
So, no, sorry, proportional is not guaranteed, no matter the method.
This is, in fact, *exactly* another issue
At 08:57 AM 2/18/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote:
It sounds like this is something you have been dealing with for a while,
Yes and no, in a way: I suppose I've always been concerned about
typographic issues and stuff, but it's really only since I joined
this list (last summer) and started taking
At 12:01 PM 3/24/2009 -0400, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
Still, I've seen many instances of people quoting an entire
message and then putting a one-line response at the bottom of it all.
This is really no better than doing the same and putting the response
at the top.
I can totally relate. I currently
39 matches
Mail list logo
