From george.smyth at USNA.COM  Thu Apr 24 16:07:26 2003
From: george.smyth at USNA.COM (George Smyth)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:07:26 -0400
Subject: [css-d] OT - JavaScript Listserv
Message-ID: <C07E1FAF6146764086BB888BB8E5496701C741D8@win2kexch.aa-naf.net>

My apologies for the off-topic post, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a
JavaScript listserv, where I might be able to ask a question.

Thanks -

george
From bob.jones at usg.edu  Thu Apr 24 16:08:04 2003
From: bob.jones at usg.edu (Bob Jones)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:08:04 -0400
Subject: [css-d] z-index problems
In-Reply-To: <OF2AD0FB0C.796E1C35-ON88256D12.0051AEDF@capgroup.com>
References: <OF2AD0FB0C.796E1C35-ON88256D12.0051AEDF@capgroup.com>
Message-ID: <20030424150804.GB18507@usg.edu>

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 07:57:14AM -0700, Michael_Landis@capgroup.com wrote:
# 
# In both circumstances, change your position declaration in .lyrics from
# relative to absolute. Relatively positioned content will take up space in
# the content, regardless of its visibility. When its display property is
# changed from "none" to "block", it simply reinserts the content into the
# flow. Giving it absolute positioning ensures that it will appear on the
# page without modifying the flow of surrounding content.

I was afraid you would say that.  Unfortunately, in order to keep my 
layout fluid, absolutely positioning that content isn't an option.  So, 
unless someone here has a neat trick to do what it is I'm wanting to do, 
I'll have to abandon these plans.

Thanks,
Bob
From dm87 at rogers.com  Thu Apr 24 16:10:22 2003
From: dm87 at rogers.com (Donna m87)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:10:22 -0400
Subject: [css-d] template with changing content
In-Reply-To: 
 <20030424091653.UBGQ4571.fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@acornpar
 enting.org>
References: 
 <20030424091653.UBGQ4571.fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@acornpar
 enting.org>
Message-ID: <a05210600bacdaceb5f45@[24.112.182.129]>

With tables I could place headers and footers above an below the 
content, the footer would automatically move down the page when the 
content volume increased.

I have created a template using absolutely positioned css div for the 
header, content and footer.  When the content increases, the footer 
is overwritten.

How can I get the footer to adjust automatically when the content 
volume changes? Can one combine absolute and relative positioning?

What sorts of concepts should i be researching to look at my options?

thanks
Donna
From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Thu Apr 24 16:27:28 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:27:28 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

Steve Thomas wrote:
> 1. link to one single style sheet, as in
>=20
>     <link rel=3D"stylesheet" href=3D"site.css" type=3D"text/css">

The only catch with this is that the default media for LINK is "screen",
so /technically/ other media types would never see the embedded @media
stuff. But as you point out, it does work...
=20
> 2. Begin that style sheet with an @import to import the stuff which
> fouls up NN4 etc.=20

Yup. Just be careful, because as you know, rules in the main file will
override those in the imported file.

> One interesting aside: the @page rule only makes sense for print (I

Essentially, yes, but @page can also be used (in theory) for anything
determined to be a paged media (i.e., one that isn't continuous like a
screen). Paged media types include: emboss, handheld (which is also
continuous), print, screen, and also tv (which, like handheld, is both).

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From jon at jackinthebox.co.uk  Thu Apr 24 16:28:57 2003
From: jon at jackinthebox.co.uk (jon@jackinthebox.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:28:57 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
Message-ID: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>

Michael Abramovich wrote:
> Hello css-d,
>
> is it possible to use css to make checkboxes smaller sized?
>

Michael,

Yes its possible to do this, just set a CSS rule with the width and height
set and apply it to the radio button or checkbox.

I've knocked up a quick demonstration, you can find it at:

http://www.jackinthebox.co.uk/checkboxsize.html

Explorer renders these as you would want them rendered but mozilla causes a
few problems with the checkboxes if you stick a valid doctype in.

Hope this helps.

Jon Tucker

From work at cookiecrook.com  Thu Apr 24 16:40:48 2003
From: work at cookiecrook.com (James Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:40:48 -0500
Subject: [css-d] List with mixed styles
In-Reply-To: <000301c30a10$89862410$070010ac@development>
References: <000301c30a10$89862410$070010ac@development>
Message-ID: <3EA80580.3070503@cookiecrook.com>


> What you want to do is create a div for the sub-items and add styles for
> that specific div to your CSS. (Hat tip: Eric Meyer)
> 
> So, for example:
> <div id="menu">
> ITEM ONE
> <div class="subitems">
> Sub-item 1
> Sub-item 2
> </div>
> </div>

The nesting idea is correct, but keep it a list, not divs.

<ul class="menu">
   <li>Item 1
     <ul>
       <li>Sub-item 1</li>
       <li>Sub-item 2</li>
     </ul>
   </li>
   <li>Item 2</li>
   <li>Item 3</li>
</ul>

ul.menu { /* top menu styles */ }
ul.menu li { /* top menu item styles */ }
ul.menu li ul { /* sub-menu styles */ }
ul.menu li ul li { /* sub-menu item styles */ }

Or, you could save a few bytes on the selectors.

.menu { /* top menu styles */ }
.menu li { /* top menu item styles */ }
.menu ul { /* sub-menu styles */ }
.menu li li { /* sub-menu item styles */ }

Good luck,
James Craig


-- 
http://www.cookiecrook.com/

From BradyG at BIDWELL.com  Thu Apr 24 16:49:36 2003
From: BradyG at BIDWELL.com (Brady Gearring)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:49:36 -0700
Subject: [css-d] OT - JavaScript Listserv
Message-ID: <353FE091A7E3D311BAD900508B6BF80202D409B8@bidwell-mail.bidwell.com>

this is not a list serv, but it is a good
message board with alot of activity and you
might be able to find the help you are looking
for: http://www.aspmessageboard.com/forum/jscript.asp

HTH

bg
http://www.2solardays.com


>-----Original Message-----
>My apologies for the off-topic post, but I was wondering if anyone knew of
a
>JavaScript listserv, where I might be able to ask a question.

>Thanks -

>george
From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Thu Apr 24 16:50:53 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:50:53 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD2@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Saila, Craig wrote:
>> For example, three-column layouts are almost useless on narrow-screen
>> devices
>=20
> A three column layout will render the same on a narrow screen
> device as it does on a 1600x1200 screen like mine, if the

Yes, if the handheld supported CSS-P, but even then, it would likely be
hard to read as most PDAs have a screen width of about 160 pixels. That
means about 53 pixels per column, or a lot of horizontal scrolling.

> Of course this is where Media Queries come in, not that they are
> widely support yet:=20
>=20
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/

Exactly.

> Why? What about when we come along and invent a new media,
> say, "overhead-display"? About the only media types you are

Then you go back and update your style sheet. Nothing lasts forever.
Besides, until a media type is defined by a CSS specification we don't
have to worry about it!=20

> I don't really understand why.
>=20
> When the stylesheet is _specifically_ designed for a
> particular media (e.g. font sizes given in absolute units for
> printing), then it makes sense to specify the media type. But
> otherwise, it seems unwise.=20

I that's the heart of the matter there, and it's also where you and I
disagree. There are way to many situations when doing something great
for one medium (@page { size: ... }, pixel units) is not recommended for
others (@page is useless for continuous media, pixels can't be used with
tty).

@media was designed specifically for the purpose of declaring
media-specific rules in a style sheet targetting more than one media
(e.g., "all"). Why wouldn't you use it for that purpose? (OK, there's
poor support, but...)

> Since your "ideal" set includes "handheld", and almost all
> new devices fall into this category, you're not really avoiding the
> problem! :-)=20

I only recommended using handheld if the /only/ styles declared are
things like font and color. Handhelds have abysmal positioning support,
worse than WebTV (see below). If, however, you wanted to declare screen
and handheld together, @media is the perfect tool.=20

> Web of real CSS content to deal with. New devices are more
> likely to be better at CSS since they have to work with new
> Web content. And if the UA is compliant, then pages should

Yes, but they aren't compliant:
"CSS2 Support in PDA/Handheld Browsers"
<http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/handheldbrowsercsssupport.html>

Thanks for making me think through all these media issues, Ian.

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com  Thu Apr 24 17:10:06 2003
From: bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com (Brett Merkey)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:10:06 -0400
Subject: [css-d] smaller checkboxes
References: <1824277687.20030423143018@balance.com.au>
	<3EA71397.3080403@cookiecrook.com> <00be01c309ff$25f59db0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304231944540.19929-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c30a7b$f91e3ef0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
<<Unfortunately that won't work in any standard-compliant UA, because the
Wingdings font doesn't have a UNICODE encoding, and so compliant UAs won't
use it to render characters (since the font claims to not support any
UNICODE characters, and the HTML and CSS specs say that the document
character set is UNICODE).

To make it work in any compliant UA, use the UNICODE checkmark characters,
e.g. U+2610 and U+2611 (entities &#x2610; and &#x2611;, which, if your
e-mail client is working right, look like ☐ and ☑).>>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, happily in respect to font substitution, Mozilla, Netscape 6.1+, and
IE
are not standards-compliant browsers.

I have tried UNICODE solutions and they always end up causing more
problems in more situations than the easier and more common method
of font substitution. At least in the Windows world, I see nothing but
problems in implementing Unicode equivalents.

Do you have a link to some example where checkboxes (or something
similar) have been done using standards for glyph display?

Brett





From bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com  Thu Apr 24 17:24:25 2003
From: bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com (Brett Merkey)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:24:25 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
References: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>

| I've knocked up a quick demonstration, you can find it at:
| http://www.jackinthebox.co.uk/checkboxsize.html
| Explorer renders these as you would want them rendered but mozilla causes
a
| few problems with the checkboxes if you stick a valid doctype in.


I feel like I'm getting more for my browser money when I click on those
big ones!

Brett

From akuehn at nc.rr.com  Thu Apr 24 17:25:06 2003
From: akuehn at nc.rr.com (Adam Kuehn)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:25:06 -0400
Subject: [css-d] z-index problems
In-Reply-To: <20030424150804.GB18507@usg.edu>
References: <OF2AD0FB0C.796E1C35-ON88256D12.0051AEDF@capgroup.com>
 <20030424150804.GB18507@usg.edu>
Message-ID: <p05210605bacdba15ac2a@[152.3.174.98]>

>On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 07:57:14AM -0700, Michael_Landis@capgroup.com wrote:
>#
># In both circumstances, change your position declaration in .lyrics from
># relative to absolute. Relatively positioned content will take up space in
># the content, regardless of its visibility. When its display property is
># changed from "none" to "block", it simply reinserts the content into the
># flow. Giving it absolute positioning ensures that it will appear on the
># page without modifying the flow of surrounding content.
>
>I was afraid you would say that.  Unfortunately, in order to keep my
>layout fluid, absolutely positioning that content isn't an option.  So,
>unless someone here has a neat trick to do what it is I'm wanting to do,
>I'll have to abandon these plans.

I haven't checked out this solution, so take it with a grain of salt:

Absolute positioning shouldn't affect the fluidity of your layout, if 
you do it correctly.  If you absolutely position something, it is 
positioned with respect to it's containing block.  That containing 
block is defined to be the nearest ancestor with a position other 
than "static".  Since "static" is also the default position for every 
element, you would therefore need to position the element which 
contains the hidden/invisible content in question - in other words, 
position the list item.  Try "relative" on the li, then "absolute" on 
the paragraph and see if that does what you are looking for.

Incidentally, to be a bit more semantically correct, you should 
actually make the invisible/hidden element a div , rather than a 
paragraph (positioned as explained).  Each verse could then be marked 
up as a paragraph, with no additional positioning required.

-- 

-Adam Kuehn
From steve at mrclay.org  Thu Apr 24 17:44:40 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:44:40 -0400
Subject: [css-d] semantically correct: padding vs margin
In-Reply-To: <3CD82BA2-764B-11D7-9DBB-0003934B1B7A@wi.rr.com>
References: <3CD82BA2-764B-11D7-9DBB-0003934B1B7A@wi.rr.com>
Message-ID: <198361053093.20030424124440@mrclay.org>

Thursday, April 24, 2003, 7:52:34 AM, Arlen Walker wrote:
AW> Margins also do *not* add;

Vertically, but they don't collapse horizontally.

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Thu Apr 24 17:43:50 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:43:50 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD2@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <004801c30a80$af81d900$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>



> Saila, Craig :
>
> Thanks for making me think through all these media issues, Ian.

And it's been a good conversation to follow along with, it's got me
thinking.
--Josh


From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 18:01:31 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
References: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Saila, Craig wrote:
>
> Steve Thomas wrote:
>> 1. link to one single style sheet, as in
>>
>>     <link rel="stylesheet" href="site.css" type="text/css">
>
> The only catch with this is that the default media for LINK is "screen",
> so /technically/ other media types would never see the embedded @media
> stuff.

That's an error in the HTML spec. The HTML working group has delegated
authority over the "media" attribute to the CSS working group, who has
decided to change the default to "all".

Unfortunately I can't find a public reference to this decision. I'll look
into it.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From steve at mrclay.org  Thu Apr 24 18:40:08 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:40:08 -0400
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
Message-ID: <56364380796.20030424134008@mrclay.org>

Thursday, April 24, 2003, 8:09:55 AM, Seb wrote:
S> <a href="/">Professional and<span> </span>Trade Information</a>
S> ...and then style that span as "display: block;".

This is a good way to stop using another purely presentational
element.  You might also want to specify font-size:0; height:0 just to
be sure the space within doesn't give you a 1em tall block.

There is a small catch in this display:block method, though: Inline
elements, such as A, are not supposed to contain blocks (as we've told
span to render), so, even though it's valid HTML/CSS, there could be
unexpected behavior/rendering. 

Another technique would be:

span {
   white-space:pre-line; /* gets rid of the space (CSS2.1) */
}
span:after {
   content:"\A";         /* generated line-break */
}

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 18:42:19 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] smaller checkboxes
In-Reply-To: <000d01c30a7b$f91e3ef0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
References: <1824277687.20030423143018@balance.com.au>
	<3EA71397.3080403@cookiecrook.com>
	<00be01c309ff$25f59db0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304231944540.19929-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<000d01c30a7b$f91e3ef0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241008150.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Brett Merkey wrote:
>
> Well, happily in respect to font substitution, Mozilla, Netscape 6.1+,
> and IE are not standards-compliant browsers.

I believe recent Mozilla builds have been fixed in this regard.


> I have tried UNICODE solutions and they always end up causing more
> problems in more situations than the easier and more common method of
> font substitution. At least in the Windows world, I see nothing but
> problems in implementing Unicode equivalents.

Unfortunately, we're not in a Windows world. Millions of people use other
operating systems.


> Do you have a link to some example where checkboxes (or something
> similar) have been done using standards for glyph display?

This works in Mozilla:

   http://www.damowmow.com/playground/demos/checkboxes/001.html

Unfortunately it doesn't work in WinIE6, due to its rather abysmal UNICODE
support. It is sad that the most popular UA is so bad at basic standards.
It was the same back in the days of Netscape 4... Maybe having poor
support for the specs is the key to being popular? ;-)

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Thu Apr 24 18:46:03 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:46:03 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD5@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> That's an error in the HTML spec. The HTML working group has
> delegated authority over the "media" attribute to the CSS
> working group, who has decided to change the default to "all".

Well, that would make *a lot* more sense!=20

There does seems to be an inconsistency, given @import defaults to "all"
and this reference:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.4.1>
implies it should default to "all" and apparently the DTD doesn't
specify any default media-type, so "all" would make sense.

Ain't it great when even the "standards" are consistent!

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 18:49:31 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
In-Reply-To: <002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
References: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>
 <002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241047480.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>


> I've knocked up a quick demonstration, you can find it at:
> http://www.jackinthebox.co.uk/checkboxsize.html Explorer renders these
> as you would want them rendered but mozilla causes a few problems with
> the checkboxes if you stick a valid doctype in.

