alejandro poch wrote:
But recently I found that the Opera browser has an option to view
your web in the way a text browser should do (
View/Style/User/Emulate Text Browser). Do anyone knows if the Lynx's
browser is something like this option?
I do have Lynx 2.8.5 running, but I use Opera to
kvnmcwebn wrote:
Right now I'm trying another fixed height version but its a big
comprimize in the look im going for. Hope to get some good advice
here.
I wonder how a 'fixed height' should fit different windows/screens, but
I guess 'fixed to window' is what you mean.
You may pick up some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.mcguireomaha.com
Only looking at home page.
Good points:
1: generally good-looking and well organized - graphically.
Weak points:
1a: not very user-friendly when font-resizing options are applied.
Breaking and overlapping may become a problem in all browsers.
Christian Montoya wrote:
I'll probably be using conditional comments for the next five years,
and everytime I use them I think to myself, this would just be easier
if IE worked the same as FF/Opera/Safari.
It sure would, but would IE be 'MSIE' then? :-)
Besides, I think someone will have to
Titanilla wrote:
Joshua Street wrote:
Change your background GIF to a 2px by 7px graphic, instead of
210px wide as at present. Then, use background-position to put it
in place.
I'm not sure I understand you right.
Keep existing background-image where it is.
Add a trimmed down version of
Ben Curtis wrote:
As a general rule, Only hack the dead. The only safe bug to exploit
is one that is fixed in ongoing generations of the product, or will
never be fixed because the product is dead. All other necessary
targeting should use features, not bugs. (Some may ask what the
difference
Tom Livingston wrote:
All I want is link text with a backgnd image to show on hover. And
ONLY the text should hover/link. The above again has active blank
space within the href... yes, because of display:block; but I can't
get the effect of text-pushed-over-to-allow-for-hover-bg-image w/o
Jan Brasna wrote:
:after generated content cannot receive some CSS properties,
including 'position', 'float', list properties, and table
properties.
That's CSS2. Can't find that line in CSS2.1.
This seems to open for a bit more real use:
The :before and :after pseudo-elements elements
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
?? margin seems to work perfectly fine here. Both on Firefox 1.6a1
nightly trunk build and Firefox 1.5beta 2
http:dev.l-c-n.com/_temp/after.php (the word blah in a grey box
after each paragraph, and the word 'the End' as body:after)
Working at my end too - once I
Zach Inglis wrote:
I wanted to know your opinion on my post http://www.zachinglis.com/
websites/website/before-sliding-doors/.
Interesting.
I've been playing with :after lately, although not for anything serious.
I've had some problems with positioning in Gecko. Opera is doing fine.
Would be
Hope Stewart wrote:
How do others code an address? My feeling is that semantically it
should be contained within one paragraph or entity of some sort. But
if you were using a screen reader, how would you differentiate one
line from the next?
Non-CSS browsers dictates where to use br /
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
IMO, hasLayout is a tough concept to grab. I think experiencing the
result of the implementation of this fix is enough feedback for most
people. It works or it doesn't.
You sure got that wrong. Please, don't repeat it to others - they may
believe you.
AFAIK,
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I would appreciate your feedback so I can improve this article:
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/branching.asp
The idea is good, but it's a bit incomplete at the moment.
I have yet to see a good browser with solid CSS support, so I don't
think we can say completely no
Adam Morris wrote:
Is there a way to accurately and seamlessly position this image over
the background?
http://www.janelehrer.co.uk/uwish/girls.html
.tornpic {
width:350px;
height:316px;
float: right;
margin: -113px -24px 0 0;
background: url(tornpic0.jpg) no-repeat;
position: relative;
}
Adam Morris wrote:
What is this bug in IE/Win that you need position: relative; for?
Parts of the float that's overflowing the outer container when pulled
like this, will become invisible.
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
People who subscribe to Jakob Nielsen's newsletter are *not* normal.
We're not?
