G'day
The page with the XHTML and CSS:
http://www.2much4u.net/Problem/example.html
...
Why there's a margin with any browser excepts IE6?
Because the default alignment for images in most of the other
browsers is baseline. Add the following to your CSS and see if
it fixes the problem:
Thanks Bert! that solved my problem.
Bert Doorn escribi:
G'day
The page with the XHTML and CSS:
http://www.2much4u.net/Problem/example.html
...
Why there's a margin with any browser excepts
IE6?
Because the default alignment for images in most of the other
Pete,
You've seen this, right?
http://snippetz.net/
Cheers,
Wendy
Peter Ottery wrote:
I *think* what i'm talking about it different. i'm just thinking more
along the lines of a library of cut'n'paste chunks of re-usable code..
**
The
Pete,
Joshua wrote http://webpatterns.org/
*checks it out*
ok, so the term patterns is potentially a too far advanced term for
what i'm thinking of. all that microformat and machine readable data
stuff is certainly interesting (Allsopp - i can hear you screaming
about it from here ;-)
on the topic of css patterns and re-usable chunks of code,
there's plenty of whole css page layout resources that you can use as
a starting point for your own stuff right, like the 'ol classics
http://glish.com/css/ or http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/
what about the insides of those
That web patterns thing people were bouncing around in here a month or
so back? I've lost the address... if someone else doesn't post it,
it's in the archives somewhere... probably something really obvious
like webpatterns.org... Ah, yes, that's it.
http://webpatterns.org/
On 2/2/06, Peter
Joshua wrote http://webpatterns.org/
*checks it out*
ok, so the term patterns is potentially a too far advanced term for
what i'm thinking of. all that microformat and machine readable data
stuff is certainly interesting (Allsopp - i can hear you screaming
about it from here ;-) but...
I
Joshua also wrote:
That web patterns thing people were bouncing around in here a month or
so back? I've lost the address... if someone else doesn't post it,
it's in the archives somewhere...
oops. yeah ok:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg24333.html
it was a good
I have a simple CSS vertical menu, nothing fancy, no graphic used for
background. Client wants to add extra pages in one of the menu tab, I
have PV II MM2 but really prefer not to use it as it requires me to
change all menu tabs and turn the css background color to graphic (unless
I am
From: tee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings,
I have a simple CSS vertical menu, nothing fancy, no graphic used
for background. Client wants to add extra pages in one of the menu
tab, I have PV II MM2 but really prefer not to use it as it
requires me to change all menu tabs and turn the css
Greetings,
I have a simple CSS vertical menu, nothing fancy, no graphic used for
background. Client wants to add extra pages in one of the menu tab, I
have PV II MM2 but really prefer not to use it as it requires me to
change all menu tabs and turn the css background color to graphic
Hi,
I've very nearly finished the new design of my site, available at
http://www.stillbreathing.co.uk/design2006/ (css at
http://www.stillbreathing.co.uk/design2006/styles/chocolate_and_coffee/s
creen.css), however I have a problem in IE6/Win. The header background
(the bit with the sunflower) is
Chris Taylor wrote:
Hi,
I've very nearly finished the new design of my site, available at
http://www.stillbreathing.co.uk/design2006/ (css at
http://www.stillbreathing.co.uk/design2006/styles/chocolate_and_coffee/s
creen.css), however I have a problem in IE6/Win. The header background
(the
On 16 Jan 2006, at 12:15, Svip wrote:
I thought that per standard you inserted the favicon.ico file in the
parent directory to the site, and thus browsers would ask for it, and
get it as they requested! The HTML is just if you specific pages on a
site that needs their own favicons!
As far as
I thought that per standard you inserted the favicon.ico file in the
parent directory to the site, and thus browsers would ask for it, and
get it as they requested! The HTML is just if you specific pages on a
site that needs their own favicons!
signed
Svip - sviip.dk
On 16/01/06, Alvaro Mouriño
Hi List,
I was just wondering if it is possible to set an icon for my site with
CSS (the one next to the title)
Either way, how do I do it?
