Re: [WSG] MSIE standalone from quirksmode and conditional comments
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote: I'm using the standalone MSIE 5.01 and 5.5 from www.quirksmode.org to tweak a design for IE5 and 5.5. Is it just me or don't these versions pick up conditional comments for various older IE versions? No, only the latest... Have a read: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/11/03/ie7_conditio/ Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Float city Arizona
http://www.janelehrer.co.uk/live5/ Seems to be working now... but still falls apart in Safari 1 on OS X Any comments on how to improve this would be greatly (and gratefully) received Adam ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] MSIE standalone from quirksmode and conditional comments
Thanks! Just wanted to make sure the comments WILL be picked up by real 5.0 or 5.5 users. I can fake things for testing and I got everything rendering the way I wanted so I guess I'm fine. Cheers, Marco On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote: I'm using the standalone MSIE 5.01 and 5.5 from www.quirksmode.org to tweak a design for IE5 and 5.5. Is it just me or don't these versions pick up conditional comments for various older IE versions? No, only the latest... Have a read: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/11/03/ ie7_conditio/ Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
Ok, I have a test page up. It is using the basic structure of the site I am making. I am using Firefox 1.0.7. www.re-entity.com/FF_Flicker_Bug.htm Regards, Stuart Stuart Sherwood wrote: its not to do with a bold font taking up more space and shifting other elements? also are you certain you have closed all your a tag's? No, I wish it was this simple. I'm talking about elements that are located on the other side of the page flashing above the link with the hover. I'll get a test page up soon. Cheers, Stuart ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** . ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] MSIE standalone from quirksmode and conditional comments
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote: I'm using the standalone MSIE 5.01 and 5.5 from www.quirksmode.org to tweak a design for IE5 and 5.5. Is it just me or don't these versions pick up conditional comments for various older IE versions? here is the fix, if you or anyone else wants it, so you can see that they're working. http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/multiIE.html best Donna No, only the latest... Have a read: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/11/03/ie7_conditio/ Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] To the admins
Ok, it seems SPAM but is ON TOPIC, IMHO. So, why don't you simply ignore it or delete it? Why do you need to complain? IMHO yours and therefor mine too, messages are OFF TOPIC right now. So, sorry for all the users but I needed to say this to Mark. On 16/11/05 8:50, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I feel that the Britsios messages are inappropriate for this list. Perhaps you might advise Mr Britsios that his postings are unwelcome. Regards Mark Harris Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Atentamente, Jorge Laranjo email [EMAIL PROTECTED] gTalk [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype jorge.laranjo http://www.olhares.com/fueg0/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fueg0/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] To the admins
Absolutely, way off and it started over 2 weeks ago. Stop now! P IMHO yours and therefor mine too, messages are OFF TOPIC right now. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
Yes, removing that line with overflow:auto; removes the flicker, but it
also breaks the design.
From the perspective of the current project, I'd rather loose the
font-weight:bold. If I can keep both then the client will be happy.
Nick Cowie wrote:
It is overflow: auto; in
.clear .module_bg {width:213px; padding:0 15px; overflow:auto;}
that is causing the problem, remove it and no flicker at least in FF1.0.6
--
Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
Stuart Sherwood wrote: www.re-entity.com/FF_Flicker_Bug.htm Setting 'overflow: hidden;' on the outer wrapper - #thePage - makes the flickering stop in Moz 1.7.12. Makes sense in a way, in that all such flickering in older Moz/FF usually stops when the page is isolated[1] from the browser-window. Georg [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15 -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Inline link padding in IE6
On 19 Nov 2005, at 1:07 AM, Bert Doorn wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: It is difficult to give a link layout, but 'zoom: 100%' will work. Question: Which CSS standard defines the zoom property? you suspicions are correct Bert, but then hasLayout, which accounts for a lot of gotchas in stanards design, isn't a standard property either. A standards compliant way of giving something hasLayout is to explicitly assign a width or height. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Inline link padding in IE6
Terrence Wood wrote: On 19 Nov 2005, at 1:07 AM, Bert Doorn wrote: Question: Which CSS standard defines the zoom property? The MSDN standard[1]... :-) you suspicions are correct Bert, but then hasLayout, which accounts for a lot of gotchas in stanards design, isn't a standard property either. No, but MSDN claim[2] that it is /in line with/ the CSS specifications - with a few bugs added for good measure. A standards compliant way of giving something hasLayout is to explicitly assign a width or height. That's not 'hasLayout' (anywhere but in IE/win). The correct way to give an element Layout is to establish new 'block formatting contexts'[3]. That's /kind of/ what IE/win does too... in its very own, very buggy, way. Georg [1]http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/properties/zoom.asp [2]http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/IETechCol/cols/dnexpie/expie20050831.asp [3]http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15 -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
That's great Gunlaug. Is this a bug worth reporting or is it something that is already known? I have only seen variations of bugs with overflow set but none with the flickering. Your thoughts? Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Stuart Sherwood wrote: www.re-entity.com/FF_Flicker_Bug.htm Setting 'overflow: hidden;' on the outer wrapper - #thePage - makes the flickering stop in Moz 1.7.12. Makes sense in a way, in that all such flickering in older Moz/FF usually stops when the page is isolated[1] from the browser-window. Georg [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
Stuart Sherwood wrote: Is this a bug worth reporting or is it something that is already known? I have only seen variations of bugs with overflow set but none with the flickering. Such flickering doesn't appear to be a problem in any case I've tested in the latest FF-versions, so I guess that bug is well taken care of by now. Not much we can do for the older versions but to create workarounds for a while, and then let go. We also have to test thoroughly across browser-land when using such workarounds, as some browsers - new and old - may get into more serious trouble with some of these standard-compliant workarounds, because they don't apply them correctly. --- In all cases where 'float:left/right; width: (something);' can be used, it should be used. Most of today's browsers are near to flawless on floats. Next comes 'display: table; width: (something);' that is mostly either understood and applied well enough - or completely ignored. Still plenty of bugs around for 'display: table' though, so test well. Neither of the above seems to fit the bill for your test page, but they may work perfectly well on a real page/layout. Using 'overflow: (not visible);' is actually the solution that may create problems in most browsers. So that one really has to be tested well across browser-land. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
