Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear
I'm not sure q is supported by all browsers. Nancy On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:26 AM, designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk wrote: - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan 2009/9/27 designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk 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 q - it's not a quote by any stretch of the imagination. If you can make it work with a br / tag stick to that, I think. If you need text just use a neutral tag and a space, eg. div class=brute-force-clearnbsp;/div 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
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
- Original Message - From: David Dorward da...@dorward.me.uk To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 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
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
- Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan 2009/9/27 designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk 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 q - it's not a quote by any stretch of the imagination. If you can make it work with a br / tag stick to that, I think. If you need text just use a neutral tag and a space, eg. div class=brute-force-clearnbsp;/div 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
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:
qfor clearing!/q
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 br/, 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
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
2009/9/27 designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk 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 q - it's not a quote by any stretch of the imagination. If you can make it work with a br / tag stick to that, I think. If you need text just use a neutral tag and a space, eg. div class=brute-force-clearnbsp;/div which is at least better than actual text. Better to avoid it entirely though, using one of the alternative fixes mentioned earlier. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- 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
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 br / 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: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/clearing-floats_and_block-formatting_context. asp -- 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
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 br / rather than including extraneous text. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- 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 ***