Gosh, I didn't know that... :-)
They are people who show interest in Usability, people who have got
an above average understanding of Website Structure and Web
Kara O'Halloran - Eduka wrote:
I think if I set a base of 1em in the body it would solve my
problems, but then I have to apply font size 75% to make everything
the size I want it, and that would cause much the same problem as it
cascades down and potentially end up with really mini fonts
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Major Usability Issues users cannot adjust to are:
- Missing Information - Incorrect Information - Catastrophic
Navigation - Websites that don't work - ...
Ask a general person what they didn't like about a particular website
and in the majority of
Nolan Winthrop wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Georg, Wybe. I've made some corrections to
it: notably shifting to percentages and ems for font-sizes; changing
to onfocus for the search form.
The use of small root-value for font-size (76% on body in your case) has
the negative side-effect of
Hopkins Programming wrote:
@All - Still need suggestions on the WAI conundrum.
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/
Well, I think you should definitely put some descriptive text in those
links, as my text-only browsers can't even see that there are links
there at the moment. Don't think that
Nolan Winthrop wrote:
http://www.47words.com
Not exactly following best practices, with font-sizes _and_
line-heights defined in pixels.
You're getting the usual result: blocking font-resizing
in IE/win and causing text-overlapping in IE/win and Opera if user
overrides font-sizes.
In short:
Damien Hill wrote:
... On the first line of the content, there is a 10 pixel indent that
isn't meant to be there. The code works fine in Firefox.
http://www.damienhill.com/tests/floats/
The indent equals margin-left on float. That's the bug.
Add:
dl.image {display: inline;}
...to fix
adam reitsma wrote:
A real stumbling block for me is font sizes. I dread the time i want
to re-use a particular style, only to realise that the way i've
nested the tags makes my text 2px high...
http://www.bcct.org.au/v2
Maybe you shouldn't size down so many times through nesting then.
Darren Wood wrote:
I have a nasty 3 column design that falls apart when the window is
resized.
http://fullcompass.netconcepts.com/
I've noticed the error only in IE.
You may try adding:
#pageWrapper {position: relative; _height: 0;}
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
Jon Dawson wrote:
http://www.jomni.com/sandbox/flash_bg/
Not sure I know what it's supposed to look like.
Opera 8.5 is presenting 3 lines of text on a gray background (default, I
think), and a moving white box behind the text.
http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/flashbgnd_op85_win2k.png
Opera
Dinh wrote:
#sidebar { width:100%; background-color: #99; /* float:left; */ }
#sidebar li { margin-left:20px; }
It looks nice on Firefox:
http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4divfinal5ku.png but not in
IE6: http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4divfinalie64rv.png
The problem
Webmaster wrote:
Georg, the fix doesn't suggest putting different values on html and
body (or did I miss the whole point?).
I understood the solution to be setting body and/or html to 100.01%
and then setting any other styles and text-level attributes with ems
or %. Did I get it wrong?
Not
The result from my sidestep in the 'Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com' thread is
clear, thanks to some off-list input. It _is_ quite possible to inject a
human bug surrounding font-size into CSS, and end up with pretty
logical but strange results.
No problems with IE/win this time though...
I'm sure
Andy Budd wrote:
Your Norwenglish is good. Much better than my Englegen. I'd just
never heard the bug name before so was curious.
No wonder they spoke funny over in Brighton. Oh well, that was a long
time ago...
I normally just do
body { font-size: 62.5%; }
The size everything else as ems.
Andy Budd wrote:
Why don't you ask mister Rutter? http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
You know what, I must have known this at some stage as I always set %
on the body tag to avoid problems with font sizing in IE. I just
didn't put two and two together and realise it was the same issue. I
Andy Budd wrote:
As I said I've not experienced this before, so I'm kind of intrigued.
Out of interest, how does the bug manifest its self on our site?
Screenshots of original page on IE6/win2K-pro, window w:700/h:860:
-2: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_smallest.png
-1:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
...
Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and
user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So
if the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the
window size?
...
Two questions - then what are designers for?
Andy Budd wrote:
Screenshots of original page on IE6/win2K-pro, window w:700/h:860:
...
That does suck. Bloody IE!