Actually the reason Mozilla stops styling the checkboxes in strict mode is
that the checkboxes have classes that do not match the classes in the
stylesheet. In quirks mode, Mozilla is ignoring the error and treating the
classes as case insensitive, but in strict mode it does the right thing.

If you change the classes to lowercase throughout it works fine.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From contact at lukeredpath.co.uk  Thu Apr 24 19:08:38 2003
From: contact at lukeredpath.co.uk (Luke Redpath)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:08:38 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Cross-Browser Template Check
Message-ID: <ENEMIKFCPDMDJCEEJFPPOEKHCGAA.contact@lukeredpath.co.uk>

Hi,

I'm working on a template for a redesign of a personal site
(www.sonicdeath.co.uk).

The template is here:

http://testpad.sonicdeath.co.uk/sonicdeath_template.htm

And a jpg of what it should look like is here:

http://testpad.sonicdeath.co.uk/sonicdeath_template.jpg

So far it works in NS7, IE6, Opera 7, Moz 1.1/1.3 on Windows. It doesn't
work in Opera 5 but that is fine with me because I would expect the majority
of Opera users (and we are talking about the majority of an extreme
minority) to have the latest version. I've not implemented any box model
hacks yet either so I'm not bothered about what it looks like in IE 5.x at
this point in time.

What I would like to know is what it looks like in any other browsers I
haven't mentioned, particularly IE 5.2, Camino and Mozilla on the Mac.

I need to tidy the code up a bit, but that said, it still validates as XHTML
1.0 strict and the CSS also validates.

Cheers,

Luke Redpath
--
www.sonicdeath.co.uk/weblog
"Celebrity Squares" - giving the web a CSS makeover - coming soon!


From miriam at f2o.org  Thu Apr 24 19:10:50 2003
From: miriam at f2o.org (Miriam Frost)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:10:50 -0500
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>

>
>
> Here's my tip: create a <span> with a single space in it, like so:
> <a href="/">Professional and<span> </span>Trade Information</a>
> ...and then style that span as "display: block;".
> Now, without a stylesheet, you'll get the full link on one line - with a
> space in the middle - but, in the styled version, the span will go on 
> to a
> new line, but not actually show anything as there's only white-space 
> in it,
> so it collapses.
> There you have it - a CSS-only line break.
>
Yow!
I think I'll stick with my smaller <br />'s.

Why is there anything inherently wrong with line breaks -- isn't

<p>
123 Trogdor St.<br />
Strongbadia, Wherever<br />
</p>

better than
p.address {margin: 0;}
<p class="address">123 Trogdor St.</p>
<p class="address">Strongbadia, Wherever</p>    ?

besos
Miriam

-- 
http://www.surebluestudios.com


From miriam at f2o.org  Thu Apr 24 19:28:20 2003
From: miriam at f2o.org (Miriam Frost)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:28:20 -0500
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <3EA82CC4.7030406@f2o.org>

>
> Here's my tip: create a <span> with a single space in it, like so:
> <a href="/">Professional and<span> </span>Trade Information</a>
> ...and then style that span as "display: block;".
> Now, without a stylesheet, you'll get the full link on one line - with a
> space in the middle - but, in the styled version, the span will go on 
> to a
> new line, but not actually show anything as there's only white-space 
> in it,
> so it collapses. There you have it - a CSS-only line break. 


Yow!
I think I'll stick with my smaller <br />'s.

Why is there anything inherently wrong with line breaks -- isn't

<p>
123 Trogdor St.<br />
Strongbadia, Wherever<br />
</p>

better than
p.address {margin: 0;}
<p class="address">123 Trogdor St.</p>
<p class="address">Strongbadia, Wherever</p>    ?

besos
Miriam

-- 
http://www.surebluestudios.com



From miriam at f2o.org  Thu Apr 24 19:28:53 2003
From: miriam at f2o.org (Miriam Frost)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:28:53 -0500
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
Message-ID: <3EA82CE5.1020306@f2o.org>

> <p>
> 123 Trogdor St.<br />
> Strongbadia, Wherever<br />
> </p>

I suppose one could do similar with a list...
<ul>
<li>123 Trogdor St.</li>
<li>Strongbadia, Wherever</li>
</ul>

but that's not really a list, is it, and is therefore just as 
semantically meaningless as a <br />?
Hrrm.

besos
Miriam


--
http://www.surebluestudios.com

From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Thu Apr 24 19:30:47 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:30:47 -0400
Subject: [css-d] WaSP's Upgrade page leaving?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <005301c30a8f$a31f3b80$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>

If this is something that everyone knows about, forgive me for somehow
missing it somewhere!

For those redirecting non-compliant browsers via sniff or the cute
"ahem" class that's revealed when the stylesheet isn't loaded... Where
are you going to send your non-compliant users now?  If anywhere?

>From the page I always point to: http://webstandards.org/upgrade/

"Note to site builders: The WaSP Browser Upgrade Campaign has come to a
close. As such we ask that you discontinue your use of this upgrade
message and visit the Beyond the Browser Upgrade Campaign page to learn
about what to do instead."

:(

This isn't old news is it? (I'll be really red-faced if it is).

So is there still a need to re-direct your non-compliant visitors, or do
you agree with the sentiments about it just being an easy out for not
testing our pages for some browsers like NN4 as expressed at
http://webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/ ?

I personally, still see the need to redirect non-compliant users to a
page that tells them more information, like where to obtain an upgrade,
why they were redirected (or why they were provided the link) and the
like.  Thoughts?

--Josh


From work at cookiecrook.com  Thu Apr 24 19:33:01 2003
From: work at cookiecrook.com (James Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:33:01 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: 
	<523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EA82DDD.2080805@cookiecrook.com>


I admit I haven't been paying as close attention to this thread as 
possible, but what do you guys think of adding @media rules? Would this 
work?

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all" />

Then the stylesheet could include general styles still hidden from 
Netscape 4, immediately followed by:

@media screen {
   @import "screen.css";
}
@media print {
   @import "print.css";
}

Perhaps there are some bugs associated with this approach, too?

Just curious.
James

-- 
http://www.cookiecrook.com/

From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 19:43:05 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD5@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
References: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD5@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241135500.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Saila, Craig wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> That's an error in the HTML spec. The HTML working group has
>> delegated authority over the "media" attribute to the CSS
>> working group, who has decided to change the default to "all".
>
> Well, that would make *a lot* more sense!

Heh. I've reminded the relevant person to add this to the HTML errata.


> Ain't it great when even the "standards" are [in]consistent!

The people who write the browsers are the same as the people who write the
specs... it's to be expected that both are flawed. ;-)

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 20:02:24 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241200310.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Miriam Frost wrote:
>
> Why is there anything inherently wrong with line breaks -- isn't
>
> <p>
> 123 Trogdor St.<br />
> Strongbadia, Wherever<br />
> </p>
>
> better than
> p.address {margin: 0;}
> <p class="address">123 Trogdor St.</p>
> <p class="address">Strongbadia, Wherever</p>    ?

Yes, it is. Even better is:

   <address>
   123 Trogdor St.<br>
   Strongbadia, Wherever<br>
   </address>

<br> is only wrong when used to separate paragraphs, as in:

   Foo Bar.<br>
   <br>
   Baz.<br>
   <br>

...which would be better as:

   <p> Foo Bar. </p>
   <p> Baz. </p>

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From miriam at f2o.org  Thu Apr 24 20:04:35 2003
From: miriam at f2o.org (Miriam Frost)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:04:35 -0500
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241200310.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241200310.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EA83543.9040605@f2o.org>

>
>
>   <address>
>   123 Trogdor St.<br>
>   Strongbadia, Wherever<br>
>   </address>
>
D'oh!
I have cause to use <address> so infrequently that it completely slipped 
my mind.
Off to wash the egg from my face....

besos
Miriam

From work at cookiecrook.com  Thu Apr 24 20:12:29 2003
From: work at cookiecrook.com (James Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:12:29 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241047480.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>
	<002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241047480.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EA8371D.6080901@cookiecrook.com>


>>I've knocked up a quick demonstration, you can find it at:
>>http://www.jackinthebox.co.uk/checkboxsize.html Explorer renders these
>>as you would want them rendered but mozilla causes a few problems with
>>the checkboxes if you stick a valid doctype in.
> 
>If you change the classes to lowercase throughout it works fine.

I can get the input's clickable area to enlarge in Mozilla and Opera, 
but not the actual visable representation like in IE. Is this a 
preference setting or perhaps related to the XP native form elements?

Here's a screen shot.
http://www.cookiecrook.com/bugtests/screenshots/cb_sizetest.gif

Opera acts about the same except vertically aligned middle instead of 
bottom.

James


-- 
http://www.cookiecrook.com/

From lists at thinkbigideas.com  Thu Apr 24 10:24:29 2003
From: lists at thinkbigideas.com (Anthony Baker)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:24:29 -0700
Subject: [css-d] WaSP's Upgrade page leaving?
In-Reply-To: <005301c30a8f$a31f3b80$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <001601c30a43$4e8a29f0$210110ac@BigGuy>



| I personally, still see the need to redirect non-compliant users to a
| page that tells them more information, like where to obtain 
| an upgrade,
| why they were redirected (or why they were provided the link) and the
| like.  Thoughts?
| 
| --Josh



Make one of your own. Copy the content, create an upgrade page with
your design, paste the content in. I did something similar on an
earlier site myself. 

That, or, someone could create another version of the page and have
it hosted somewhere, allowing folks to point to it. A grassroots
upgrade effort, as it were.

/Anthony

From samuel at latchman.org  Thu Apr 24 20:30:20 2003
From: samuel at latchman.org (Sam Latchman)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:30:20 +0200
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <3EA82CE5.1020306@f2o.org>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
	<3EA82CE5.1020306@f2o.org>
Message-ID: <3EA83B4C.2060708@latchman.org>

If semantics is what you're aiming for, what you need is

address {margin: 0;}
<address>123 Trogdor St.</address>
<address>Strongbadia, Wherever</address>

with possibly some class="street", class="city"...


::Sam

-- 
Samuel Latchman
-----------------
web designer [fr]
http://www.latchman.org/sam/



From ian at hixie.ch  Thu Apr 24 20:34:40 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
In-Reply-To: <3EA8371D.6080901@cookiecrook.com>
References: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>
 <002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241047480.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
 <3EA8371D.6080901@cookiecrook.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241233110.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, James Craig wrote:
>
> I can get the input's clickable area to enlarge in Mozilla and Opera,
> but not the actual visable representation like in IE. Is this a
> preference setting or perhaps related to the XP native form elements?
>
> Here's a screen shot.
> http://www.cookiecrook.com/bugtests/screenshots/cb_sizetest.gif

Assuming that shot is of Mozilla, then I would guess that the XP theme you
use doesn't support scaling. What does it look like in IE?

Note that at the moment, styling form controls is not covered by CSS.
While we may be adding more control over this in future levels, at the
moment, UA implementors can basically do what they like.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From work at cookiecrook.com  Thu Apr 24 20:57:40 2003
From: work at cookiecrook.com (James Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:57:40 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Smaller checkboxes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241233110.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: <OCELLLEFOKBHCOKENHOCEEDDCIAA.jon@jackinthebox.co.uk>
	<002701c30a7d$f89c04b0$a0ca2341@lighthouse>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241047480.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EA8371D.6080901@cookiecrook.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241233110.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EA841B4.609@cookiecrook.com>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, James Craig wrote:
>
>>Here's a screen shot.
>>http://www.cookiecrook.com/bugtests/screenshots/cb_sizetest.gif
> 
>Assuming that shot is of Mozilla, then I would guess that the XP theme you
>use doesn't support scaling. What does it look like in IE?

Yes, that's Mozilla 1.3 on Win XP. IE6 on XP gets the size right, but 
uses the default browser form element appearance (black and white) 
instead of the XP styled form controls. This is the default silver XP 
theme, not any add-on.

James

-- 
http://www.cookiecrook.com/

From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Thu Apr 24 21:08:02 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:08:02 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD6@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

James Craig wrote:
> I admit I haven't been paying as close attention to this thread as
> possible, but what do you guys think of adding @media rules? Would
> this work?

That's exactly the way to go, and is what @media is designed for. The
problem is, AFAIK, @media isn't well supported in some browser that have
good CSS support like IE5/Mac and some versions of KHTML-based browsers.

> <link rel=3D"stylesheet" type=3D"text/css" media=3D"all" />
>=20
> Then the stylesheet could include general styles still hidden from
> Netscape 4, immediately followed by:
>=20
> @media screen {
>    @import "screen.css";
> }
> @media print {
>    @import "print.css";
> }
>=20
> Perhaps there are some bugs associated with this approach, too?

That's kinda overkill if you're using it to block NN4, but it's the
ideal way to work with media=3D"all" in that you're using @media.=20

The reason I say it's overkill is because NN4 doesn't get @import, so
this, for example, would be just as good:

 <style type=3D"text/css" media=3D"all">
  /* all-media general styles not for NN4 */
 </style>
 <style type=3D"text/css">
  @import "screen.css" screen;
  @import "print.css" print;
 </style>

Or within that media=3D"all" CSS file (although I'm not sure if @media =
has
to come first, like @import):

  /* all-media general styles not for NN4 */
 @media screen {
   /*rules for screen*/
 }
 @media print {
   /*rules for print*/
 }

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From outlaw at joseywales.com  Thu Apr 24 21:24:45 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:24:45 +0100
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051210553.6798@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <1051215888.5130@tweek.sebduggan.com>


> From: Miriam Frost <miriam@f2o.org>

> Yow!
> I think I'll stick with my smaller <br />'s.
> 
> Why is there anything inherently wrong with line breaks

There's absolutely nothing wrong with line breaks. It's just that sometimes
you want your styled layout to break in a specific place, but have it appear
as one line when it's unstyled.


From info at n2dreamweaver.com  Thu Apr 24 21:44:34 2003
From: info at n2dreamweaver.com (Donna Casey)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:44:34 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: <1051193106.26092@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <00fb01c30aa2$50915f70$7802a8c0@buglet>

too bad that the link to the "elm" program that actually works with this
style of non-munging list replies is an orphaned link...it seems that
outlook express doesn't offer a choice between individual and group, just
individual and all.

Donna

> > http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssDiscussListHeaders
>
>
> OK, I feel suitably chastened :)  It's just not the reply behaviour I'm
used
> to. I'm sure I'll adjust...

From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Thu Apr 24 21:56:57 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:56:57 -0700
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
Message-ID: <OFE5E77EAE.7CFFF59F-ON88256D12.0072C185@capgroup.com>


> If semantics is what you're aiming for, what you need is

> address {margin: 0;}
> <address>123 Trogdor St.</address>
> <address>Strongbadia, Wherever</address>

> with possibly some class="street", class="city"...

We're getting off-topic here, but before we leave I'd like to point out
that the above is not actually proper -- it denotes that each line of the
address is an address itself, when in fact each element is only one part of
the address.

Thanks,

MikeL

From ckestes at bewb.org  Thu Apr 24 22:08:41 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:08:41 -0500
Subject: [css-d] WaSP Upgrade Campaign.
Message-ID: <010501c30aa5$af80eed0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

I have put together a simple version of the WaSP Upgrade Campaign page that
can be used in a similar manner as the previous one.  I used most of the old
copy, so there should be no suprises.

http://www.bewb.org/webstandards.asp


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org


From steve at mrclay.org  Thu Apr 24 22:05:41 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:05:41 -0400
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241200310.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241200310.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <60376713968.20030424170541@mrclay.org>

Thursday, April 24, 2003, 3:02:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
IH> <br> is only wrong when used to separate paragraphs

There are other instances where a line-break is visually preferred in
a certain place (rather than left to natural flow).  IMO, these cases
warrant an alternate line-break solution.

