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 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

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

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

2009-09-29 Thread designer
- 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

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

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

2009-09-28 Thread designer
- 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

Fw: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear - addendum

2009-09-28 Thread designer
I did, of course, mean TJK!!! Sorry Thierry! - Original Message - From: designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear - Original Message - From:

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

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:

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

2009-09-27 Thread 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.

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

2009-09-26 Thread designer
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

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 br /

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 br /