Oh, it's such a nice little bugger :-)
I changed the font size on the body from ems to % early this morning,
so would you mind letting me know if those screenshots were
Andy Budd wrote:
http://www.clearleft.com/
Looking and working well in Op, Moz/FF ,IE6 on normal windows/screens
(800 to 1280).
Q: do you trigger the 'extreme font-resizing bug' in IE/win on purpose?
Sure makes 'largest' large enough, but 'smallest' ends up a bit too small.
Georg
--
Lea de Groot wrote:
I like Andy's latest effort - the font size is a literal shock to the
eye, but the more I look at it, the more I like it.
I like it too. It is good to be able to read a web page without having
to correct it first.
...
Thinking about those brochures we are
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
I'm more interested from your personal perspective and experience.
Oh well, you asked for it.
Pick and choose:
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/toc_7a.html
...plenty of 'personal' there, and I think there are standards at the
base -- along with some pretty acid test-stuff.
Chris Kennon wrote:
Does the following statement work in IE5MAC?
!--[if IE]
no.
If so how would I use it to disable a styleSheet that cause this UA
to choke?
You will prevent IE/Mac from seeing styles that are wrapped in an @media
rule (inside the stylesheet itself).
Maybe this is what
Chris Kennon wrote:
Hi,
I've put it through as many hoops (UA's) as I own, let me know how it
holds in yours.
Looking good in Opera, Firefox, IE6, Safari iCab.
IE/Mac is lost on width-- spreading everything out.
---
HTML Tidy lists a number of minor errors.
---
div#content-primary
Chris Kennon wrote:
What tidy settings are you using. I get one nested span error from
the default settings. However, I would like to see your settings and
results.
I got some 'href lacks value', 'tabindex lacks value' and an 'action
lacks value' -- in addition to the 'nested emphasis span'.
designer wrote:
I mention this problem because, in the discussion on table usage,
someone (John?) said he doubted if there was a single example where
CSS didn't work and a table did. As far as I know, this is one of
them . . .
...it is?
... many folk still like to place their content
James Gollan wrote:
Hi, I am having a problem getting a print stylesheet to work in
Firefox 1.04 Win. It works in opera and IE, but in Fireforx the home
page doesn't show up the images as expected. Actually, I have found
the print preview in most recent versions of Firefox to cause crashes
Kenny Graham wrote:
I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is
wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than
wrapping it in a table?
No, div-wrapping-mania isn't much better. However, standards and weak
browsers put limitations on what we can
Stevio wrote:
What is the best way to expand a left floated navigation column to
fill up the height of the available space? This column has a
different colour, but the right column will usually be bigger.
Is the best way still to use background image, or does anyone have a
better way of doing
Mary Wright wrote:
I'm working on the first three pages of a new website,
www.zebragraphics.co.uk/tcs, which seems to only work properly in PC IE6
and breaks in Firefox (PC Mac) and IE5, Safari and Camino on the Mac.
Can anyone tell me what changes I need to make to please the other
Webmaster wrote:
Keep in mind that not many people here will want to help you sort
out a design that uses tables for layout.
Are we not being a bit classist?
Maybe ever so slightly, but I guess that comes naturally when one tries
to use standards as base for web design.
Although my current
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Expanding and collapsing content has been near the front of my brain
for the past week or so and I thought I'd send out a request to the
group for better answers.
Don't know about 'better answers, but I've used a panel switching
variant for quite a while:
sam sherlock wrote:
I happened acrosss this site on stylegala.
http://www.circodeliaproducciones.com/
I would like to know what the list members think of the site...
Looking good in some browsers - but can't take any stress.
- My Firefox doesn't like it.
- Opera 8... not too bad.
- Relying
Chris Kennon wrote:
After pouring over endless minutiae, if yet to grasp when and how to
use link rel= link rev= after having seen it numerous
times, peering at the code of many respected sites.
If you want to make real world use of link rel=, then this page may
actually tell you how to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
...use a good browser ;-)
are you referring to opera? ;^)
Well, I use Opera, and that site is obviously focused on Opera...