Say you have a heading that's just a tad too long for a single line:

|  Welcome to My Page About Race  |
|  Cars                           |

and you might want:

|       Welcome to My Page        |
|        About Race Cars          |

A <br /> just really doesn't make sense structurally and playing with
margins/padding until it wraps where you want is less-than-ideal (what
if the user chooses a slightly bigger/different font).

You could use non-breaking spaces to do something like:

<h1>Welcome&nbsp;to&nbsp;My&nbsp;Page About&nbsp;Race&nbsp;Cars</h1>

But this seems more elegant and content-friendly:

<h1>Welcome to My Page<span class="br"> </span>About Race Cars</h1>

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From stephen at crescentcreative.com  Thu Apr 24 22:01:18 2003
From: stephen at crescentcreative.com (Stephen Hamilton)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:01:18 -0700
Subject: [css-d] IE 6 vs Opera/Mozilla etc
In-Reply-To: <009e01c30a1c$25ff5b80$650aa8c0@video>
Message-ID: <012301c30aa4$a728d050$650aa8c0@video>

I don't know if it's correct form to reply to your own messages, but I
solved most of my nested list / rollover issues with one remaining niggle.

My original problem was caused by not nesting the list elements properly
viz:

	<ul>
		<li>element1</li>
		<ul>
			<li>subelement1</li>
		</ul>
		<li>element2</li>
	</ul>

That piece is now corrected.

However I still have the problem that IE6.0 is not picking up the color
attribute.  This too will succumb to engineering rigor!

Any pointers are always appreciated.

Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hamilton [mailto:stephen@crescentcreative.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:44 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] IE 6 vs Opera/Mozilla etc


I have built nested left navigation menus with CSS rollovers on a site
(www.saveburlingameschools.com) and find significant differences from IE6
versus Opera 7.1 , Netscape 7.0 , and Mozilla 1.3 (all W2K)

1) IE does not pick up the color attribute for the text link:

.navbar li a {
 <snip>
  color: #880026;
 }

2) and IE does not pick up the submenu background image:

http://www.saveburlingameschools.com/index.php?Topic=5

.subnavbar li a  {
 <snip>
  background-image: url('pictures/submenu.gif');
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  text-decoration: none;

All the other mentioned browsers seem to work ok (though there is a strange
framing ssue with Mozilla that I haven't quite resolved!).

The style sheets are at :
http://www.saveburlingameschools.com/measurea.css
http://www.saveburlingameschools.com/measurealayout.css


Any thoughts / pointers would be appreciated.

Many thanks

Stephen

"There are many roads up the mountain, but they all lead to the top   ...
The road is steep whichever way you go, so enjoy the view!"




From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Thu Apr 24 22:05:33 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:05:33 -0400
Subject: [css-d] WaSP's Upgrade page leaving?
In-Reply-To: <001601c30a43$4e8a29f0$210110ac@BigGuy>
Message-ID: <006701c30aa5$3f66d010$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>



> Anthony Baker : 
> Make one of your own. 

Yeah, that's what I plan on doing I think.. But my real main concern was
the sites out there that have that reference that are now out of the
designer's control.  Thankfully I saw on Mark Pilgrim's site that the
page isn't going anywhere, so we won't be sending folks to a 404 on
those older sites.
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/04/21/browser_upgrade_campaign_off
icially_retired.html

-- Josh


From msauers at bcr.org  Thu Apr 24 22:39:00 2003
From: msauers at bcr.org (Michael Sauers)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:39:00 -0600
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <60376713968.20030424170541@mrclay.org>
Message-ID: <KGEHKLFLLACNDPAKIHOPIEAHCPAA.msauers@bcr.org>

Steve;

You've just lost me completely. You're suggesting that <br /> doesn't make
sense to break a line into two but that we should span a space and classify
it as "br" (which you didn't say what that class is defined as) instead.

Why oh why would I do that? Why doesn't <br /> make sense structurally? Why
do you suggest almost 15x the amount of code instead. This just doesn't make
sense to me. Did I miss something in your explanation?

--------------------------------------------------
Michael Sauers, Librarian, Trainer & Author
Bibliographical Center for Research (BCR)
Aurora, CO :: 303-751-6277 x124 :: msauers@bcr.org
--------------------------------------------------

> Say you have a heading that's just a tad too long for a single line:
>
> A <br /> just really doesn't make sense structurally and playing with
> margins/padding until it wraps where you want is less-than-ideal (what
> if the user chooses a slightly bigger/different font).
>
> You could use non-breaking spaces to do something like:
>
> <h1>Welcome&nbsp;to&nbsp;My&nbsp;Page About&nbsp;Race&nbsp;Cars</h1>
>
> But this seems more elegant and content-friendly:
>
> <h1>Welcome to My Page<span class="br"> </span>About Race Cars</h1>


From rudy937 at rogers.com  Thu Apr 24 22:44:06 2003
From: rudy937 at rogers.com (rudy)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:44:06 -0400
Subject: [css-d] IE 6 vs Opera/Mozilla etc
References: <012301c30aa4$a728d050$650aa8c0@video>
Message-ID: <003f01c30aaa$a3bebb90$0cb96618@r9373j4yqbe8dy>

> However I still have the problem that IE6.0 is not picking up the color
> attribute.  This too will succumb to engineering rigor!
> (www.saveburlingameschools.com)

i love the apple with the bite out of it!

however, the colours on the nav links are identical in ie6 and mozilla, and
in fact are no different in link versus hover status

hover underlines the links in both browsers


rudy

From d.abraham at netgates.co.uk  Thu Apr 24 22:59:14 2003
From: d.abraham at netgates.co.uk (Dave)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:59:14 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: <1051193106.26092@tweek.sebduggan.com>
	<00fb01c30aa2$50915f70$7802a8c0@buglet>
Message-ID: <002301c30aac$bf2c9ad0$55a423d9@Dave>

I am also new, and no I don't think I will adjust. I use these lists as a
resource and I can already see a whole bunch of questions with very few
replies. Not much use at all.

I don't understand the logic behind it, anyone know of any other CSS mailing
lists that don't adopt this odd policy??

PS: This is the second attempt, my first message went direct to Donna Casey
(sorry Donna) Not good at all.


From kr43m0r at earthlink.net  Thu Apr 24 23:02:01 2003
From: kr43m0r at earthlink.net (Lonnie)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:02:01 -0500
Subject: [css-d] IE 6 vs Opera/Mozilla etc
References: <012301c30aa4$a728d050$650aa8c0@video>
Message-ID: <006801c30aad$226a5600$6401a8c0@yoda>

> However I still have the problem that IE6.0 is not picking up the color
> attribute.  This too will succumb to engineering rigor!

Link colors are controlled by pseudo-classes.

.navbar li a:link {
color: #880026;
}

Lonnie
From contact at lukeredpath.co.uk  Thu Apr 24 23:51:28 2003
From: contact at lukeredpath.co.uk (Luke Redpath)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:51:28 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
In-Reply-To: <002301c30aac$bf2c9ad0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <ENEMIKFCPDMDJCEEJFPPEEKNCGAA.contact@lukeredpath.co.uk>

If you are using Outlook to use this list, it's not hard to adjust - just
hit reply to all instead, and quickly delete the sender from the to list,
leaving the list address.

Simple!

Cheers,

Luke Redpath
--
www.sonicdeath.co.uk/weblog
"Celebrity Squares" - giving the web a CSS makeover - coming soon!


From outlaw at joseywales.com  Thu Apr 24 23:54:53 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:54:53 +0100
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051221498.17020@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <1051224895.24032@tweek.sebduggan.com>


> From: "Michael Sauers" <msauers@bcr.org>
> 
> You've just lost me completely. You're suggesting that <br /> doesn't make
> sense to break a line into two but that we should span a space and classify
> it as "br" (which you didn't say what that class is defined as) instead.
> 
> Why oh why would I do that? Why doesn't <br /> make sense structurally? Why
> do you suggest almost 15x the amount of code instead. This just doesn't make
> sense to me. Did I miss something in your explanation?

If you put a <br /> in the middle of a sentence, it puts a hard structural
break in - where what you really want is a purely layout break which doesn't
affect the flow of the words.

It basically goes to the core of separating layout from content - in Steve's
example, the <br /> is being used just for layout, and should therefore be
frowned on.


From ian at hixie.ch  Fri Apr 25 00:01:36 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <3EA83B4C.2060708@latchman.org>
References: <1051186196.27743@tweek.sebduggan.com> <3EA828AA.50506@f2o.org>
 <3EA82CE5.1020306@f2o.org> <3EA83B4C.2060708@latchman.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304241558520.15423-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Sam Latchman wrote:
>
> If semantics is what you're aiming for, what you need is
>
> address {margin: 0;}
> <address>123 Trogdor St.</address>
> <address>Strongbadia, Wherever</address>
>
> with possibly some class="street", class="city"...

<address> is a block-level element, it contains a single block address
(well, actually, a single block of contact information).

The above markup would be two addresses, not one. One address should be
marked up with one <address> element, with lineBReaks marked up with <br>.

<br> is fine, it's only "evil" when it is used to do something that is
strictly presentational. An address has multiple lines even when you read
it out over the phone, so <br> makes sense.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From mark.r.stevens at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 00:00:38 2003
From: mark.r.stevens at attbi.com (markinoregon)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:00:38 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
In-Reply-To: <002301c30aac$bf2c9ad0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <LFEDIOOHKCLEFGIHPKCAMEFLCAAA.mark.r.stevens@attbi.com>

What's the big deal, I just right click on the message I want to reply
to,click reply-all, then remove the person's e-mail address from the to bar,
like I did just now with Dave's reply.
It's just a matter of people being aware of who the addresses are in the
reply to header. we all know the horror stories in a corporate environment
where some knucklehead reply's about something sensitive to EVERYONE!

>I can already see a whole bunch of questions with very few
>replies. Not much use at all.

I TOTALLY disagree with that statement DAVE, I've gotten lots of help from
people on here, as a matter-of-fact, I print out some threads as reference
to try the techniques later, even if I don't need the info now. I was even
thinking of compiling a PDF file of the topics that interest me.

just my .02 cents.

-----Original Message-----
From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:59 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Replying to the list


I am also new, and no I don't think I will adjust. I use these lists as a
resource and I can already see a whole bunch of questions with very few
replies. Not much use at all.

I don't understand the logic behind it, anyone know of any other CSS mailing
lists that don't adopt this odd policy??

PS: This is the second attempt, my first message went direct to Donna Casey
(sorry Donna) Not good at all.


______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

From Eli_Simpson at capgroup.com  Fri Apr 25 00:14:15 2003
From: Eli_Simpson at capgroup.com (Eli_Simpson@capgroup.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:14:15 -0700
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
Message-ID: <OF6AFD6A44.5D94CB6C-ON88256D12.007DFF19@capgroup.com>


> <h1>Welcome to My Page<span class="br"> </span>About Race Cars</h1>

With that solution you could end up with breaks between other words,
depending on font/window sizes.  Here's what I would do if you wanted to
force a line break at that exact place and no other:

<h1 style="white-space: nowrap">Welcome to My Page<br />About Race
Cars</h1>

From d.abraham at netgates.co.uk  Fri Apr 25 00:14:16 2003
From: d.abraham at netgates.co.uk (Dave)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:14:16 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: <LFEDIOOHKCLEFGIHPKCAMEFLCAAA.mark.r.stevens@attbi.com>
Message-ID: <007701c30ab7$3a3fd2a0$55a423d9@Dave>


> I TOTALLY disagree with that statement DAVE, I've gotten lots of help from
> people on here, as a matter-of-fact, I print out some threads as reference
> to try the techniques later, even if I don't need the info now. I was even
> thinking of compiling a PDF file of the topics that interest me.
>
> just my .02 cents.

I have not been around long enough to see that. I am not saying people don't
help,  I am saying they do help but do it in private making the information
harder to find. It is more of an assumption and an observation after only a
day of watching mind.



From mrmazda at ij.net  Fri Apr 25 00:41:44 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:41:44 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: <LFEDIOOHKCLEFGIHPKCAMEFLCAAA.mark.r.stevens@attbi.com>
	<007701c30ab7$3a3fd2a0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <3EA87638.46D7@ij.net>

Dave wrote:
 
> markinoregon wrote:

> > I TOTALLY disagree with that statement DAVE, I've gotten lots of help from
> > people on here, as a matter-of-fact, I print out some threads as reference
> > to try the techniques later, even if I don't need the info now. I was even
> > thinking of compiling a PDF file of the topics that interest me.
 
> I have not been around long enough to see that. I am not saying people don't
> help,  I am saying they do help but do it in private making the information
> harder to find. It is more of an assumption and an observation after only a
> day of watching mind.

Offlist replies mean:

1-Others have no clue how many or even if others have responded to a
request, which means there's no way for others to know whether an
(additional) reply from them is warranted.

2-Validity checking is unavailable. If others don't see responses,
defective replies aren't trapped for rebuttal/correction.
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From info at n2dreamweaver.com  Fri Apr 25 00:43:55 2003
From: info at n2dreamweaver.com (Donna Casey)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:43:55 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: 
	<1051193106.26092@tweek.sebduggan.com><00fb01c30aa2$50915f70$7802a8c0@buglet>
	<002301c30aac$bf2c9ad0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <003c01c30abb$5ef43290$7802a8c0@buglet>


> PS: This is the second attempt, my first message went direct to Donna
Casey
> (sorry Donna) Not good at all.

not a problem but my point was that the link to the ELM program was defunct.
I found the setup here odd at first but adjusted even with OE after a few
abrupt messages from the email police.

--mostly lurk and snatch up the delicious crumbs of CSS that others drop
here and there....

<slithering back to a dark corner of the list.....we loves it here, don't
we, my preciousssss......>


From malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk  Fri Apr 25 00:50:04 2003
From: malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk (malaja)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:50:04 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
References: 
	<1051193106.26092@tweek.sebduggan.com><00fb01c30aa2$50915f70$7802a8c0@buglet>
	<002301c30aac$bf2c9ad0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <00f701c30abc$3abdc2f0$fd00a8c0@mike>

Dave

I rarely send a message to a list... and though I've been an ardent lurker
for a while this may well be the first time I have written to it.

You may already have learned something from replies as to how to reply to
the list. Simple enough to use "reply-all" etc but so many people don't know
it.

More seriously, on CSS, there is no way you will get better quality in-depth
CSS info anywhere. Far in advance of (incompetent) table based Web-dev too.
Writer's to the list have combined technical knowledge and experience
unequalled. Enormously helpful, almost always on topic, friendly and
respectful. Better than books or formal study. Stay with it a while and
you'll see what I mean, give yourself time to get the "feel" of all the
helpful characters involved.

HTH, and welcome.

Mike
Edinburgh, Scotland

> I am also new, and no I don't think I will adjust. I use these lists as a
> resource and I can already see a whole bunch of questions with very few
> replies. Not much use at all.

From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Fri Apr 25 00:54:42 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:54:42 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Helpfulness of the list (was Re:  Replying to the list)
In-Reply-To: <007701c30ab7$3a3fd2a0$55a423d9@Dave>
Message-ID: <007801c30abc$e3252e60$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>



> Dave :
> I have not been around long enough to see that. I am not 
> saying people don't
> help,  I am saying they do help but do it in private making 
> the information
> harder to find. It is more of an assumption and an 
> observation after only a
> day of watching mind.


Just a friendly suggestion Dave, hang out and give it a bit more time.
What you don't see yet, and what impressed the hell outta me was just
*how much* time some people here put into helping others with
workarounds, helping with bug research, browser/os issues and the like.
A lot of that help seems to happen on off time like after work or
between projects (I assume a lot of other people 'work' for a living
around here). 

If you take a cruise through the archives, it'll become obvious that
some of those answers and suggestions take a LONG time just to formulate
before it makes it to the list.  I say obvious because of the sheer size
and complexity of some of them.  

Go through and look at some of the replies from Holly Bergevin... At
times she's reproduced entire pages with full code and original graphics
just to help someone with their trouble.  And she's not the only one, I
don't mean to exclude anyone, she's just the first that came to memory.
Personally, I can't figure out where some of these kind people get the
time!

