Re: [WSG] Semantic Form - Person's Title
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Micky Mourelo wrote: ... You don't need to set the for and id attributes when the input is within the label because the association is implicit. No, you don't need to. But it is better for the IE-users. With for and id, even those users can click on the label and get the input-field marked. Without these attributes only the users of real browsers get this nice behaviour. So it is good practice to use for even in a not needed case just because there exists this "browser-wannabee". Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis ** 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] Increase/Decrease font size functionality?
Bennie, Jack schrieb: Does anyone know any good code to implement "Increase/Decrease font size" functionality to web pages? you might mean a "styleswitcher". Look at ALA or Google for that word. But first of all: forget it Just dont't use pixel as a font-unit and everything will be okay. With percent or em as a font-unit, every browser (even IE) can resize the font-size. You won't need a styleswitcher. The browsers have a built-in funcionality which can be used, when the page is written accordingly. -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis [www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] ** 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] Getting in a muddle
Hi Bob,
Nathans mail brought me to the idea, that IE5.5 has a problem with your
basic font-definition. IE is known to have a problem, if you style body
with em. So the best way, we had this a few days ago, is to style with
percent if you want the IE-users to be able to resize the page.
Your basic definition is
body {
font : 8pt Verdana, Arial, Sans Serif;
}
Point would be correct, if it would be a print-stylesheet. For screen it
would be pixels (px) or percent or ex or ex. I would prefer percent.
As the standard size (1em) is 16px and we should assume 1px as equal as
1pt you would write:
body {
font : 50% Verdana, Arial, Sans Serif;
}
I wouldn't choose 50% but on the other hand 8px is really small, even
for Verdana.
So maybe your problem would be solved, if you change the font-unit for body.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Jens Grochtdreis
[www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de]
**
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] Getting in a muddle
Hi Bob,
Can anyone help out with this?
Maybe IE does't like the combination of bold and normal. You write:
h6:first-letter {
color : #333;
font: bold normal 218% "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
}
You should decide, if it should be bold or normal :-)
This would be nearly the first time, IE is stricter in wrong written CSS
than the real browsers. Strange.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Jens Grochtdreis
[www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de]
**
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] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: * from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest) Hi Patrick, IIRC Opera has had these rounding problems with number 6. I haven't tested newer versions. Those who are still using Opera 6 don't deserve better :-) The reason for taking 100.01% instead of 101% is called Safari. If you use 101% everything is okay except the huge texts in Safari. In the older Safari-versions I am sure this bug exists. I don't know if this bug has been fixed. Unfortunately Sarafi is not well documented and I don't use Macs. So with 100.01% you are on the safe side. Isn't CSS nice with browsers which are coded as if maintained by 6year-old kids ? -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis [www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] ** 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] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de
Matthias Lotze schrieb: I've tested in several pc - browsers and on mac in IE and Safari. The Maybe these two articles provide you with the necessary solution: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/09/16/minheight_fi/ http://www.greywyvern.com/code/min-height-hack.html -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis [www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] ** 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] Differences between IE5.5 on 98 and XP?
Mordechai Peller wrote: There are only two significant differences of which I'm aware: I'm running XP and his IE5.5 machine is 98, and I have 5.01, 5.5, and 6 all running simultaneously, his is just 5.5. Is anyone aware of any reasons for differences? Does your layout work with Conditional Comments? If that's the case, you won#t recognize the correct layout in your standalone IE5.5, because of the wrong CC-information it gets from the installed IE6. Unfortunately I don't know any documentation of changes in the IEs from ServePack to ServicePack. There might be changes just like there were in case of XP SP2. -- Gretings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis [www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] ** 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] position : fixed; with Internet Explorer
Arnaud Metens wrote: 1. The PNG is not rendered like I should; IE doesn't do this, but you can make him do as you wish, with a little trick: - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/ - http://www.youngpup.net/2001/sleight - http://www.virtuelvis.com/gallery/opacity/opacitydemo.html 2. The "position: fixed" is not really fixed !!! IE doesn't do this either, but there is a well-known work-around which can be used under some circumstances. The most important things are, that you don't try to fix something on the bottom or the right end of the page. Have a look: - http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=EmulatingFixedPositoning - http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=GhostInTheBox - http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/ - http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum83/618.htm - http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorial24/ - http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/cssframes/ Testcase: - http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/07/fixed-positioning -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis ------ Jens Grochtdreis [Webentwickler] Draiser Str. 36 |55128 Mainz |0 61 31 - 50 97 21 [www.jg-webentwicklung.de] [www.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] * 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] Viewport-Dimensions
Hi List, There was the question which dimensions the viewport has depending on browser and OS. Russ recommended browsercam. I recommend the article "Sizing up the browser" on Webmonkey. Grab ist on http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/41/index3a.html?tw=design as long as the monkey is alive. There are psd-files, too. Unfortunately the browserlist is not complete but it is a nice start. -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis www.grochtdreis.de | flocke-online - Essen im Netz blog.grochtdreis.de | F-LOG-GE www.css4you.de | www.css-technik.de | www.css-faq.de * 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] Testing multiple versions of IE
Universal Head schrieb: However, does anyone know a way of testing that these are acting as they should for each version number? I do have to methods. First there is a favelet which you can get from my blog. It tells you on the bottom of the browser (don't know the english word for this area) which version it is. The blog is in German but you should find the favelet on http://www.grochtdreis.de/weblog/index.php?id=P157 and you can download it as a url-file from http://www.grochtdreis.de/weblog/GetBrowserVersion2.url The second method is a CSS-method. You can use the Comment Hack, the Star-Seven Hack or the Escape-Hack. More about that: http://www.dithered.com/css_filters/ -- Greetings from Germany Jens Grochtdreis www.grochtdreis.de | flocke-online - Essen im Netz blog.grochtdreis.de | F-LOG-GE www.css4you.de | www.css-technik.de | www.css-faq.de * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