I was however hinting at the fact that that page and the site is not
very IE/win-friendly. I don't think Moose care
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in
on the discussion.
...been busy cracking some more bugs related to the visual - as usual.
Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that
(X)HTML is a visual language by design, or
Kenny Graham wrote:
Am I alone in feeling that hr should be depreciated in favor of CSS
borders? Especially with section in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what
semantic or even structural value does hr have? Every argument for
its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related.
Well,
Siteman DA - Bent Inge wrote:
Page: http://modulvegger.prosjektweb.net Sheet:
http://modulvegger.prosjektweb.net/sitestyle.css
Looks right in Firefox and Opera, but I've got big problems with the
intended look in IE.
No surprise there... :-)
You'll have to play with the 'hasLayout'
akella wrote:
http://www.champion.com.ua/ or here http://pravda.com.ua/
The problem is: How to implement it with CSS so that text will not be
under the image. The obvious img{float:left} is not good - client
dont want the text to be displayed under the image.
This solution imitates parts of a
SunUp wrote:
enlightenment required pls: 1. why doesn't this pretty list work in
IE5.0?
Because that old browser isn't any good. :-)
2. and how do i convince it (violently if necessary) to do so?
Not sure, but you may try adding:
#navcontainer ul li a {_height: 0;}
...that will activate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IE Compliant --- Why would u advertise that!?!?!
Weird
It was in relation to the deepbrowser that some one posted about,
they wanted to know if it was just a wrapper for IE. The website
advertises the fact that there browser is IE compliant. I was under
the
Chris Taylor wrote:
I'm trying to get a very wide table to appear inside a DIV and scroll
horizontally, but not vertically. Take a look at
http://www.egton.net/yearview/index.html to see what I mean. What I
would like is for the calendar table to be horizontally scrollable
inside Tapes due
Font-size is still an issue, even if we agree to disagree about most of
it. :-)
The 'font-size' vs. 'font-family' can, and do, create some really wild
results across the web, and 'font-size-adjust' doesn't seem to work
anywhere -- or does it?
(Opera 8 - CSS - font-size-adjust = not implemented)
Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:
My plan is to get them completely compeletely trained in these areas
before letting them dive into any real project development.
A few thoughts about basic learning:
No books and training-methods can beat the time-factor. The
learning-curve is steep, and no one can
Gregory Alan Gross wrote:
Is it possible to create a separate style sheet with different style
rules for individual browsers to enable it to display a site in a
uniform manner?
See: http://www.quirksmode.org/css/condcom.html
... for the best way to feed IE/win separate stylesheet(s), through
Cb2 Web Design wrote:
It is a empty comment hack: html/**/body selector, that seems to be
applied only by I.E. 6.x
http://www.cb2web.com/tut_csshack.shtml
Haven't seen that variant in the wild yet.
My general response to this, and any hack, is in the headlines and
start-paragraphs on this
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print.
...
There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their
print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the
moment. We also have no idea about print-setups around, since
Tom Livingston wrote:
I guess where I am going with this is that, IMO, no one here is
wrong. The _vast_ majority of users are going to see the site as
intended, and those who are not happy with the text size have the
ability to change it to suit them. If a user needs larger type due to
low
Romily Jones wrote:
The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability
research,
...
They did, but the latest update I could find is more than 2 years old.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/technical/css.shtml
...not all of it made good read today, although I didn't see anything
Scott Reston wrote:
http://www.capstrat.com/development/ncac/template-home.html)
I've tried defining the text with a pixel size: font-size: 9px;
and with a relative size: font-size: .75em; (the body container is
set at 76%)
But both attempts yield similar results - on mac browsers, the menu
is
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
You might say but the text looks too big if I just leave it like
that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*.
As idealistic as it sounds, the devil's advocate counter question:
are you going to tell every single user of your site to do that in
Kvnmcwebn wrote:
.fimg{
_padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 5px 0px;
}
That's the wrong sequence. IE won't get it.