Thanks,
AlvAro
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
favicon.ico in your website root. It's not actually anything to do
with CSS... though you CAN set it in your head element with link
rel=shortcut icon href=favicon.ico type=image/x-icon /
On 1/16/06, Alvaro Mouriño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi List,
I was just wondering if it is possible to set
Alvaro Mouriño wrote:
Hi List,
I was just wondering if it is possible to set an icon for my site with
CSS (the one next to the title)
Either way, how do I do it?
Not with CSS, this goes in your HTML.
link rel=shortcut icon href=/favicon.ico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favicon
--
Lachlan
Thanks! =)
AlvAro
-
2006/1/16, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
favicon.ico in your website root. It's not actually anything to do
with CSS... though you CAN set it in your head element with link
rel=shortcut icon href=favicon.ico type=image/x-icon /
On 1/16/06, Alvaro Mouriño [EMAIL
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2006 5:02 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS or JavaScript flyout menu
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a
JavaScript/CSS fly-out
menu
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a JavaScript/CSS fly-out
menu, the dreaded day has come that a client finally insisted on using one!
Has anyone got some ideas code samples etc.? Any help would be much
appreciated.
try the son of suckerfish.
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I had a look at Suckerfish Dropdowns but it seems to go only one
level deep, I need several levels deep.
Because of usability/accessibility issues it creates, I would not go with a
CSS solution if more than one level deep is needed.
Also, I would not use
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS or JavaScript flyout menu
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I had a look at Suckerfish Dropdowns but it seems to go only one
level deep, I need several levels
Al Sparber wrote:
Sometimes it can be good to hide the sub-menus. It depends on how the
site is structured and one's goals.
Actually, with these *big* menus (2/3 levels deep), I think it's a good idea
to hide everything below the top level items from assistive devices.
Thierry |
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a
_javascript_/CSS fly-out menu, the dreaded
day has come that a client finally insisted on using one!
I need to custom write it because it needs to be
integrated with a CMS.I started working on the structure (see below)I'd like to generate the
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Taco Fleur -
Pacific FoxSent: Wednesday, 11 January 2006 3:34 PMTo:
wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] CSS or _javascript_ flyout
menu
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a
_javascript_/CSS fly-out menu, the dreaded
day has come
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a JavaScript/CSS fly-out menu,
the dreaded day has come that a client finally insisted on using one!
...
var menu = new Object();
menu[ about_bdsrecruit ] = new Object();
Yikes! Don't generate a menu like that,
Hi Taco,If you will do everything in _javascript_, then your menu will lost its semantic. Take a look how it is done on http://www.optuszoo.com.auThere is _javascript_ for delay, CSS for drop-downs and ulli for semantic.
best regards,Dmitry
!
*
Seamless Merchant integration
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2006 5:02 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS or JavaScript flyout menu
Taco Fleur
My partner and I have a tagboard on our site and it looks greate in FF,
but when you view in IE there are round bullets. Can someone help me get
rid of the bullets? My partner did email the creator of the tagboard,
but never heard back.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer the link because it sits
list-style:none; on the UL should work well... failing that, try
playing with padding: on the list.
On 1/8/06, Artemis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My partner and I have a tagboard on our site and it looks greate in FF,
but when you view in IE there are round bullets. Can someone help me get
rid
Original Message
From: Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re:[WSG] CSS help with bullet removal in IE view
Date: 1/7/2006 17:58
list-style:none; on the UL should work well... failing that, try
playing with padding: on the list.
Thank you
Stephanie Sullivan has a good tutorial on how to do what Zachary
suggested at:
http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=9
(Especially useful if you use Dreamweaver but the principles and
basic process applies regardless.)
Project VII also has their Uberlink Menu tutorial which takes a
hi following the recent discussion of css image rollovers for a menu/nav list (see http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=6BB21CD6-F78A-DE8B-495CD895C0B6A6AB) i wonder if anyone has a suggestion for how one could add "highlight current page" functionality to this nav? my
Yeah!
The best way to do this is to assign an ID tag to the body.
== Example =
Page1:
body id=page1
a href="" class=link_Page1
a href="" class=link_Page2
/body
Page2:
body id=page2
a href="" class=link_Page1
a href="" class=link_Page2
/body
CSS:
body#page1
Hi everyone, happy after holiday,
I have a CSS rollover flickering problem that not just occurs in IE
but all browsers.