Many times people will solve their own problem that was previously
posted to the list and are kind enough to say "I figured it out, and
here's how..."

Don't forget, many subscribe as Digest Mode, so they only get one email
a day, not every single one.  This slows down the process a bit too.

YMMV, but I looked for a while JUST for this kind of help and this kind
of discussion, and while there are some other nice places out there, I
really think, bang-for-the-buck, you just can't beat this list for this
particular issue. :)

--Josh



From css-discuss at plumlee.org  Fri Apr 25 01:22:43 2003
From: css-discuss at plumlee.org (css-discuss@plumlee.org)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:22:43 -0400
Subject: [css-d] 3Col_NN4_FMFM and IE 6 problem
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030424201237.00bbd7c0@plumlee.org>

I've been trying to use the excellent layouts provided by Alex Robinson to 
cure a layout with Mac IE problems.  Ran across something 
interesting/infuriating and I'm hoping that someone here can either explain 
it to me or point me in the direction of a known bug.

Using this layout, I tried to set up a page with a fixed width of 
762px.  Left column is 120px, right is 145px.
http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/layouts/3Col_NN4_FMFM.mhtml?order=213&width_one=50&width_two=120&width_three=145&wrap_width=762&column_gutter=0&column_vertical_padding=0&column_horizontal_padding=0&columns_background=1&border_surround=0&body_padding=0&longest_column=one&controls=1&show_style=0

Looks great in Mozilla and Opera.  If I try to place an image in the right 
hand column with a declared width of 145px, it does not work in IE6.  IE 
refuses to display the content in that third column.

Shorten the length of the image by 4px, and it displays.  Lengthen the 
overall length of the container div by 4px, it displays.  It looks like IE 
is placing a a 4px padding around the image.  Tried setting it to display 
inline and block, no luck either way.

But if I float the image left or right, IE 6 works perfectly.  I've run 
across problems where IE 6 collapses padding and margins when elements are 
adjacent to floated elements, so it seems that I'm taking advantage of a 
hack here.

Any thoughts?

Scott Plumlee
PGP Public key: http://plumlee.org/pgp/   D64C 47D9 B855 5829 D22A  D390 
F8E2 9B58 9CBF 1F8D

From earthwrk at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 25 02:00:41 2003
From: earthwrk at earthlink.net (Bill Scheider)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:00:41 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Replying to the list
In-Reply-To: <00f701c30abc$3abdc2f0$fd00a8c0@mike>
Message-ID: <MABBLFKKJOFHOKMHGDFOKEEOCPAA.earthwrk@earthlink.net>

Hi Mike,

I totally agree with you RE the quality of the CSS info.

It's not only better than books but many of the folks discussing CSS on this
list have /written/ the books! It doesn't get any better.

Bill
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


From john at evolt.org.uk  Fri Apr 25 03:09:36 2003
From: john at evolt.org.uk (John Handelaar)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:09:36 +0100
Subject: ADMIN: End of thread, please. (was RE: [css-d] Replying to the list,
	and others)
In-Reply-To: <MABBLFKKJOFHOKMHGDFOKEEOCPAA.earthwrk@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <HNEPIHIKGMNGPEJJCMGMGEGACGAA.john@evolt.org.uk>


My apologies to those who were wondering where the
stand-in listmom went to today.

It's time to stop this thread, I think, in the 
interest of maintaining our regular signal-to-noise
ratio.

Eric's position on header munging is very clear,
and the relevant explanation on the wiki was 
posted earlier this afternoon.

That wiki post also makes it abundantly clear that
the place to drag this up (since it's clearly off-
topic) is in private mail to the list owner.

Eric will be back in a couple of weeks.  I'd
appreciate not getting mail on the subject during
his absence since I'm certainly not about to change
the list settings without being able to consult him.

I hope that I don't have to enforce this tomorrow,
folks :-)

Thanks for your attention.

John H
Server admin
On behalf of the currently-absent Mr Meyer.

------------------------------------------
John Handelaar

T +44 20 8459 4923       M +44 7930 681789
F +44 870 169 7657   E john@userfrenzy.com
------------------------------------------
From chris at placenamehere.com  Fri Apr 25 04:26:50 2003
From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:26:50 -0400
Subject: [css-d] [ANNC] PNH Developer Toolbar for Mozilla/Netscape
In-Reply-To: <BAC2D566.52680%chris@placenamehere.com>
Message-ID: <BACE233A.5380F%chris@placenamehere.com>

on 4/16/03 9:39 AM, Chris Casciano at chris@placenamehere.com wrote:

> Since the cat is out of the bag already I figured I'd pass along the word
> that I've released a toolbar add on for web developers using
> Mozilla/Netscape.
> 

v0.51 is here! you firebird users get your wish!

http://placenamehere.com/pnhtoolbar/

Change Log for v0.51 (from v0.50)
* Added a Firebird/Phoenix compatible installer w/ minor link changes
* Added encoding of complex URLs
* Fixed a few typos
* Added submission the W3C P3P Validator
* Added Link to the DevEdge Sidebar Tabs

Grab it now! Feedback to moz@placenamehere.com, please.

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ chris@placenamehere.com ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

From steve at mrclay.org  Fri Apr 25 05:06:08 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:06:08 -0400
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
Message-ID: <2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org>

Thursday, April 24, 2003, 8:09:55 AM, Seb wrote:
S> I was trying to find a method of creating a line break in the middle of a
S> line of text, but without using a <br> tag - so that, if viewed without
S> stylesheets, there would be no break.

Since this thread is surely getting boring, I put together a demo page
for the methods described by Seb and I:
http://mrclay.org/junk/thebreaks

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org/

From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 04:25:09 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:25:09 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Select first LI of an UL
In-Reply-To: <F552B577-74D1-11D7-B5E8-0003934B1B7A@wi.rr.com>
References: <F552B577-74D1-11D7-B5E8-0003934B1B7A@wi.rr.com>
Message-ID: <12059885896.20030424222509@attbi.com>

Arlen wrote on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 at 9:51:54 AM:

> li {font-weight: bold;}
> li + li {font-weight:normal}

> [...] When it fails, the entire list will be bolded, so perhaps
> you'll want to combine it with a hack that screens out those
> browsers from seeing the initial bold styling.

This should have a better success rate, and it's not really a hack
(i.e., it makes common sense, even if it is a bit longer):

    ul>li{font-weight:bold}
    ul>li+li{font-weight:normal}

There aren't many browsers that support child selectors without
supporting adjacent sibling selectors.

-- 
John Lewis

From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 05:22:54 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:22:54 -0500
Subject: [css-d] lists line height
In-Reply-To: <014101c30931$efd61ca0$6001a8c0@felwithe>
References: <000001c30930$2a93df00$42d5fea9@Estes>
 <014101c30931$efd61ca0$6001a8c0@felwithe>
Message-ID: <8263351585.20030424232254@attbi.com>

Brandy wrote on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 at 7:47:37 PM:

> http://clients.mediadiva.net/css/

> The links on the left bottom side, I have the line height set to
> 120, and I like how it looks, but I thought it was possible to set
> the height between each LI element and then the height of an
> individual LI element itself. This way links the run over to 2 lines
> will look like 1 link and not 2 links.

> Anyone know what I am talking about?

Yes. Although it took me a while to understand. :) If you want to
retain the line-height but have the links' background-color remain
"together" over multiple lines, I think you'll need to use padding-top
and padding-bottom on the a elements. For example:

    ul li a{padding:.2em 0}

Should do the trick. You may also consider this, depending on your
needs, but I doubt it will be more appropriate:

    ul>li a{padding:.2em 0}

Support isn't as good, at any rate.

-- 
John Lewis

From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 05:18:01 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:18:01 -0500
Subject: [css-d] semantically correct: padding vs margin
In-Reply-To: <000001c30a0f$5ab9d060$0a00a8c0@Aleem>
References: <000001c30a0f$5ab9d060$0a00a8c0@Aleem>
Message-ID: <14863058716.20030424231801@attbi.com>

Aleem wrote on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at 10:12:35 PM:

> When I said semantic, I wasn't looking for a response along these
> lines, but rather something which went beyond - example: by default,
> does the body have a margin of ~10px from the frame or a padding of
> 10px within? Is either semantically correct? In publishing, pages
> don't have a frame (chrome) and since electronic publishing is a
> derivative of print, I would go with padding instead of margin on
> that one.

CSS agrees with you. <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/sample.html>

I don't think it's possible to make a case for margin, if you're
familiar with the spec. Of course that's what most browsers use. The
above sample style sheet is just a suggestion, which is a good thing
overall.

-- 
John Lewis

From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 05:23:38 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:23:38 -0500
Subject: [css-d] semantically correct: padding vs margin
In-Reply-To: <3EA750F0.4020602@adelaide.edu.au>
References: <000601c309f6$2e39ca90$0a00a8c0@Aleem>
 <3EA750F0.4020602@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <663395931.20030424232338@attbi.com>

Steve wrote on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at 9:50:24 PM:

> <aside> Seems to me that many posts to this list are readily
> answered by reference to the CSS2 spec. OK, it's not the most
> readable spec in the world, and sometimes you need to read something
> two or three times before you get it, but, it is worth reading. If
> you haven't got it, get it. Mine is on my desk, or nearby, all the
> time. </aside>

Those types of questions aren't discouraged.
<http://www.css-discuss.org/policies.html>

Your advice is nonetheless helpful, of course. I think what we really
need is a comprehensive "spec for dummies," a document that deals with
CSS2 as simply as possible, written for CSS authors instead of CSS
implementors. A basic CSS vocabulary tutorial alone would be amazing;
even veteran authors fudge their technospeak jargon. I think most of
the CSS2 spec is pretty readable nowadays, but a couple years ago I
was confused by simple passages.

-- 
John Lewis

From stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au  Fri Apr 25 05:54:35 2003
From: stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:24:35 +0930
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
	<2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org>
Message-ID: <3EA8BF8B.9010100@adelaide.edu.au>

Steve Clay wrote:
> Thursday, April 24, 2003, 8:09:55 AM, Seb wrote:
> S> I was trying to find a method of creating a line break in the middle of a
> S> line of text, but without using a <br> tag - so that, if viewed without
> S> stylesheets, there would be no break.
> 
> Since this thread is surely getting boring, I put together a demo page
> for the methods described by Seb and I:
> http://mrclay.org/junk/thebreaks

Nice page!

I notice you used

	white-space:pre-line;

whereas the CSS2 spec at W3 has

	white-space:pre;

Is this something new? Or a typo?


I would also like to offer one further suggestion, using 
whitespace:pre, which seems even simpler to me: simply stick in 
the line breaks where you want them, as in this example:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
   <meta http-equiv="content-type"
  content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
   <meta name="author" content="Steve Thomas">
   <title>Test</title>
   <style type="text/css">
     h1 { text-align: center; }
     h1#pref { white-space:pre; }
   </style>
</head>
<body>
<h1 id="pref">Dr. Strangelove,<br>
or:<br>
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb</h1>
<p>Blah blah blah</p>
</body>
</html>

On browsers which don't implement whitespace, this will degrade 
nicely. Those that do will display the heading precisely as you 
want. (With the caveat that whitespace:pre will keep each line 
as given, even with narrow windows, requiring scrolling.)

Above all, this preserves the semantic integrity of the heading 
intact, without the need to embed coding.


Steve

-- 
Stephen Thomas,
Senior Systems Analyst,
Adelaide University Library
ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 8303 5190  Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au
URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/

From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 06:00:58 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:00:58 -0400
Subject: [css-d] 3Col_NN4_FMFM and IE 6 problem
Message-ID: <0C1E480F.3B3D924D.009CE500@netscape.net>

css-discuss@plumlee.org wrote:

>layouts provided by Alex Robinson 

>http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/layouts/3Col_NN4_FMFM.mhtml?order=213&width_one=50&width_two=120&width_three=145&wrap_width=762&column_gutter=0&column_vertical_padding=0&column_horizontal_padding=0&columns_background=1&border_surround=0&body_padding=0&longest_column=one&controls=1&show_style=0

>If I try to place an image in the right 
>hand column with a declared width of 145px, it does not work in IE6. �IE 
>refuses to display the content in that third column.

Hi Scott - I snagged Alex's layout and played for awhile with this, and I could get a number of variations on visible and invisible images, depending on where I put the image, or what it was or was not inside, as well as the size of the image. Is it possible you have a page you could put up so your specific case can be looked at? That would make it easier to give specific suggestions instead of theoritical ones.

As for hacks for IE, (and other browsers as needed), in my opinion, they are inevitable. As long as they validate, and don't mess something up for another browser (that cannot be worked around) you're probably going to have to use some. 

However, I always try to see if I can write/fix a page in such a way as to use the least number possible. What that means is if IE6 needs to have and image floated to work, and floating that image doesn't bother other browsers, I write it so the image is floated and move on to something else. 

Now, about that URL...

~holly

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 06:10:45 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:10:45 -0500
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <3EA8BF8B.9010100@adelaide.edu.au>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
 <2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org> <3EA8BF8B.9010100@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <12966223770.20030425001045@attbi.com>

Steve wrote on Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 11:54:35 PM:

>         white-space:pre-line;

> Is this something new? Or a typo?

It's new in CSS 2.1, which is not yet a recommendation:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#white-space-prop>

-- 
John Lewis

From gavin at refinery.com  Fri Apr 25 06:21:43 2003
From: gavin at refinery.com (Gavin Kistner)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:21:43 -0600
Subject: [css-d] line-height calculations
Message-ID: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>

Forgive me if this is a FAQ. Can someone explain to me which of the 
browsers is 'right' from the screenshots on this test page:
http://phrogz.net/tmp/lineheighttest/index.html

My expectation was for the way Camino/Mozilla did it to be right. 
(Under the assumption that 100% was based off of the 'standard' line 
height, and hence >100% should result in increased line spacing, not 
decreased.)

But now the spec seems to imply that something like Safari may be more 
correct. I'm just...very unused to Mozilla getting something wrong. 
(Camino is built off of the Mozilla 1.0 trunk, IIRC, but the appearance 
is the same in 1.2.1 also.)

From stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au  Fri Apr 25 06:36:24 2003
From: stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:06:24 +0930
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <12966223770.20030425001045@attbi.com>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
	<2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org> <3EA8BF8B.9010100@adelaide.edu.au>
	<12966223770.20030425001045@attbi.com>
Message-ID: <3EA8C958.2010405@adelaide.edu.au>

John Lewis wrote:
> Steve wrote on Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 11:54:35 PM:
> 
> 
>>        white-space:pre-line;
> 
> 
>>Is this something new? Or a typo?
> 
> 
> It's new in CSS 2.1, which is not yet a recommendation:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#white-space-prop
> 

Thanks. And amazingly, although not yet even a recommendation, 
it works! (In Moz 1.2.1 anyway)

I guess on reflection, that gives you an insight into how these 
standards are generated in the first place. :-)

Regards,
Steve

-- 
Stephen Thomas,
Senior Systems Analyst,
Adelaide University Library
ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 8303 5190  Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au
URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/

From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 06:47:25 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:47:25 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Path Positioning Problem.
Message-ID: <02A69262.14063CDB.009CE500@netscape.net>

"Will Boyett" <WBoyett@smtp.co.alachua.fl.us> wrote:

>Hello all, I'm still rather new to this list, and so appologize for any
>faux pas on my part.

Hi Will - Welcome to the list.

>here is my dilema:
>
>I am trying to make a local path statement in a bar, with a link to my
>site map on the right margin of the same bar. �So far, so good. However,
>my Site Map link keeps overlapping the text of my path statement on
>narrow monitors, 
[snip]

Now I have to apologize, because even with your explanation and the code you provided, you lost me. Is it possible for you to provide a URL to the page in question so we can give it a look see? If the content is restricted, strip it out and replace it with dummy text. Working with the actual page generally offers the best opportunity for someone to provide helpful advice.