Try this instead:
.fimg{
padding: 0 0 5px 0;
_padding: 0;
}
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The
Richard Lake wrote:
http://www.pricklypair.co.nz/products.php
All of the images are inserted in a floating div. When one of the
floating divs in the line is taller than the last one on the line the
next floating div seems to get hooked up on the longer one. Can
anyone suggest another way of
soft tester wrote:
Is there any standard for browsers like web standards ?
Think that was the idea behind W3C standards -- originally.
Is there Any idea to standardise web browser lik web standard
websites or limit the browser to solve these web standard problems?
None working.
regards
Josef Dunne wrote:
Does anybody know why this is happening in IE?
It's reserving space for something that isn't there.
http://dev.blumedia.co.uk/pp/
li {display: inline;}
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins/
FYI:
The ALA's article doesn't mention a few things:
- links inside the right column appear not to be clickable in Opera 6,
- there are background painting problems in IE,
- there is one structural hack missing from the
Lea de Groot wrote:
But, as always, log file results drive the testing.
Sounds pretty counter-productive to me, but I guess it makes economical
sense in the short run -- and preserves status quo.
Pity I never read log files. I'm too busy -- testing for new bugs. ;-)
regards
Georg
--
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Something I find really strange is that a lot of people who put
emphasis on Web Standards suddenly found their way back to
non-liquid, 800px, centered design. I am wondering why that is?
Makes me wonder too. :-)
I find this amazing: when I browse the web
Matt Thommes wrote:
I experience this vertical line problem quite a bit. It only
happens on my Mac - using Firefox.
I think the original problem was _horizontal lines_ on backgrounds on a
vertically aligned image-gallery.
The fix was 'display: table;' I think, but that's a case by case
solution
designer wrote:
Perhaps you are right and I should ignore it. However, it is
unsightly, as you can see if you look at the jpg screen grab I've put
at:
http://www.treyarnon.fsworld.co.uk/wg/FFbug.jpg
I see, but that's Firefox messing up the /background on top of
background/. I couldn't see that
Peter J. Farrell wrote:
I'm newer to CSS then I'd like to admit, but I was wondering if it is
possible to create a layout that consists of three content areas
(Think about a 3-column layout turned 90 degrees).
You've got plenty of fun waiting for you up the CSS-road. :-)
Something like:
designer wrote:
I have been trying to produce a gallery thing without using a table,
and my test file has four images in a vertical column. It all seems
fine, except in FF1.0, where the second and fourth images display
several dashed lines across the image.
Hope Stewart wrote:
...
What, if any, are the advantages and/or disadvantages of (1) floating
neither column compared to (2) floating one column? Sample CSS:
...
Absolute positioning of larger parts of a page, is *not* recommended.
Only elements with fixed dimensions, in an environment of fixed
tee wrote:
Sorry, realized I got the url wrong. Here is the right one:
http://www.clients.lotusseeds.com/catering_new.html
Simple fix:
#intro {line-height: 0;}
Note also: LOCATION is too high up in Opera. Some adjustments needed
to top of that list.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
Dean Jackson wrote:
The only time I use them is when I'm on a keyboard/system where I
don't know how to enter the character, such as å. I'd type aring;
in this case.
PS. Hopefully the W3C i18n guru Richard is listening and will tell
everyone if I'm wrong.
I'll second that...
Can someone actually
Jan Brasna wrote:
- Half of the Norwegian sites I visit in a day are full of
question-marks--until I actively change encoding, and change it
again, and again...
Hmm, we here in CZ use Latin2 or CP1250, everyone uses proper charset
headers, so no problem with this.
You hit one of the usual
InfoForce Services (Angus MacKinnon) wrote:
This brings up a question. How effective are Skip navigation links? I
have heard that half the people do not understand what skip
navigation links are. I design web sites to get to the main content
or with very few links until the main content.
I'm in
Anders Nawroth wrote:
What characters needs encoding into numeric entities when using
UTF-8?
I try to avoid entities with exception for '
Look for some answers here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html
...so I don't have to give incomplete answers about something I'm not an
Rachel Radford wrote:
Is there a web site or an accurate way of 'testing' websites on PDA's
and cell phones if you don't have access to them?
