Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-29 Thread David Dorward 

On 29 Sep 2009, at 18:35, designer wrote:



I'm not sure q is supported by all browsers.


It isn't, but so what? It still causes problems in browsers which  
do support it when it is abused.


Such as what?  (serious question - as I said, I'm not using this  
method, but enquiring minds like to know :-)



Such as those described in the message to which the highest level  
quote in this mail was a response to.


(The joy of context lost due to top posting)

… and the generation of quote marks around the element.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-29 Thread designer 
- Original Message - 
From: "David Dorward" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear





On 29 Sep 2009, at 15:35, Nancy Johnson wrote:


I'm not sure q is supported by all browsers.



It isn't, but so what? It still causes problems in browsers which do 
support it when it is abused.


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



Such as what?  (serious question - as I said, I'm not using this method, but 
enquiring minds like to know :-)


Bob 






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-29 Thread David Dorward 


On 29 Sep 2009, at 15:35, Nancy Johnson wrote:


I'm not sure q is supported by all browsers.



It isn't, but so what? It still causes problems in browsers which do  
support it when it is abused.


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-29 Thread Nancy Johnson 
I'm not sure q is supported by all browsers.

Nancy

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:26 AM, designer
 wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan
>
> 2009/9/27 designer 
>
> Thanks to all who replied.  However, no-one said "don't do this because . .
> ."
> ??
>
> OK, well, since you're kind of asking... ;) Don't do that because it's
> horrendously non-semantic and you should be making your pages semantically
> correct. You are basically adding fake content to your page just to support
> a specific design requirement at a specific point in time, etc...
>
> Since you're actually adding content, you could potentially end up with some
> users seeing "for clearing" when they view your page. For example some
> mobile phones I've used revealed content that was hidden by CSS. Also Google
> will pick up all the extraneous "for clearing" text and read it along with
> your real content.
>
> If you want to put something into your markup just for clearing purposes I
> can't really see the point in using  - it's not a quote by any stretch of
> the imagination. If you can make it work with a  tag stick to that, I
> think. If you need "text" just use a neutral tag and a space, eg.  class="brute-force-clear">  which is at least better than actual
> text.
>
> Better to avoid it entirely though, using one of the alternative fixes
> mentioned earlier.
>
> cheers,
>
> Ben
>
> ---
>
> Fair enough Ben, I'm convinced! I've adopted the 'corrected' overflow
> approach, as suggested by TDK, for the particular job in hand.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-28 Thread designer 


- Original Message - 
From: Ben Buchanan


2009/9/27 designer 

Thanks to all who replied.  However, no-one said "don't do this because . . 
."

??

OK, well, since you're kind of asking... ;) Don't do that because it's 
horrendously non-semantic and you should be making your pages semantically 
correct. You are basically adding fake content to your page just to support 
a specific design requirement at a specific point in time, etc...


Since you're actually adding content, you could potentially end up with some 
users seeing "for clearing" when they view your page. For example some 
mobile phones I've used revealed content that was hidden by CSS. Also Google 
will pick up all the extraneous "for clearing" text and read it along with 
your real content.


If you want to put something into your markup just for clearing purposes I 
can't really see the point in using  - it's not a quote by any stretch of 
the imagination. If you can make it work with a  tag stick to that, I 
think. If you need "text" just use a neutral tag and a space, eg. class="brute-force-clear">  which is at least better than actual 
text.


Better to avoid it entirely though, using one of the alternative fixes 
mentioned earlier.


cheers,

Ben

---

Fair enough Ben, I'm convinced! I've adopted the 'corrected' overflow 
approach, as suggested by TDK, for the particular job in hand.


Thanks all,

Bob 






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-27 Thread Ben Buchanan 
2009/9/27 designer 

> Thanks to all who replied.  However, no-one said "don't do this because . .
> ."
>  ??



OK, well, since you're kind of asking... ;) Don't do that because it's
horrendously non-semantic and you should be making your pages semantically
correct. You are basically adding fake content to your page just to support
a specific design requirement at a specific point in time, etc...

Since you're actually adding content, you could potentially end up with some
users seeing "for clearing" when they view your page. For example some
mobile phones I've used revealed content that was hidden by CSS. Also Google
will pick up all the extraneous "for clearing" text and read it along with
your real content.

If you want to put something into your markup just for clearing purposes I
can't really see the point in using  - it's not a quote by any stretch of
the imagination. If you can make it work with a  tag stick to that, I
think. If you need "text" just use a neutral tag and a space, eg.   which is at least better than actual
text.

Better to avoid it entirely though, using one of the alternative fixes
mentioned earlier.

cheers,

Ben



-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-27 Thread G.Sørtun 

designer wrote:
Thanks to all who replied.  However, no-one said "don't do this 
because . . ."


??

"...the element is styled to not exist, so it can't do anything"... ??

regards
  Georg


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-27 Thread designer 
Thanks to all who replied.  However, no-one said "don't do this because . . 
."


??




- Original Message - 
From: designer

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:45 PM

Can anyone tell me what is wrong (apart from not being semantic) about 
using:


q{
 clear : both;
 display : none;
}

In conjunction with:

for clearing!

in the body of the mark-up.  (it makes it a bit more helpful for screen 
readers, I presume?)


Anything? Any better ideas around?  I did google this, but only found 
variations on using , which seems messy, somehow.


All suggestions gratefully considered.

Thanks,

Bob






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-26 Thread Thierry Koblentz 
> Can anyone tell me what is wrong (apart from not being semantic) about
using:
>
> Have you tried using the easy clearing fix instead? 
> http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html ...it avoids the
need for markup just for 
> clearing. If you stick with markup I'd suggest just using  rather
than including extraneous
>  text.

I don't think the clearfix method is a good way to contain floats as it
creates different "layouts" across browsers.
See:



-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear

2009-09-26 Thread Ben Buchanan 
Can anyone tell me what is wrong (apart from not being semantic) about
> using:



Have you tried using the easy clearing fix instead?
http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html ...it avoids the need
for markup just for clearing. If you stick with markup I'd suggest just
using  rather than including extraneous text.

cheers,

Ben


-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***