~holly

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 07:04:05 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:04:05 -0400
Subject: [css-d] template with changing content
Message-ID: <69589F46.5F9A91EF.009CE500@netscape.net>

Donna m87 <dm87@rogers.com> wrote:

>I have created a template using absolutely positioned css div for the 
>header, content and footer. �When the content increases, the footer 
>is overwritten.
>
>How can I get the footer to adjust automatically when the content 
>volume changes? Can one combine absolute and relative positioning?
>
>What sorts of concepts should i be researching to look at my options?

Hi Donna - Have you seen the wiki pages about different layout options? The main page is here - 
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssLayouts

There are links to several other wiki pages from the above page that discuss the merits and difficulties of various types of layouts as well as links to outside sources. 

In addition, Bob Easton has assembled a very nice collection of links to 3-column-layouts (with notes about the techniques used on each) - 
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

If you don't need that many columns, many 3-column layouts can be adjusted to work with fewer columns.

HTH,

~holly

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From outlaw at joseywales.com  Fri Apr 25 09:18:24 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:18:24 +0100
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051243530.20492@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <1051258707.23490@tweek.sebduggan.com>


Thanks Steve - I couldn't have explained it better myself (and, indeed, I
didn't...).

Seb


> From: Steve Clay <steve@mrclay.org>
> Reply-To: Steve Clay <steve@mrclay.org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:06:08 -0400
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
> 
> 
> Thursday, April 24, 2003, 8:09:55 AM, Seb wrote:
> S> I was trying to find a method of creating a line break in the middle of a
> S> line of text, but without using a <br> tag - so that, if viewed without
> S> stylesheets, there would be no break.
> 
> Since this thread is surely getting boring, I put together a demo page
> for the methods described by Seb and I:
> http://mrclay.org/junk/thebreaks
> 
> Steve
> -- 
> http://mrclay.org/
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 


From outlaw at joseywales.com  Fri Apr 25 10:22:35 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:22:35 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Min-height
Message-ID: <1051262556.1547@tweek.sebduggan.com>


Is there any way to set the minimum height of an element?

There is the CSS2 property min-height, but it only seems to be supported in
Opera 6+ and Gecko/Mozilla browsers - no versions of IE, or the current beta
of Safari (although it may come later).

So, is there a workaround that lets you make an element at least x pixels
high, while still allowing it to expand to bigger if necessary? (And before
someone suggests it, I don't intend putting a 1px x 400px gif in my page ;)


Seb


From robert.nyman at centus.com  Fri Apr 25 10:28:02 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:28:02 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Min-height
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052D0@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> So, is there a workaround that lets you make an element at least x
pixels high,=20
while still allowing it to expand to bigger if necessary?
In IE on PC, it will expand if you have set the height to 20px and its
content is bigger...
However, you can't use min-height and height in conjunction for Gecko
etc.

So, for IE on PC, use this:

height:20px;

and for standrads-compliant browsers, use this:

min-height:20px;


/Robert
From rijk at opera.com  Fri Apr 25 10:46:42 2003
From: rijk at opera.com (Rijk van Geijtenbeek)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:46:42 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Min-height
In-Reply-To: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052D0@centus_ex_01.centus.com>
References: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052D0@centus_ex_01.centus.com>
Message-ID: <oprn6ir4x6yoq9u9@localhost>

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:28:02 +0200, Robert Nyman <robert.nyman@centus.com> 
wrote:

>> So, is there a workaround that lets you make an element at least x
>> pixels high, while still allowing it to expand to bigger if necessary?

> In IE on PC, it will expand if you have set the height to 20px and its
> content is bigger...
> However, you can't use min-height and height in conjunction for Gecko
> etc.
>
> So, for IE on PC, use this:
>
> height:20px;
> and for standrads-compliant browsers, use this:
> min-height:20px;

For example like this:

div {height:20px; min-height:20px;}
html>body div {height:auto;}

-- 
 If you don't like having choices    |  Rijk van Geijtenbeek
 made for you, you should start      |   Documentation & QA
 making your own. -  Neal Stephenson |  mailto:rijk@opera.com M

From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Fri Apr 25 10:59:02 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (Rick Hurst)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:59:02 +0100
Subject: [css-d] safari and mac IE5 hacks or alternative layout solution
	needed
Message-ID: <3EA906E6.1010304@starskiweb.co.uk>

Hi All

I need some help with this conversion from a table layout to a tableless 
layout. This is it so far:-

http://hypothecate.co.uk/css_test/3_col_margin_border.htm

I have a fixed width 3 column layout with a liquid header and footer. 
Columns 2 and 3 have their own header. I have tried various solutions, 
but currently I have 2 main floating columns, the second of which 
contains two floating sub columns. I have used a top margin to push 
these two sub columns down and have an absolutely positioned heading for 
these columns. The center and right columns need a border so this was my 
main reason for wrapping them in another div.

This works on PC IE5 and 6, Mozilla 1.3, but safari (not sure which 
version) the footer wont stay put and and IE5 mac the main column drifts up.

This doesn't need to support Netscape 4 - I will be hiding most of the 
styling from that.

--
Rick Hurst
http://hypothecate.co.uk

From stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au  Fri Apr 25 11:18:47 2003
From: stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:48:47 +0930
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org>
References: <BACD92A3.71E4%outlaw@joseywales.com>
	<2-1693011984.20030425000608@mrclay.org>
Message-ID: <3EA90B87.3010409@adelaide.edu.au>

Arrgghh! Apologies to all, my HTML editor mangled my example 
code, which should of course NOT have <br> tags in the middle of 
the header. Here's the corrected version (at the risk of 
prolonging the bordom):

...

I would also like to offer one further suggestion, using
whitespace:pre, which seems even simpler to me: simply stick in
the line breaks where you want them, as in this example:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type"
   content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
    <meta name="author" content="Steve Thomas">
    <title>Test</title>
    <style type="text/css">
      h1 { text-align: center; }
      h1#pref { white-space:pre; }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<h1 id="pref">Dr. Strangelove,
or:
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb</h1>
<p>Blah blah blah</p>
</body>
</html>

On browsers which don't implement whitespace, this will degrade
nicely. Those that do will display the heading precisely as you
want. (With the caveat that whitespace:pre will keep each line
as given, even with narrow windows, requiring scrolling.)

Above all, this preserves the semantic integrity of the heading
intact, without the need to embed coding.

(And no, whitespace:pre-line; doesn't work in Moz1.2.1/PC.)


Hopefully that makes more sense than the previous post.


Steve

-- 
Stephen Thomas,
Senior Systems Analyst,
Adelaide University Library
ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 8303 5190  Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au
URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/

From outlaw at joseywales.com  Fri Apr 25 12:01:06 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:01:06 +0100
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051266048.25755@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <1051268466.27913@tweek.sebduggan.com>


> From: Steve Thomas <stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au>
>....
> I would also like to offer one further suggestion, using
> whitespace:pre, which seems even simpler to me: simply stick in
> the line breaks where you want them, as in this example:

Very nice Steve - this seems to be the most elegant solution so far - and it
seems to work in every browser I've thrown it at!

I'll be changing my own code to this...


Seb


From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 12:00:13 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:00:13 -0500
Subject: [css-d] line-height calculations
In-Reply-To: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>
References: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>
Message-ID: <16087194233.20030425060013@attbi.com>

Gavin wrote on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 12:21:43 AM:

> http://phrogz.net/tmp/lineheighttest/index.html

> My expectation was for the way Camino/Mozilla did it to be right.
> (Under the assumption that 100% was based off of the 'standard' line
> height, and hence >100% should result in increased line spacing, not
> decreased.)

The suggested default line-height value is between 1 and 1.2, but
there is no rule saying browsers need to follow it. Any value is
acceptable according to CSS2. That means it's impossible to determine
if a value greater than 100% will be bigger, smaller, or the same. All
this without taking crazy user style sheets into account!

After reading CSS2, playing with line-height in Opera 7.1 and Mozilla
1.4a, and comparing renderings for far too long, I'm stumped. I really
have very little idea of how the inline box model and line-height are
supposed to work. For the most part, with identical values Mozilla and
Opera returned similar and even identical results. That's comforting.
For some reason, Mozilla doesn't behave anything like Camino. At first
I thought my test page was strange; then I visited your page and the
Mozilla result look basically identical to Opera and Safari. I can't
explain the Mac IE or Camino results. I don't expect line-height to
behave like that, but I'm pretty weak on the theory.

The shoddiness of the Win IE rendering is self-evident.

I'd be interested to see if anyone knows or can figure out why my
Mozilla and your Camino rendering look so different. I don't use
Mozilla much, so I haven't changed anything but the default font.

-- 
John Lewis

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Fri Apr 25 12:11:04 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:11:04 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Tip: How to add a rule with script and use the Box Model Hack
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052D2@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

To use the Box Model hack in script, you need to add an extra backslash,
since JavaScript interprets the first one for string escape purposes...

Example:

oStyleSheet.addRule("div.levelItem", "height:22px;");
oStyleSheet.addRule("div.levelItem", "he\\ight:20px;");


/Robert
From robert.nyman at centus.com  Fri Apr 25 12:23:06 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:23:06 +0200
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052D3@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

Does anyone know where I can find stats for Mac users only,
which browsers are the most common etc?


/Robert
From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Fri Apr 25 13:10:08 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (Rick Hurst)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:10:08 +0100
Subject: [css-d] how do I hide style from Mac IE5?
Message-ID: <3EA925A0.4080609@starskiweb.co.uk>

I've made some progress with my liquid header and footer/fixed width 
columns layout problem and now my only real concern is the IE5 mac mess:-

http://hypothecate.co.uk/css_test/v6.htm

so what I want now is just a hack to hide styles from mac IE5

cheers

--
Rick Hurst
http://hypothecate.co.uk

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Fri Apr 25 13:09:11 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:09:11 +0200
Subject: [css-d] how do I hide style from Mac IE5?
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052DC@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> so what I want now is just a hack to hide styles from mac IE5
http://www.sam-i-am.com/testsuite/css/mac_ie5_hack.html

/Robert
From dmead at optiem.com  Fri Apr 25 13:21:47 2003
From: dmead at optiem.com (David Mead)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:21:47 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Hyperlink position in NN4.7
Message-ID: <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A1E928D@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>

Hi all,

I've only joined the list yesterday and I already have a question to
pose.

I'm designing a web site that has to be "viewable" down to NN4.7.  I'm
using table with some CSS to style content in the cells etc.  My problem
is this.

My footer nav runs nicely along the bottom (shortened version here):

  <div class=3D"footernav">=20
  <p>&nbsp;<a href=3D"#">MENU</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a
href=3D"#">LOCATIONS&nbsp;</a></p>
  </div>

with the CSS code:

  .footernav { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:
8px; color: #FEAC22; text-decoration: none; background-color: #7B0808;
padding: 5px 10px; }
  .footernav a:link { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:
#FEAC22; text-decoration: none; padding: 5px 10px; background-color:
transparent; }
  .footernav a:visited { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
color: #FEAC22; text-decoration: none; padding: 5px 10px;
background-color: transparent;}
  .footernav a:hover { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:
#FFFFFF; text-decoration: none; padding: 5px 10px; background-color:
transparent; }

It looks fine in IE but when viewed in NN4.7 the links stack
one-on-top-of-another instead of side-by-side!  I've created a separate
style sheet for NN and removed the padding from the CSS code and this
bunches them all up (hence the two &nbsp; between links).  Is there a
way around this or is this the best fix.

I did a quick check through the archives but didn't turn anything up.
Apologies if the code is a little sloppy but I'm still finding my CSS
feet so to speak.

Many thanks,

Dave

From larz at cbis.ece.drexel.edu  Fri Apr 25 12:38:54 2003
From: larz at cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Ryan La Riviere)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:38:54 -0400
Subject: [css-d] New CSS2 Site - XHTML 1.0
In-Reply-To: <006f01c30920$b0d61750$6001a8c0@felwithe>
Message-ID: <BACE968E.27D21%larz@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>

On 04/22/2003 18:44, "Brandy (mediadiva)" <fortuneb@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> who did?
> 
>> 
>> Yea...spelled Cingular wrong on the file.  :/

Me on the screenshot's file name I had uploaded...I should have specified
the "I" part.

-Ryan

-- 
Mr. Ryan La Riviere
Project Manager; Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
College of Engineering; Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104

hp: http://staff.tdec.drexel.edu/~edljedi
IM (AIM, Yahoo, MSN): edljedi
w: 215.895.6460
Geek Code: http://staff.tded.drexel.edu/~edljedi/geeksville

One thing the hardware engineers just can't seem to get the bugs out of
is... fresh paint.

From gassinaumasis at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 25 13:51:43 2003
From: gassinaumasis at hotmail.com (Peter-Paul Koch)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:51:43 +0000
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <Sea2-F383XV3ZUCDPEK0000cce5@hotmail.com>



>Does anyone know where I can find stats for Mac users only,
>which browsers are the most common etc?

My own stats, for what they're worth, say:

Ecxplorer 5    69%
Safari         15%
Mozilla         6%
Netscape 6      4%
Netscape 4      4%
Explorer 4      2%

Note that these numbers are mainly from my development sites which attract a 
higher share of non-IE browsers than the average site.

Whichever stats you'll find, please keep in mind that Safari's share is 
going to rise dramatically when it becomes the default browser for OS X.

Any Mac-friendly website must be checked at the very least in IE5 and 
Safari.

--------------------------------------------------
ppk, freelance web developer
Interaction, copywriting, JavaScript, integration
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/
Column "Keep it Simple": http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/
--------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

From css-discuss at plumlee.org  Fri Apr 25 13:54:17 2003
From: css-discuss at plumlee.org (css-discuss@plumlee.org)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:54:17 -0400
Subject: [css-d] 3Col_NN4_FMFM and IE 6 problem
In-Reply-To: <0C1E480F.3B3D924D.009CE500@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030425084249.00b5a738@plumlee.org>

At 01:00 AM 4/25/2003 -0400, you wrote:

 >>If I try to place an image in the right
 >>hand column with a declared width of 145px, it does not work in IE6.  IE
 >>refuses to display the content in that third column.
 >
 >Hi Scott - I snagged Alex's layout and played for awhile with this, and I
 >could get a number of variations on visible and invisible images, depending
 >on where I put the image, or what it was or was not inside, as well as the
 >size of the image. Is it possible you have a page you could put up so your
 >specific case can be looked at? That would make it easier to give specific
 >suggestions instead of theoritical ones.

thank you for the response.  I've placed a page here:
http://wgi.org/2003/indexmac2.php where you can copy the code and watch it 
happen.  Allow the float, works in IE.  Remove the float, doesn't show.

With the float: left in place for the img tag, it display correctly in IE 6 
and Mozilla and Opera 7.10.  Without it, it vanishes in IE 6.

Again, many thinks to Alex Robinson for all the work on the page, and to 
the other contributors (including Holly, I believe) that are listed there.

 >However, I always try to see if I can write/fix a page in such a way as to
 >use the least number possible. What that means is if IE6 needs to have and
 >image floated to work, and floating that image doesn't bother other
 >browsers, I write it so the image is floated and move on to something else.

I appreciate the advice.  I think I might have a "immovable object meets 
the irresistible force" complex about this problem right now.

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Fri Apr 25 13:57:14 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:57:14 +0200
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052E0@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

Interesting!
Especially that Safari has so many users already (which, I agree, will
dramatically increase later on).
Have you seen any pattern when it comes to versions of IE, i.e. 5.0, 5.1
and 5.2?


/Robert


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter-Paul Koch [mailto:gassinaumasis@hotmail.com]=20
Sent: den 25 april 2003 14:52
To: Robert Nyman; css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?




>Does anyone know where I can find stats for Mac users only, which=20
>browsers are the most common etc?