The problem only happens when I have different images for link and
hover, and a background image for the #menu.
The problem has been there for a long time with other sites,
I would do a preload images on the body tag for the over state
images since as it is they seem to load for the first time when you
do a mouse over.
bob
Hi everyone, happy after holiday,
I have a CSS rollover flickering problem that not just occurs in IE
but all browsers.
The problem
tee,
you need a preloader (javascript) or better use css rollovers:
http://wellstyled.com/css-nopreload-rollovers.html
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors2/
and the flicker will disappear.
regards
Martin
**
The
G'day
I have a CSS rollover flickering problem that not just occurs in IE but
all browsers.
Two options I can think of:
1. Pre-load the hover images (using javascript)
2. Use a single background image with both states for each button
and shift the background-position on hover.
I prefer
Hello
IMHO i think Bob has a good idea. I usually use a method called Farner
image replacement,which works great in such cases.
I`ve put an example below. You need two graphics, one for the normal
state ( home.png ) and one for the hover state ( home-red.png).
html
head
title/title
Hi
Why not make the background image of the li the same as the hover. That
way it preloads itself?
E.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of tee
Sent: 27 December 2005 09:36
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] CSS Rollover Flicker
Hi
Thanks all for the pointers, I am trying the sliding doors method
now. For other sites, I may have to use javascript preloader as going
back to recreate images for menus can be quite a hassle.
tee
On Dec 27, 2005, at 1:48 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
I would do a preload images on the body tag
On Dec 27, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Web Man Walking wrote:
Hi
Why not make the background image of the li the same as the
hover. That
way it preloads itself?
E.
Hi mysterious E. Interesting approach! It seems to work and a real
quick fix.
I have tested on PC/Mac: Safari, FF, Netscape,
tee,
on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 at 13:03 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
Hi mysterious E. Interesting approach! It seems to work and a real
quick fix.
I have tested on PC/Mac: Safari, FF, Netscape, Mozilla, iE and Opera.
Can you guys confirm?
http://gb.lotusseeds.com/menutest_2.html
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of tee
Sent: 27 December 2005 12:04
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Rollover Flicker
On Dec 27, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Web Man Walking wrote:
Hi
Why not make the background image of the li the same as the
hover. That
way it preloads
This one will work if the a covers 100% of the li's area, otherwise
the li's background could shine through. But for this menu it's real
quick and simple fix.
Sorry, I neglected to mention that, I was thinking it, just not typing it.
That what you get when you come into the office to find your
On Dec 27, 2005, at 4:45 AM, Martin Heiden wrote:
This one will work if the a covers 100% of the li's area, otherwise
the li's background could shine through. But for this menu it's real
quick and simple fix.
Thanks Martin, I'll keep this in mind when fixing other sites. It
looks like I
Hello Tee,
You wrote:
Thanks all for the pointers, I am trying the sliding doors method
now. For other sites, I may have to use javascript preloader as
going back to recreate images for menus can be quite a hassle.
If that's the case, there's no need to use JS. Long ago, I had this problem
Hi Terrence, I'm not trying to force a user to print in Landscape (you
need ScriptX ActiveX to do that on IE 6)..
The regular view and then print view are different and I'm trying to
get them to be the same. Trying to make them look the same when you
print..
Thanks!
On 12/21/05, Terrence Wood
http://home.alltel.net/omen/schedule.htm
Looks great until you try to print in landscape. Can someone please
help me with adjusting the css so that the print preview looks the
same as it does in the browser.
We're on a IE standard intranet.. sucks I know.. but I appreciate your
help in advance.
Thomas Livingston wrote:
The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation,
it's too late. The client saw the design. the client wants the design
he saw. If you could only do it with a table, you'd say no and/or
walk.
Just or the record, / I / wouldn't walk; I'd do what
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
Reasons for closing: The CSS driven thread has gone on far too long and
has been dangerously close to flame-wars on several occasions. Time to move
on please.
Please do not reply to this post or continue this thread. If you have a
comment or an issue with the closing of this
Terrence.
Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this
thread, I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real
problem that is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to
implement as it is with a table,
Sure... clients who needs them? But see the real problem is
Why do you assume I didn't? Its this type of flawed assumptions that
has caused this thread to wander all over the landscape without
arriving at a solution to the problem at hand.
And over the last few months, the list has devolved into unending threads
that serve nothing wrt web standards.
Christian,
Do these table layouts go in your portfolio?
Since you asked. I have my very first site in my portfolio and it is
a nested table/spacer gif monster.
But except for you guys, I doubt if anyone has ever done a view
source on the site.
Do these clients
recommend you to others
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:04 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
Do you think you are being helpful? Believe me, you're not.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was having a general rant, not
talking directly to you Bob. I was just using your situation as a
jumping off point.
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:06 AM,
Terrence,
Obviously you haven't found this thread helpful, but others have.
Oddly enough I have, though the (seems to be) answer came in off list.
If after doing some testing, the solution does indeed work as I need
it to, I will post it for those who remember what the original
question
No can do Bob. I showed you the solution.
End of story: solution, choices made, move on :)
Yes Sir. Thank you Sir. I will just fold my table and slink away.
It's been a honor being in your illustrious presence.
I will return when I feel more worthy .
bob
On Dec 15, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
How can you be stuck without a choice? Would you not at least alert
them
(clients or peers) to the fact that a better solution may exist?
All good points sir.
What I took from your original post was this (maybe I was just off
base
On 15 Dec 2005, at 9:07 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
For the record: I am past 1998 in my designs, but as I mentioned
earlier, I don't do designs from 1998 because I want to, I have some
clients who want that look.
Like I said, it was not personal, and I didn't see you comment earlier
- but
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable.
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a
lucky man indeed.
-
Tom
On 17 Dec 2005, at 5:15 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote:
A clients wants a design. And you want developers, etc. to tell
clients 'no, you shouldn't do that because the only way to achieve
that design is to use tables, and tables are bad so how about you go
with a similar design but without a, b,
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote:
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a
lucky man indeed.
I work with constraints in a competitive environment just like everyone
else
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one
design is better than another.
Yes, you do.
The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation,
it's too late. The client saw the design. the client
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable.
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or
On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:
My thinking is that if I ever had to do one of these sites, I would
not put it in my portfolio.
Oops. My mistake. I accidentally wandered in to the elitist
teachers' lounge. I'll just get back out into the hall where I belong.
Do
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston wrote:
If I have to use a table now, it it _not_ going to be a horrible retro
nested mess. It's to achieve something I can't achieve otherwise.
Hi Tom - I don't mean this as a sarcastic question or anything. I fully
admit I may have missed this if it was already
Thomas Livingston said:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one
design is better than another.
Yes, you do.
Did you not read the rest of the paragraph above Tom? I thought it was
quite clear, but I'll put it
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous. I've seen a lot excellent visual design which is implemented
in table form (some well others not so well). On the other hand some of
what passes for design on this list may be great in terms of standards
and
Nigel said:
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous.
Yes, it is, but fortunately no-one here made that claim. It's a figurative
term, not literal. We're not talking about a specific look (like techno,
goth, post-postmodern, deconstructed), rather a design
On 12/16/05, Duckworth, Nigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous.
You are generalizing what was a very specific comment. What we call a
1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every column a different
color. The key is the
Christian Montoya:
What we call a 1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every
column a different color. The key is the columns being different
colors. It was very typical in 1998, and looks retro now. Many
of us are just tired of seeing it.
Not sure of your point, though the
Terrence said:
We're not talking about a specific look (like techno, goth,
post-postmodern,
deconstructed), rather a design pattern: a head/3 column/foot table
layout
with multicolored columns
Yes, I think I get that, I just disagree with the implication that table
based designs are such in
Stuart,
Thanks for the example, but while it displays according to my
example, it's not what I'm looking for. (I guess my example assumed
too much intuition as to what I was trying to obtain).
Here's where your example fails (and perhaps better illustrates the
problem I'm trying to
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
If it can't be done,
It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too):
take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com,
stylegala.com, etc.
