Let the rain of hellfire begin! Though in the past, all they do is weave
more deceit and under-deliver on release. I read that "MS decides to
introduce more bugs into IE7, and fix none from IE6". Joy.
Nick Lo wrote:
"Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it
plans to s
Looks appropriate in Firefox as well. What browser are you seeing the
issue with?
Diona
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 20:48 -0800, Jalenack wrote:
> Hi MM,
>
> I tested your page in safari quickly...The image is floating
> correctly. Is the image being taller than the text messing your
> problem?
>
>
Hi MM,
I tested your page in safari quickly...The image is floating
correctly. Is the image being taller than the text messing your
problem?
There are many techniques to clearing your floats so that they won't
overflow like that. The simplest of which:
applying overflow: auto to the #wrapper rul
I am having problems floating an image in a div cell using css.
I want to have the whole page centered and static width. Then styling on
the wrapper div, with the image floating so that text will line up next to
it. Right now the problem is a gap under the image.
See the code below, its the who
That article also says it will contain "transparent Portable Network
Graphics (PNG) support", which is something I know I've been waiting
for.
On 16/3/2005, "Nick Lo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it
>plans to support CSS2 with IE 7
"Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it
plans to support CSS2 with IE 7.0. Developers have been clamoring for
Microsoft to update its CSS support to support the latest W3C standards
for years. But Microsoft is leaning toward adding some additional CSS2
support to IE
Thanks John!
.Cheers,
Jenny
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:33:20 -0500, John D Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jenny-
> Welcome to the group! And welcome to the game of validation. . .
>
> Before attempting to fix your layout problems, ensure that both your
> XHTML and CSS validate by testing them he
In answer to your question, Sigurd - the asterisk indicates that that
attribute is required for that elements (as opposed to optional).
For example, if you use the you MUST include a SRC and an ALT
attribute for it to be valid.
Cheers :o)
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "Sigurd Magn
The
link works if you make sure that the "ml#alt" part is added to the link (it
seems to break right after ".ht")
dawn
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
Gloria AntonelliSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:26
PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.o
I tried Laura's link and it was not found.
Do you have an updated link for her site?
Then there is always Laura's mega resource:http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#alt
Gloria AntonelliSigurd Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow. Some serious bedti
Thanks,
Sounds like a good idea, plus it saves me the headache of validating
their css.
Alan Trick
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Hi Alan,
Both and are "bad". How about
BBtags this:
[important]
[highlight]
[note]
[misc]
then you use this markup:
..
Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Ala
Hi Alan,
Both and are "bad". How about
BBtags this:
[important]
[highlight]
[note]
[misc]
then you use this markup:
..
Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Alan Trick wrote:
> I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it
> semes to make more sense to have somethin
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:49:00 -, Alan Trick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it
semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a instead of a and
have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow
so
I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it
semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a instead of a and
have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow
something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do
via class
Hi Alan,
>>I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated
>>in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be
>>obolete?
It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's part of
the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The
n
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 they
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.
Alan Trick
Wow. Some serious bedtime reading. Cheers.
Siggy
- Original Message -
From: "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Web Standards Group"
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec
Here are some:
Joe Clark's serialised book (covers all three - titl
18 matches
Mail list logo