My own stats, for what they're worth, say:

Ecxplorer 5    69%
Safari         15%
Mozilla         6%
Netscape 6      4%
Netscape 4      4%
Explorer 4      2%

Note that these numbers are mainly from my development sites which
attract a=20
higher share of non-IE browsers than the average site.

Whichever stats you'll find, please keep in mind that Safari's share is=20
going to rise dramatically when it becomes the default browser for OS X.

Any Mac-friendly website must be checked at the very least in IE5 and=20
Safari.

--------------------------------------------------
ppk, freelance web developer
Interaction, copywriting, JavaScript, integration
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/ Column "Keep it Simple":
http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/
--------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.=20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/virus

From gassinaumasis at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 25 14:14:06 2003
From: gassinaumasis at hotmail.com (Peter-Paul Koch)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:14:06 +0000
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <Sea2-F41cfJiY9ZNMji0000cd1e@hotmail.com>


>Interesting!
>Especially that Safari has so many users already (which, I agree, will
>dramatically increase later on).

My Safari stats are especially unreliable because I posted some 
Safari-related material pretty soon after the beta was released. Naturally 
geeky Safari users first take a look at sites discussing their beloved 
browser.

For the non-geeky sites I keep track of the score is between 2 and 10 % of 
all Mac users (and I find that 10% strangely high).

>Have you seen any pattern when it comes to versions of IE, i.e. 5.0, 5.1 
>and 5.2?

Nope.

--------------------------------------------------
ppk, freelance web developer
Interaction, copywriting, JavaScript, integration
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/
Column "Keep it Simple": http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/
--------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

From WBoyett at smtp.co.alachua.fl.us  Fri Apr 25 14:56:18 2003
From: WBoyett at smtp.co.alachua.fl.us (Will Boyett)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:56:18 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Path Positioning Problem.
Message-ID: <sea90654.037@smtp.co.alachua.fl.us>

Holly et all;

First off, let me say that I recieved an off-list reply from Jason Van
Pelt which has not only served as the foundation for my correction of
the issue I was having, but has also served to illuminate whole new
aspects of CSS which I only dimly understood before... a classic example
of a working example being worth volumes of technical explanation.

That said, I would be happy to provide a link to the site, and I do
welcome other construcitve commentary. My goal/directive is to provide a
very accessible site using CSS layout, and favoring a "Red White and
Blue" palette.  I have inherited a lot of code from previous webmasters,
and as the redesign is only one of my job duties, I have not had the
time to devote to removing all of the older legacy elements to date. The
main page (which does not use the path statement I wrote for help on) is
in my signature.

http://elections.alachua.fl.us/welcome.html is one of the pages in
which the code can be seen. The "problem code" was the red outlined box
with the path statement and the site map link. It now has new code, and
works as originally intended.


William Dove Boyett
Alachua County Elections Webmaster
http://elections.co.alachua.fl.us
-------------------------------------------------------
"The user owns the Back button."
-- Dr. Jakob Nielsen, http://www.useit.com/alertbox

>>> Holly Bergevin <holnkids@netscape.net> 04/25/03 01:47AM >>>
[snip snip]
Now I have to apologize, because even with your explanation and the
code you provided, you lost me. Is it possible for you to provide a URL
to the page in question so we can give it a look see? If the content is
restricted, strip it out and replace it with dummy text. Working with
the actual page generally offers the best opportunity for someone to
provide helpful advice.

~holly

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380 

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d 
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ 


Inbound Mail Scanned by Mcafee Web Appliance.




OutBound Mail Scanned by Mcafee Web Appliance.


From george.smyth at USNA.COM  Fri Apr 25 15:13:00 2003
From: george.smyth at USNA.COM (George Smyth)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:13:00 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Netscape 4.76 Bombing
Message-ID: <C07E1FAF6146764086BB888BB8E5496701C741F4@win2kexch.aa-naf.net>

I have the following style, which "works" in all browsers outside of
Netscape 4.76:

.NavText {
  font-size: 0.7em;
  text-align: left;
  width: auto;
  padding: 2px;
  background-color: #FFE;
  border-top:  1px solid #EEE;
  border-left: 1px solid #EEE;
  border-bottom: 1px solid #333;
  border-right:  1px solid #777;
}

Netscape 4.76 actually bombs and closes because of these two lines:

  width: auto;
  padding: 2px;

Remove them and all's well with the world, include either and it generates
errors and closes.

Any way around this outside of creating a special style sheet for Netscape?

Thanks -

george

From Curt2305 at aol.com  Fri Apr 25 15:21:40 2003
From: Curt2305 at aol.com (Curt2305@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:21:40 EDT
Subject: [css-d] [ccc-d] List readability problems
Message-ID: <46.381a3fa4.2bda9e74@aol.com>



First I'd like to say this list has been an excellent resource to me, and I
think everyone else will agree.


But I'd like to point out that lately list posters seem to be blindly posting 
to the
list. What I mean is, People might be forgetting that some email providers 
like the one I use (AOL) actually interpret HTML tags in email. Which means I 
don't see
them in the context of the message, I see it as if I were reading the post 
through
a browser window.


When you refer to [b] tag I see the rest of the message in bold text
unless you use the closing [/b] tag. Oh, and try reading a message with a
heading tag in it.


Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to chastise the list, but this does get
annoying. So please accept my apologies if I offended anyone.


Thank You
Curt
From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Fri Apr 25 15:38:57 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:38:57 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Netscape 4.76 Bombing
Message-ID: <OFCBF69188.A61F3A48-ON88256D13.004F8FB1@capgroup.com>


George Smyth wrote:

> I have the following style, which "works" in all browsers outside of
> Netscape 4.76:

> .NavText {
>   font-size: 0.7em;
>   text-align: left;
>   width: auto;
>   padding: 2px;
>   background-color: #FFE;
>   border-top:  1px solid #EEE;
>   border-left: 1px solid #EEE;
>   border-bottom: 1px solid #333;
>   border-right:  1px solid #777;
> }
>
> Netscape 4.76 actually bombs and closes because of these two lines:
>
>   width: auto;
>   padding: 2px;

Netscape 4 tends to act like the proverbial straw-carrying camel. We all
know it is buggy to one extent or another, but each bug-tripping style
declaration seems to add a little bit more to its instability. If too many
buggy declarations (that is, valid CSS that causes bugs in NS 4) appear in
the CSS, it will hang, crash, and otherwise let you down when it hits that
final straw.

If you don't want to switch stylesheets, you might want to resort to the
Ciao NS4-hiding hack (http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CaioHack) to
remove enough styles to let it limp along. You may want to hide additional
ones, so that you aren't right at the edge of instability.

Another alternative is to link a stylesheet that only contains styles that
are solid with NS 4, then import a second sheet that adds additional styles
for "good" browsers.

HTH,

MikeL

From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Fri Apr 25 15:45:34 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:45:34 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Hyperlink position in NN4.7
Message-ID: <OF642D1E9C.73522B52-ON88256D13.0050CA54@capgroup.com>


Dave Mead wrote:

> My footer nav runs nicely along the bottom (shortened version here):

[snip]

> It looks fine in IE but when viewed in NN4.7 the links stack
> one-on-top-of-another instead of side-by-side!  I've created a separate
> style sheet for NN and removed the padding from the CSS code and this
> bunches them all up (hence the two &nbsp; between links).  Is there a
> way around this or is this the best fix.

As you have discovered, adding padding or margins to an inline element
converts it to a block element in NS 4. I haven't seen a workaround for
this.

Sorry for the bad news! :-)

MikeL

From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Fri Apr 25 15:44:47 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:44:47 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Netscape 4.76 Bombing
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD7@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

George Smyth wrote:
> Netscape 4.76 actually bombs and closes because of these two lines:
>=20
>   width: auto;
>   padding: 2px;
>=20
> Remove them and all's well with the world, include either and
> it generates errors and closes.

You can remove "width: auto" safely (unless a width is being inherited)
and/or you can use Caio's Hack, like so:

.NavText {
  font-size: 0.7em;
  text-align: left;
/*/*/
  width: auto;
  padding: 2px;
/**/
  background-color: #FFE;
  border:  1px solid #EEE;
  border-bottom-color: #333;
  border-right-color: :#777;
}

(Note: I just shortened your border styles slightly)

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From ken at kpmartin.com  Fri Apr 25 16:09:05 2003
From: ken at kpmartin.com (Ken Martin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:09:05 -0500
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
Message-ID: <DAF02F0E-772F-11D7-A06D-0030656A2A4A@kpmartin.com>

I checked the wiki and didn't see anything, though I suspect this is 
probably frequently asked.

Does PC IE support position:fixed? It appears not to. I'm wondering if 
I need to use it in tandem with other declarations or if it simply 
doesn't work.

TIA

Ken Martin

From jgay at tla.com  Fri Apr 25 16:17:07 2003
From: jgay at tla.com (Jim Gay)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:17:07 -0400
Subject: [css-d] [ccc-d] List readability problems
In-Reply-To: <46.381a3fa4.2bda9e74@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BACEC9B3.6927%jgay@tla.com>

> But I'd like to point out that lately list posters seem to be blindly posting
> to the
> list. What I mean is, People might be forgetting that some email providers
> like the one I use (AOL) actually interpret HTML tags in email. Which means I
> don't see
> them in the context of the message, I see it as if I were reading the post
> through
> a browser window.

I'm new here, but looking at the policies, although it says no html/rtf
email, I don't think that excludes any html code at all. I think its a bit
much to ask a list about code of a few hundred people to stop writing about
their code in some context.
perhaps the problem is in the AOL client rendering html when it shouldn't
be? (are you set to receive Plain or MIME content?)

please correct me if I'm wrong
perhaps I need more clarity on the policy. should I exclude all html when
I'm next tempted to post?

-jim

From ckestes at bewb.org  Fri Apr 25 16:30:24 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:30:24 -0500
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
Message-ID: <003b01c30b3f$97792510$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

Does anyone know, I didn't see it in  the CSS spec, if or how you can change
the list-item-marker's color?

I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my text,
but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.

Anyone?

Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org


From Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com  Fri Apr 25 16:31:20 2003
From: Craig.Saila at bgminteractive.com (Saila, Craig)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:31:20 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
Message-ID: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A2C4ACF@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>

Ken Martin wrote:
> Does PC IE support position:fixed? It appears not to. I'm wondering if

(Apologies if someone has answered this, my email is slow lately)

No support yet, although there are a couple of JavaScript fixes:
<http://doxdesk.com/software/js/fixed.html>
<http://www.mark.ac/help/sticky.html>

--=20
Cheers,

Craig Saila
------------------------------------------
craig@saila.com : http://www.saila.com/
------------------------------------------
From Dwayne.Conyers at veridian.com  Fri Apr 25 16:41:46 2003
From: Dwayne.Conyers at veridian.com (Conyers, Dwayne)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:41:46 -0400
Subject: [css-d] [ccc-d] List readability problems
Message-ID: <E4C14A1BFBDD144490EAF53424176D6D11CF46@FCVAMAIL.mrj.com>

I think enclosing code in <pre></pre> tags should alleviate that issue.

--
Dwacon
www.dwacon.com
From gassinaumasis at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 25 16:46:49 2003
From: gassinaumasis at hotmail.com (Peter-Paul Koch)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:46:49 +0000
Subject: [css-d] Netscape 4.76 Bombing
Message-ID: <Sea2-F69qVDokSUIwMw0000d806@hotmail.com>

> > Netscape 4.76 actually bombs and closes because of these two lines:
> >
> >   width: auto;
> >   padding: 2px;
> >
> > Remove them and all's well with the world, include either and
> > it generates errors and closes.
>
>You can remove "width: auto" safely (unless a width is being inherited)
>and/or you can use Caio's Hack, like so:

While that is certainly true, my guess is that the border declarations are 
actually the problem. NN4 has a long and nasty history of problems with 
borders.

Try your original style sheet, but change the borders:

.NavText {
  font-size: 0.7em;
  text-align: left;
  width: auto;
  padding: 2px;
  background-color: #FFE;
  border: 1px solid #EEE;
  border-bottom-color: #333;
  border-right-color:  #777;
}

In a few similar cases I found that using the shorthand notations for 
'border-left', 'border-right' etc. (though not for 'border' itself) causes 
NN4 problems.

But maybe I'm wrong and this is an entirely different problem.

--------------------------------------------------
ppk, freelance web developer
Interaction, copywriting, JavaScript, integration
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/
Column "Keep it Simple": http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/
--------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

From Curt2305 at aol.com  Fri Apr 25 16:47:11 2003
From: Curt2305 at aol.com (Curt2305@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:47:11 EDT
Subject: [css-d] [ccc-d] List readability problems
Message-ID: <199.194e6936.2bdab27f@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/25/2003 11:17:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, jgay@tla.com 
writes:


>be? (are you set to receive Plain or MIME content?)


I only use AOL for a connection to the Internet and to receive mail
so I really don't no how to set that, or even if I can with AOL.

>please correct me if I'm wrong
>perhaps I need more clarity on the policy. should I exclude all html when
>I'm next tempted to post?

No, the tags that effect my mail are heading, bold, italics, typewriter
type, paragraphs, break, and such that refer specifically to font control.

UL, li, span, div, and others that refer to structure and css don't get 
rendered.
I see the tag itself, not it's effects.

By the way, I didn't type the subject line. My brother did. I don't write
subjects until I ready to send the mail. He tried to replicate the subject
lines of the css mail program and didnt know it was do automatically
( thought it was funny)

Curt
From gary at star-chaser.com  Fri Apr 25 17:01:57 2003
From: gary at star-chaser.com (Gary)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:01:57 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
In-Reply-To: <DAF02F0E-772F-11D7-A06D-0030656A2A4A@kpmartin.com>
References: <DAF02F0E-772F-11D7-A06D-0030656A2A4A@kpmartin.com>
Message-ID: <3EA95BF5.4040005@star-chaser.com>

Ken Martin wrote:
> I checked the wiki and didn't see anything, though I suspect this is 
> probably frequently asked.
> 
> Does PC IE support position:fixed? It appears not to. I'm wondering if I 
> need to use it in tandem with other declarations or if it simply doesn't 
> work.
> 

It only supports position:fixed on backgrounds. You can get it to work 
in two ways.

Javascript
http://doxdesk.com/software/js/fixed.html

conditional comments
http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/

HTH
Gary

-- 
Gary Bland
StarChaser Web Architecture
http://www.star-chaser.com
Building Tomorrow's World Today

The Nemesis Project
http://nemesis1.f2o.org
One Stop CSS

From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 17:04:44 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:04:44 -0400
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
Message-ID: <556DFCA4.3DC753BE.009CE500@netscape.net>

"Jason Estes" <ckestes@bewb.org> wrote:

>Does anyone know, I didn't see it in �the CSS spec, if or how you can change
>the list-item-marker's color?

Hi Jason - Did you try setting the color for the unordered list and/or the list items?
ul, li {color: #800080}

My quick test worked on IE6, Moz and Op7 WinXP

HTH,

~holly

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From dmead at optiem.com  Fri Apr 25 17:02:56 2003
From: dmead at optiem.com (David Mead)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:02:56 -0400
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
Message-ID: <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A1E928E@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>

I achieved the effect I think you're after by calling the marker as a
graphic in my CSS file:=20

   list-style-image: url(images/dot.gif);

Hope this helps.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Estes [mailto:ckestes@bewb.org]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:30 AM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color


Does anyone know, I didn't see it in  the CSS spec, if or how you can
change
the list-item-marker's color?

I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my
text,
but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.

Anyone?

Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org


______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
From asparber at projectseven.com  Fri Apr 25 17:09:03 2003
From: asparber at projectseven.com (Al Sparber)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:09:03 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
References: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A2C4ACF@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <004101c30b44$fdd740d0$6401a8c0@BIGAL>


Here're a couple more:
http://www.projectseven.com/mxvision/fixednav/fixedbar.htm (cool but
problematic on Mac)

http://www.flevooware.nl/dreamweaver/#PersistentLayers (scripted)

Al Sparber
http://www.projectseven.com - Extensions | DW FAQs | Tutorials
Co-Author: Dreamweaver MX: Building on Solid Foundations



From: "Saila, Craig"

Ken Martin wrote:
> Does PC IE support position:fixed? It appears not to. I'm wondering if

(Apologies if someone has answered this, my email is slow lately)

No support yet, although there are a couple of JavaScript fixes:
<http://doxdesk.com/software/js/fixed.html>
<http://www.mark.ac/help/sticky.html>



From Jason.Gennaro at jus.gov.on.ca  Fri Apr 25 17:09:52 2003
From: Jason.Gennaro at jus.gov.on.ca (Gennaro, Jason (JUS))
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:09:52 -0400
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
Message-ID: <419FB3B69D66D311AC120008C79138C0169906BD@JUS00AEX0315>


On Friday, April 25, 2003 11:30 AM, Jason Estes wrote:

<sniped>

I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my text,
but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.


Add the color to the ul and that should work, i.e.:

ul { color: blue }

Worked for me in Moz 1.3 and IE 5.5 on W.2K

Jason
	
From jgay at tla.com  Fri Apr 25 17:16:02 2003
From: jgay at tla.com (Jim Gay)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:16:02 -0400
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
In-Reply-To: <003b01c30b3f$97792510$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
Message-ID: <BACED782.692F%jgay@tla.com>

> Does anyone know, I didn't see it in  the CSS spec, if or how you can change
> the list-item-marker's color?
> 
> I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my text,
> but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.
> 

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#lists

you can't change the color of the marker alone (e.g. separately from its
corresponding line), but you can change its image using list-style-image

From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 17:16:25 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:16:25 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
Message-ID: <0CC778E0.33459481.009CE500@netscape.net>

Ken Martin <ken@kpmartin.com> wrote:

>Does PC IE support position:fixed?

"Saila, Craig" <Craig.Saila@bgminteractive.com> wrote: 

>No support yet, although there are a couple of JavaScript fixes:
><http://doxdesk.com/software/js/fixed.html>
><http://www.mark.ac/help/sticky.html>

Hi Ken - In addition to Craig's JavaScript suggestions there is a way to emulate position: fixed for IE. It's been called the Bednarz hack or the Ghost hack. See -
http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/

HTH,

~holly 

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From ckestes at bewb.org  Fri Apr 25 17:30:11 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:30:11 -0500
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
References: <BACED782.692F%jgay@tla.com>
Message-ID: <006e01c30b47$f1ed2520$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> you can't change the color of the marker alone (e.g. separately from its
> corresponding line), but you can change its image using list-style-image
> 

Technically I guess you could if you did something like this

<li style="color:red"><span style="color:#000;">sdaf </span></li>

then you end up with red bullets and black text.


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org 


From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 17:18:54 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:18:54 -0500
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
In-Reply-To: <003b01c30b3f$97792510$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
References: <003b01c30b3f$97792510$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
Message-ID: <116106318348.20030425111854@attbi.com>

Jason wrote on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 10:30:24 AM:

> Does anyone know, I didn't see it in the CSS spec, if or how you can
> change the list-item-marker's color?

> I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my
> text, but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.

If you're using generated content:

    li:before{color:#000}

Otherwise I'd need to check. It may be unspecified, or it may match
the list-item's color. I don't think there's a special way of doing
it, though.

-- 
John Lewis

From ian at hixie.ch  Fri Apr 25 17:35:15 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] line-height calculations
In-Reply-To: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>
References: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304250930390.2597-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Gavin Kistner wrote:

> Forgive me if this is a FAQ. Can someone explain to me which of the
> browsers is 'right' from the screenshots on this test page:
> http://phrogz.net/tmp/lineheighttest/index.html

The 'default' value is pretty loose, such that actually pretty much all
the renderings are correct.

However, having said that, the intention of the Mozilla guys is that
'default' use the font's specified default line height, which I don't
think works correctly on Mac (I know it doesn't work exactly right on
Windows).

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From cs03 at combonet.se  Fri Apr 25 17:35:51 2003
From: cs03 at combonet.se (Christina S)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:35:51 +0200
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
In-Reply-To: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A2C4ACF@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <BACF3018.53804%cs03@combonet.se>

On 03-04-25 17.31, "Saila, Craig" <Craig.Saila@bgminteractive.com> wrote:

> Ken Martin wrote:
>> Does PC IE support position:fixed? It appears not to. I'm wondering if

> No support yet, although there are a couple of JavaScript fixes:
> <http://doxdesk.com/software/js/fixed.html>
> <http://www.mark.ac/help/sticky.html>

Or with a nice little css-hack:
<http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/>
Works as a charm.

I think it is linked somewhere from the css-wiki? (or it should be)
 
/Christina

From akuehn at nc.rr.com  Fri Apr 25 17:41:51 2003
From: akuehn at nc.rr.com (Adam Kuehn)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:41:51 -0400
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
In-Reply-To: <Sea2-F41cfJiY9ZNMji0000cd1e@hotmail.com>
References: <Sea2-F41cfJiY9ZNMji0000cd1e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <p05210607bacf10e7b3c7@[152.3.174.98]>

>>Interesting!
>>Especially that Safari has so many users already (which, I agree, will
>>dramatically increase later on).
>
>My Safari stats are especially unreliable because I posted some 
>Safari-related material pretty soon after the beta was released. 
>Naturally geeky Safari users first take a look at sites discussing 
>their beloved browser.
>
>For the non-geeky sites I keep track of the score is between 2 and 
>10 % of all Mac users (and I find that 10% strangely high).

I work in academia with folks who are geeky, but not necessarily in a 
web browser sort of way, but who are mostly Mac users.  Among the Mac 
people, a very large majority use IE 5 - about 72%, at last count. 
These are about evenly divided between 5.2+ on OSX and all others. 
The next highest is NN4, at a scary 9%.  Safari has recently 
overtaken gecko-based, with some early adopters giving me a 7% 
reading, while all geckos (NN6, NN7, all Mozillas and derivatives) 
are another 6%.  IE4 has just 1%, and all others (including 
unidentified) account for the rest.  I have had exactly one Opera 
visitor.

All this is after subtracting my own hits in development and all the 
Windows people, including the hackers trying to get root.exe or 
cmd.exe to do something on my Mac server.  (Which always sort of 
makes me chuckle.)

-- 

-Adam Kuehn
From ckestes at bewb.org  Fri Apr 25 17:57:25 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:57:25 -0500
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
References: <419FB3B69D66D311AC120008C79138C0169906BD@JUS00AEX0315>
Message-ID: <008c01c30b4b$bfe56340$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of my text,
> but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.
>
>
> Add the color to the ul and that should work, i.e.:
>
> ul { color: blue }
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt

Thanks for all the response, I got it from Holly first so I'll credit her,
but really it was just my own stupid overlook.

And to respond to this last one, technically the only reason that works is
cause the [li] inherits the color, but you can control the li individually
by adding the color to the li


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org
.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Fri Apr 25 17:55:11 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:55:11 -0700
Subject: [css-d] List-marker color
Message-ID: <OF2A66C6B4.16E163EC-ON88256D13.005C9BE6@capgroup.com>


Jim Gay wrote:

> Jason Estes wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know, I didn't see it in  the CSS spec, if or how you
> > can change the list-item-marker's color?
> >
> > I'd like the color of the markers to be the same as the color of
> > my text, but I didn't see any reference to color in the CSS spec.
> >
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#lists
>
> you can't change the color of the marker alone (e.g. separately from its
> corresponding line), but you can change its image using list-style-image

Hate to say it, but it sounds like the easiest (albeit messier) way to do
it is to span/div content inside of the li tags to override the colors...

MikeL

From Curt2305 at aol.com  Fri Apr 25 18:24:28 2003
From: Curt2305 at aol.com (Curt2305@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:24:28 EDT
Subject: [css-d] [ccc-d] List readability problems
Message-ID: <ae.3e6bab30.2bdac94c@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/25/2003 1:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Dwayne.Conyers@veridian.com writes:


> 
> 
> I think enclosing code in tags should alleviate that 
> issue.
> 
> --
> Dwacon
> www.dwacon.com
> 

From kr43m0r at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 25 19:13:51 2003
From: kr43m0r at earthlink.net (Lonnie)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:13:51 -0500
Subject: [css-d] line-height calculations
References: <CD25D628-76DD-11D7-BF91-000A959CF5AC@refinery.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304250930390.2597-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <009e01c30b56$6caf59f0$6401a8c0@yoda>

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Gavin Kistner wrote:
>
> > Forgive me if this is a FAQ. Can someone explain to me which of the
> > browsers is 'right' from the screenshots on this test page:
> > http://phrogz.net/tmp/lineheighttest/index.html

As you've learned, the default line-height is determined by the UA with the W3
recommendation that it be between a factor of 1 to 1.2 of the font-size.

To override the default UA treatment, you can simply set your preferred
line-height in the ICB of the document and let the cascade naturally adjust. Be
aware though, that you should set line-heights as a factor rather than in a
specific unit. For example,

html, body {
font-size: 16px /*I'm not promoting fixed sizes, just making an example.*/
line-height: 18px;
}

will be problematic when your long unstylyed <h1> wraps - effectively doing a
font-size of about 2x the default (32px) but cascading the 18px line-height. The
wrapped lines are going to overlap. However, if you use a factor,

html, body {
font-size: 16px /*I'm not promoting fixed sizes, just making an example.*/
line-height: 1.2;
}

the line-height will cascade appropriately for in each descendent element.

So, if on your test page, you use

.col1 p {line-height:1;}
.col2 p {line-height:1.1;}
.col3 p {line-height:1.2;}

you'll find much better x-browser behavior.

Lonnie

From marc.richards at verizon.net  Fri Apr 25 19:53:44 2003
From: marc.richards at verizon.net (Marc Richards)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:53:44 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla isn't pulling css pages from the cache
In-Reply-To: <20030403112504.PVKS1042.mta018.verizon.net@acornparenting.org>
Message-ID: <000201c30b5b$ff8658f0$0100000a@diablo>

Hi,

I have been doing some testing recently that involved careful =
examination of
my http headers. I have noticed that Mozilla ALWAYS gets a fresh copy of
external CSS pages (both imported and linked) when navigating thru =
various
web pages (zeldman.com, centricle.com, my own internal site).  This =
seems to
go against one of the major benefits of CSS (less bandwidth).  I tested
using Internet Explorer 6 and it caches the pages just fine. Has any one
else noticed this?  I am using Mozilla 1.3 on windows XP with the =
default
cache settings.

Marc=20


From work at cookiecrook.com  Fri Apr 25 20:28:00 2003
From: work at cookiecrook.com (James Craig)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:28:00 -0500
Subject: [css-d] 
 Web Standards Meetup and Safari (Was: OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?)
In-Reply-To: <Sea2-F383XV3ZUCDPEK0000cce5@hotmail.com>
References: <Sea2-F383XV3ZUCDPEK0000cce5@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3EA98C40.3000802@cookiecrook.com>

Peter-Paul Koch wrote:
> 
> Any Mac-friendly website must be checked at the very least in IE5 and 
> Safari.

Speaking of which, the meetup.com website styles dreadfully in Safari, 
so it kind of throws an ironic wrench at the web standards meetup idea 
doesn't it? http://webstandards.meetup.com/

Also, not enough people in Austin voted for a venue so our meeting is 
cancelled this month. :( I wonder why they decided to cancel is so 
prematurely (a week before). Even so, if you are near Austin, Texas and 
still want to meet up, email me at djcookiecrook@hotmail.com and I'll 
arrange something. Feel free to forward this to other people that may be 
interested in an Austin meetup.

Cheers,
James Craig

-- 
http://www.cookiecrook.com/

From ckestes at bewb.org  Fri Apr 25 21:17:57 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:17:57 -0500
Subject: [css-d]  Web Standards Meetup and Safari (Was: OT: Stats for
	browsers on Mac?)
References: <Sea2-F383XV3ZUCDPEK0000cce5@hotmail.com>
	<3EA98C40.3000802@cookiecrook.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c30b67$c3454660$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> 
> Also, not enough people in Austin voted for a venue so our meeting is 
> cancelled this month. :( I wonder why they decided to cancel is so 
> prematurely (a week before). Even so, if you are near Austin, Texas and 
> still want to meet up, email me at djcookiecrook@hotmail.com and I'll 
> arrange something. Feel free to forward this to other people that may be 
> interested in an Austin meetup.
> 
> Cheers,
> James Craig


At least you have people in Austin signed up for the webstandards.meetup.  

I am the only person in Fort Worth signed up for it. :(

OH well!


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org 


From dmead at optiem.com  Fri Apr 25 21:31:57 2003
From: dmead at optiem.com (David Mead)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:31:57 -0400
Subject: [css-d]  Web Standards Meetup
Message-ID: <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A28FECC@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>

I came across this on Mr Craig's web site and decided to join the
Cleveland one only to see the next day it cancelled :-(

Maybe the web developers one will be better attended.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Estes [mailto:ckestes@bewb.org]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:18 PM
To: James Craig; 'CSS-discuss'
Subject: Re: [css-d] Web Standards Meetup and Safari (Was: OT: Stats
forbrowsers on Mac?)


>=20
> Also, not enough people in Austin voted for a venue so our meeting is=20
> cancelled this month. :( I wonder why they decided to cancel is so=20
> prematurely (a week before). Even so, if you are near Austin, Texas
and=20
> still want to meet up, email me at djcookiecrook@hotmail.com and I'll=20
> arrange something. Feel free to forward this to other people that may
be=20
> interested in an Austin meetup.
>=20
> Cheers,
> James Craig


At least you have people in Austin signed up for the
webstandards.meetup. =20

I am the only person in Fort Worth signed up for it. :(

OH well!


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org=20


______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
From daniel at ionize.net  Fri Apr 25 22:06:01 2003
From: daniel at ionize.net (danielEthan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:06:01 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Help w/ IE Mac disappearing ID
Message-ID: <B8088CA6-7761-11D7-9D27-000393BBEACE@ionize.net>

Hi,

I have been busy on a project that is almost done, but I find myself 
deeply in need of some expertise and help.

I'm trying to finish up a site now at: http://test.chc2003.com/CHC2003/

One issue remains, however:

In IE4, (and IE5) on the Mac (OS 9), I'm getting reports that the logo 
in the top left is not appearing. Unfortunately, I don't have access to 
an OS 9 box to test. (I tried installing it, but my monitor-- yes, my 
monitor-- prevented me from doing so). In my copy of IE5 Mac on OS X, 
it renders correctly.

Can someone w/ IE 4 or IE 5 running under OS 9 confirm that the logo is 
not appearing? Does anyone know why this would be happening?

The xhtml/css validates, but it *is* a tabled design.


The goods:

default style sheet (setting #logo to display: none):
http://test.chc2003.com/_library/styles/default.css
	- I *did* try removing the link to this stylesheet and the problem 
persists
global style sheet that sets styles for #logo
http://test.chc2003.com/_library/styles/global.css
	- This stylesheet is linked to using imports in the second stylesheet 
linked (import.css). I know that the IEs in question are getting the 
global stylesheet, however, because other styles from it are rendered 
correctly.

thanks,
-daniel

From daniel at ionize.net  Fri Apr 25 22:21:42 2003
From: daniel at ionize.net (danielEthan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:21:42 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Help w/ IE Mac disappearing ID
In-Reply-To: <B8088CA6-7761-11D7-9D27-000393BBEACE@ionize.net>
Message-ID: <E9393B98-7763-11D7-9D27-000393BBEACE@ionize.net>

Sorry, I left out the directory:

> The goods:
>
> http://test.chc2003.com/_library/styles/default.css

http://test.chc2003.com/CHC2003/_library/styles/default.css

> http://test.chc2003.com/_library/styles/global.css

http://test.chc2003.com/CHC2003/_library/styles/global.css

From valleyofmalls at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 25 22:31:36 2003
From: valleyofmalls at yahoo.com (David Norris)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] image float right issues in IE5.5 win
Message-ID: <20030425213136.54351.qmail@web21105.mail.yahoo.com>

I have sliced up an image and floated it right inside a table using the method here http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/raggedfloat/demo.html I'm using the style code as follows on my slices:img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 0 0;} (I have enough white space on the sliced images that I don't need to add any margin for the text wrap) Looks fine it seems everywhere except IE5.5 windows, not sure about mac. In IE 5.5 there's some space between the images and the right edge of the table so it won't meet up with the edge. But if I add some negative px or em to the right margin it looks fine in IE 5.5, the image goes flush to the edge. example: img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 -3px 0 0;} img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 -1em 0 0;}  Is there an IE 5.5 hack or something for this?  