I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people
Rimantas,
Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple
encouragament
to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to
accept is table,
Is there anything to gain in these discussions by you always being so
polemic
If you have nothing except snide remarks to
Bob Schwartz wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS
at
On 12/15/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the
Bob Schwartz said:
Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not
withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non-
table people should at least admit it.
I'm not aware of 'non-table people' making a claim that CSS can solve
every design problem. Was that
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
First, don't submit a design that you can't build. Otherwise, if you
are not the designer, and
Thomas Livingston said:
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
What It's unrealistic to advise your clients? Not in my world, my
Can anyone please tell me how to fix the following script to get the
div the stay in the center of the page in IE. It works fine in
Firefox, but stay left in IE.
body {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 22px;
G'day
Al Kendall wrote:
Can anyone please tell me how to fix the following script to get the div the
stay in the center of the page in IE. It works fine in Firefox, but stay
left in IE.
Add this to your existing CSS:
body { text-align:center }
#content { text-align:left }
Regards
--
Bert
Try this Al
#content {
padding: 10px;
margin:5px auto;
background-color: #fff;
border: 1px solid #000;
width: 70%; /* remove this because you are setting your margin to auto*/
}
Regards,
Ric
Al Kendall wrote:
Can anyone please tell me how to fix the following script to get the
div the
On 12/14/05, Ric Jude Raftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this Al
#content {
padding: 10px;
margin:5px auto;
background-color: #fff;
border: 1px solid #000;
width: 70%; /* remove this because you are setting your margin to auto*/
}
errr...then the div will fill the page...
Apologies...you're right. Leave the width, although I would be setting
it to 760px so it was effectively 100% in 800 x 600 and have margins in
larger resolutions. I really don't understand why people want these
margins though. I feel a site should be fluid to 100% irrespective of
G'day
I feel a site should be fluid to 100% irrespective of
resolution.
While I agree with you in principle... Have you ever seen a site
at 1280x1024 or higher resolution, 100% width and (as some
designers seem to be keen on), microscopic (12px or smaller)
text? Not easy to read.
Yes, I have and in my humble opinion, poor design. Px heights for fonts
are not recommended and will cause problems with higher resolution
monitors at 96px and in future above.
Recommendations are to set font sizes at percentages or ems. I set my
font size to 100% in my body of the css and
I would just like to share the solution to my problem.div#menu a:hover {border-right:0;}I do not understand why this makes IE show the hover text, but it does so I guess I'm happy. If anyone knows why it works please let me now. Otherwise just tuck it into the IE is weird category for future
morten fjellman wrote:
I would just like to share the solution to my problem.
div#menu a:hover { border-right:0; }
I do not understand why this makes IE show the hover text, but it
does so I guess I'm happy. If anyone knows why it works please let me
now. Otherwise just tuck it into the IE
Al,
Since, my whole point has been that using a simple layout table, as
opposed to a nested monstrosity, can sometimes be a good thing
I'm glad you are championing my original cause, which somehow got way
off course in the thread.
Not only can a simple table be a good thing, it is still
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two
cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
I did think more than Rimantas would pop-up with a quick answer for your
question, Bob:
Which browser can correctly render the
Paula Petrik said:
Using caption seems to pose difficulties.
What difficulties does the caption pose? This is an interesting point
because, in my experience, people have issues with captions *only* becuase
they are used to using a heading when preparing documents in Word which
doesn't have
Bob Schwartz said:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two
cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
Here's an easy solution: don't create designs that look like they're from
1998 (e.g the 2-col cnet yellow stripe and it's ilk)... there are so
I'm using a series of definition lists for my syllabus:
http://www.tdrake.net/palomar/100-schedule.html
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paula Petrik
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:50 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG
Christian,
On 12/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to center, the issue is height and more correctly
height which expands to fit content of nested divs and probably even
more correctly a box with columns in it which expands all columns to
be equal in height to the one
Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already
does, I'll stick with the one table.
Only so called hacks go to the presentation layer (CSS file) and table
stays in your HTML markup.
If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it
seems they do), how can we
And still - table for layout _is_ a hack.
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Yes, I know presentation belongs in the CSS.
No, I don't subscribe to Never
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a 750px high image
in column 3 goes a 500px high
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes
401 - 500 of 1168 matches
Mail list logo