Not really. Too many non-standards around...
There is a real standard: 'media handheld', but support for it is
sketchy to non-existent for most
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
This is the second time I am coming across the IE three pixel bug,
but this time it really got me:
Only temporarily...
http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/clients/gta/home2.html
Try killing a float-bug with a float:
#home_right {margin: 0; float: left;}
...
David Laakso wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:04:57 +0200, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IE6 will go into quirks mode if there's anything above the
DTD in our source-code. We may put a comment or whatever up there at
the top, but I use an ***xml prolog***.
Yes, there's an error
Richard,
you wrote:
I think the decision has more to do with maximising the expectation
that your design will appear the same on any browser than to do with
the features that are available. Also allowing that expectation to
continue as standards and browsers move forward and browsers
implement
Foster, Raymond W wrote:
Also, IE6's handling of keyword font sizes in standards mode is
consistent with other modern browsers. IE6 in quirks mode (and IE
5.5) renders keyword-defined font sizes a step larger than most other
browsers.
Yes, IE6 handle a few things _differently_ in standard and
Tim White wrote:
... It looked almost like the 3px jog bug, but since I wasn't using
boxes, floats and the like that wasn't it.
Thanks Tim.
(no further details needed :-) )
Have a few cases in my internal archive that sounds like that one. Some
of these cases are solved by changing mode, but that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ive made a little demo site, that shows my problem clearly
http://www.tres.dk/test
I want the container div to follow the heights of the floating
elements, #left and #right In Internet Explorer it does, but not in
Firefox, Opera, Safair or any other browser. The height
russ - maxdesign wrote:
How about correct rendering of the box model?
I'm aware of the box-model issue. That's why I linked to a W3C-page
where this is explained in simplest terms.
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/
Now, my question again - rephrased: are there anything IE6
designer wrote:
... Not sure what it is you're looking for . . .
Basically everything that differs so much between standard and quirks
mode in IE6 that using standard mode results in less code and simpler
and more robust solutions than using quirks mode.
--
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
Right-aligned
Alan Trick wrote:
Hi, I've been playing around with positioning and z-index and I'm
wondering if it is possible to give a containing box higher z-index
that it's children. As far as I have been able to tell, ( in
firefox/opera ) it doesn't work. I have a ul with a
background:transparent
Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote:
I am interested in people's thoughts about using quirks mode (ie
adding ?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8? before the doctype) vs
standards mode.
Think we had a similar discussion a few months back...
It is recommended to use the xml-prolog with xhtml1.0, and it _is
only_
Kvnmcwebn wrote:
Is it ever helpful to link one style sheet from another using @
import?
It may save you from having to link in additional stylesheets from each
of maybe a hundred pages or more. It really depends on how you organize
your stylesheets and your sites.
I always @import extra
Chris Stratford wrote:
Sorry I should also say that the text-align in the parent element is NO
center.
Thats why I am so suprised its working!
But IE seems to understand margin: 0 auto;
IE6 always has -- when in standard mode.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1.html
Basically it is this:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins/
This technique uses negative margins too, but does not require
structural hacks for clearing, and I believe it has better browsers
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
http://www.gunlaug.no/homesite/main_7_b.html
Hi Georg, You're floating the right column and you have a few
structural hacks for clearing in there. Did you try without floating
it? I had much better result that way. Then, the *only* browser
Alan Trick wrote:
That's what I had, but AFAIK, you can't have the page resize to fit
the viewport without absolute/fixed positioning (unless you use a
screwy js hack). If you could prove me wrong I would be very
greatful. Personally I dislike absolute positioning.
David Laakso wrote:
Looks
Gallagher, Robin wrote:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~persia/final/test.html
The background image in the floated right column is being affected by the IE 3-pixel bug.
I would go for the simplest solution:
#rightColumn {_width:202px;_margin-left: -2px;}
...that'll fix IE6.
Then I would try a proper
Alan Trick wrote:
I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml
1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what
do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always
make sense to have everything in an external style sheet.
Well, unless
301 - 400 of 472 matches
Mail list logo