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.From holnkids at netscape.net  Fri Apr 25 23:26:08 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:26:08 -0400
Subject: [css-d] image float right issues in IE5.5 win
Message-ID: <0DC0F06E.2A589CC0.009CE500@netscape.net>

David Norris <valleyofmalls@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have sliced up an image and floated it right inside a table using the method here http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/raggedfloat/demo.html I'm using the style code as follows on my slices:img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 0 0;} (I have enough white space on the sliced images that I don't need to add any margin for the text wrap) Looks fine it seems everywhere except IE5.5 windows, not sure about mac. In IE 5.5 there's some space between the images and the right edge of the table so it won't meet up with the edge. But if I add some negative px or em to the right margin it looks fine in IE 5.5, the image goes flush to the edge. example: img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 -3px 0 0;} img.slices {float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 -1em 0 0;} �Is there an IE 5.5 hack or something for this? 

Hi David - If you know it is only IE5.5 (and not IE6 also) that is doing this, you can use the Tan hack [1] to feed the negative right margin to IE5.5 which would look like this -

img.slices {
    float: right; 
    clear: right; 
    margin: 0; /* Margin settings for most browsers */ 
    }

* html img.slices { /*Only IE browsers see this (including Mac)*/
    margin-right: -3px; /* Set value for IE5.5 */
    ma\rgin-right: 0; /* Reset value for IE6 and IE5-Mac */
    }

Otherwise (if IE6 needs the negative margin as well), try setting the "incorrect" value in the regular selector and use the child selector to reset it for the other browsers -

img.slices {
    float: right; 
    clear: right; 
    margin: 0 -3px 0 0; 
    }

html>body img.slices {margin-right: 0; }

HTH,

~holly

[1] See: "A Modified SBMH" -
     http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From fortuneb at bellsouth.net  Fri Apr 25 23:38:11 2003
From: fortuneb at bellsouth.net (Brandy (mediadiva))
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:38:11 -0400
Subject: [css-d] site check
References: <002101c30a3e$21449a20$97a4d742@charterpipeline.net>
	<009e01c30a40$9dec4e40$73163d0a@sdig.fr>
Message-ID: <00a801c30b7b$5a454d40$6001a8c0@felwithe>

not diggin the techno on the home page. cool music, but annoying.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Adams" <icadams@pe.net>
>
> I am updating the code for my site to a standards compliant xhtml/css and
> cannot get the style to view in Netscape 7.  The syle views fine in IE and
> the site validates every way I can think of to test it.  The address is
> http://www.microtech.com
>
>

From fortuneb at bellsouth.net  Fri Apr 25 23:40:10 2003
From: fortuneb at bellsouth.net (Brandy (mediadiva))
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:40:10 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
References: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c30b7b$a108b050$6001a8c0@felwithe>

can you have more then one media="all" on a page?
From gleemax at attbi.com  Fri Apr 25 23:49:00 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:49:00 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <00f401c30b7b$a108b050$6001a8c0@felwithe>
References: 
 <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
 <00f401c30b7b$a108b050$6001a8c0@felwithe>
Message-ID: <151129728197.20030425174900@attbi.com>

Brandy wrote on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 5:40:10 PM:

> can you have more then one media="all" on a page?

Yes. It simply means that each style sheet will be applied in all
media (screen, handheld, projection, and so on). For example,

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/global.css" media="all">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="local.css" media="all">

-- 
John Lewis

From epersonae at mail.com  Sat Apr 26 00:03:30 2003
From: epersonae at mail.com (Elaine Nelson)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:03:30 -0500
Subject: [css-d] site check - esp. on Mac?
Message-ID: <20030425230331.9939.qmail@mail.com>

http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/test/pioneer/
(links don't work, this is only a mockup)

I've checked it on Moz 1.2.1, IE 6, Netscape 4.something and Opera 6 (all win2K), and am reasonably satisfied with the results. It's been validated all round, and passed. :)  

Minimal style is fed to old browsers, with additional stuff for the more modern crowd.  I decided to go for the XML prolog to force IE6 into non-strict mode so I could keep using body>#whatever selectors rather than some other hack...I don't know if this causes problems elsewhere....

A check from Mac users would be especially helpful!  Thanks for your time...

Elaine Nelson
work: http://www.pierce.ctc.edu
notWork: http://www.epersonae.com

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From daniel at ionize.net  Sat Apr 26 00:10:17 2003
From: daniel at ionize.net (danielEthan)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:10:17 -0500
Subject: [css-d] site check - esp. on Mac?
In-Reply-To: <20030425230331.9939.qmail@mail.com>
Message-ID: <1474BED5-7773-11D7-9D27-000393BBEACE@ionize.net>

On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 18:03 America/Chicago, Elaine Nelson wrote:

> http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/test/pioneer/
> (links don't work, this is only a mockup)


Looking Good Mac Side:

[OS X]

Moz
IE 5.2
Safari

From holnkids at netscape.net  Sat Apr 26 03:56:20 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 22:56:20 -0400
Subject: [css-d] 3Col_NN4_FMFM and IE 6 problem
Message-ID: <46F927D0.13623D7A.009CE500@netscape.net>

css-discuss@plumlee.org wrote:

>At 01:00 AM 4/25/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >>If I try to place an image in the right
> >>hand column with a declared width of 145px, it does not work in IE6. �IE
> >>refuses to display the content in that third column.

>http://wgi.org/2003/indexmac2.php 

Hi Scott - I played around some more with your example and found a few more interesting things.

It seems putting a top border on the div.column-three-content will kill the problem without using the float, as long as the image is wrapped inside something else. You could put it in another div, or a paragraph, either one seemed to work. 

What I did was give the div.column-three-content a {border-top: 1px solid #6666ff;} which is the same color as the background of the column. I then gave each of the other div.column-xxx-content a top border the same color as their backgrounds, and 1px high to balance things between the columns. This works great in the example you provided.

Unfortunately, what you will find if you put content in the middle div is that the image gets pushed below the bottom of the content level of the middle div, though it still does display. 

Another thing I tried which IE6 is okay with but Moz and Op aren't is to give the image a margin property that looks like img {margin: 0 -3px;} IE6 happily centers the image and displays it, too. Unfortunately, Moz and Op drag the thing to the left 3px. You can use a child selector to reset the margin value for the other browsers - html>body img {margin: 0;}

I'm afraid this is going to be a case of pick your hack. The float one isn't that bad, especially if the image is going to take up the entire width of that right side div and since you said it isn't causing problems for Moz and Op7.  

So after all this, my suggestion is to go with the float. It seems the easiest way to deal with the various problems that are encountered. Be aware that if you need to put content in the right div *before* the image, the image will disappear again, even with the float. This time it's hiding behind the background, so add [img] to the selector that has the {p\osition: relative;} property. If you don't want a background on the right div, you won't need the pos:rel.

In brief, my suggestion looks like this - 

.box-wrap, .columns-float, 
.column-one, .column-two, 
h2, .column-three, img {p\osition: relative;}

img { float: left;}

>I appreciate the advice.  I think I might have a "immovable object meets 
>the irresistible force" complex about this problem right now.

I'm not sure which one of those is you and which is IE6, but I do agree this is a frustrating problem, and one that is going to require the application of a(nother) hack to solve. 

Not sure I was much help this time, sorry,

~holly


__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From ehmer at pacific.net.au  Sat Apr 26 06:00:43 2003
From: ehmer at pacific.net.au (David & Angela Ehmer)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:00:43 +1000
Subject: [css-d] Horizontal dropdown menu relative positioning problem
Message-ID: <005301c30bb0$cca941e0$5bf88fcb@ehmer>

I have developed a horizontal menu system which works okay except that;

Extra space appears below the horizontal menu, both when the dropdowns
appear and when they don't.  Not sure where this is coming from or how to
eliminate it. Think it may be related to the cumulative space the 3 drop
downs take up.  Also the menus appear a bit touchy and disappear sometimes
when they shouldn't (probably Javascript problem!)

Note, I have used relative positioning as I want the page to be centred on a
screen with resolution of 1024x768.

Appreciate any suggestions.  See URL

http://www.netnoise.com.au/acpchn/index.php

David

From mark.r.stevens at attbi.com  Sat Apr 26 06:20:19 2003
From: mark.r.stevens at attbi.com (markinoregon)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 22:20:19 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Horizontal dropdown menu relative positioning problem
In-Reply-To: <005301c30bb0$cca941e0$5bf88fcb@ehmer>
Message-ID: <LFEDIOOHKCLEFGIHPKCAGEGICAAA.mark.r.stevens@attbi.com>


Yeah, the menu's are touchy here on XP/IE6 Broadband connection,
also i noticed your australian map, on the right side of the header,
is a few pixels off from the text.
-----Original Message-----
From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org]On Behalf Of David & Angela
Ehmer
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:01 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] Horizontal dropdown menu relative positioning problem


I have developed a horizontal menu system which works okay except that;

Extra space appears below the horizontal menu, both when the dropdowns
appear and when they don't.  Not sure where this is coming from or how to
eliminate it. Think it may be related to the cumulative space the 3 drop
downs take up.  Also the menus appear a bit touchy and disappear sometimes
when they shouldn't (probably Javascript problem!)

Note, I have used relative positioning as I want the page to be centred on a
screen with resolution of 1024x768.

Appreciate any suggestions.  See URL

http://www.netnoise.com.au/acpchn/index.php

David

______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Sat Apr 26 11:51:53 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:51:53 +0200
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4223C2348@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> I work in academia with folks who are geeky, but not necessarily in a
> web browser sort of way, but who are mostly Mac users.  Among the Mac
> people, a very large majority use IE 5 - about 72%, at last count.
> These are about evenly divided between 5.2+ on OSX and all others.
> The next highest is NN4, at a scary 9%.  Safari has recently
> overtaken gecko-based, with some early adopters giving me a 7%
> reading, while all geckos (NN6, NN7, all Mozillas and derivatives)
> are another 6%.  IE4 has just 1%, and all others (including
> unidentified) account for the rest.  I have had exactly one Opera =
visitor.

=20
Thanks Adam,
=20
I find this very interesting information!
And yes, 9% with NS4 is really scary!
=20
=20
/Robert
=20
From outlaw at joseywales.com  Sat Apr 26 12:48:09 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:48:09 +0100
Subject: [css-d] CSS-only line break (a tip)
In-Reply-To: <1051268977.6929@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <1051357689.16411@tweek.sebduggan.com>



>> I would also like to offer one further suggestion, using
>> whitespace:pre, which seems even simpler to me: simply stick in
>> the line breaks where you want them, as in this example:
> 
> Very nice Steve - this seems to be the most elegant solution so far - and it
> seems to work in every browser I've thrown it at!
> 
> I'll be changing my own code to this...

Final word on this...

I tested my page on a friend's Linux box, on Konqueror. Unfortunately,
Konqueror currently only supports white-space:pre for PRE and XMP elements.
However, even the earlier beta of Safari handles it correctly, so it should
find its way in to the KHTML source fairly soon.

(Also, it wasn't a disastrous mis-rendering - and Konqueror users are
probably a very small minority of my site's traffic).


Seb


From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Sat Apr 26 15:24:43 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:24:43 -0300
Subject: [css-d] Quick thank you
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426112216.00ba3028@cbiweb.com>

Just wanted to say thanks to those who gave me suggestions the other day on 
making lists with mixed styles. I haven't been able to try them out yet 
because I got distracted with another project. But I will let you know how 
it works out when I get back to it.

Thanks!

Joel

From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Sat Apr 26 17:21:10 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rick_Hurst?=)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:21:10 +0100
Subject: [css-d] border-left IE5 mac problem
Message-ID: <mailman.163.1051374077.541.css-d@lists.css-discuss.org>

for some reason this layout is missing the left border when displayed in IE5=
 mac=2E The odd thing is that the space has been left for the border, but no=
 colour is showing=2E Any ideas why, or how I might fix it=3F

http://www=2Ehypothecate=2Eco=2Euk/css=5Ftest/v8=2Ehtm



From steven at sjknet.com  Sat Apr 26 17:47:17 2003
From: steven at sjknet.com (Steven Kallstrom)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:47:17 -0500
Subject: [css-d] inline frame border...
Message-ID: <000e01c30c13$829c7730$6401a8c0@MAIN>

CSS Experts,

	I am working on a layout where I have a large graphic as
background, and menu.  I don't want to reload that since it is static
throughout, so I decided to just make it so that I would reload the
content area.

http://12.221.231.252/test/test.html

1)  I can do this with an iframe...  I can get rid of the border with
CSS in Mozilla, but to get rid of the iframe border through IE you need
to do this... <iframe frameborder="0">  is there a way to get this done
in the CSS so that I don't have it as an attribute?

2)  is there a way that I could do this using CSS and divs instead of
using an iframe...  I couldn't think of a way to load the content inside
the div without having all the different content pages in the same HTML
file...  I wish they had something like <div src="page"> sort of like
iframes, but you are simply change what is inbetween the divs...

what do you think?

Thanks a ton,

Steven J. Kallstrom


From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Sat Apr 26 18:50:21 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:50:21 -0300
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>

If this has been asked recently, I apologize for the repeat. Feel free to 
direct me to the thread if you like.

I've been doing some testing with ems and %'s. I like the versatility of 
both, but which is better in today's browser compatibility climate? I'm 
concerned mostly about consistent results while avoiding the tiny text 
syndrome that can occur on a Mac. (I don't have a Mac, so all my design is 
PC oriented.)

My main goal is to design with less-than-default-size text, but still give 
users the ability to change it if they want to.

TIA,

Joel

From fortuneb at bellsouth.net  Sat Apr 26 18:55:04 2003
From: fortuneb at bellsouth.net (Brandy (mediadiva))
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:55:04 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
References: 
	<523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
	<00f401c30b7b$a108b050$6001a8c0@felwithe>
	<151129728197.20030425174900@attbi.com>
Message-ID: <017101c30c1c$f7a1a790$6001a8c0@felwithe>

can you have more then one import?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Lewis" <gleemax@attbi.com>
To: <css-d@lists.css-discuss.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import


> Brandy wrote on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 5:40:10 PM:
> 
> > can you have more then one media="all" on a page?
> 
> Yes. It simply means that each style sheet will be applied in all
> media (screen, handheld, projection, and so on). For example,
> 
> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/global.css" media="all">
> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="local.css" media="all">
> 
> -- 
> John Lewis
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
From matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com  Sat Apr 26 19:52:00 2003
From: matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com (Matthew Davey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:52:00 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Mac and Linux site check please
Message-ID: <000401c30c24$eeea14e0$0100007f@localhost>

http://blogstreetjournal.com/index.php

Works fine in all win browsers I've been able to download, no Mac, and Linux
till I get a spare day, so if any one with either of these platforms could
check it for me, I'd be most grateful.

Matt

-- 

http://unitedheroes.net/blogs/matt/ - usually updated, occasionally funny,
sometimes even informative!

From matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com  Sat Apr 26 19:55:28 2003
From: matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com (Matthew Davey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:55:28 +0100
Subject: FW:RE:  [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
Message-ID: <000d01c30c25$6ac11d70$0100007f@localhost>

Not sent to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Davey [mailto:matt.davey@dsl.pipex.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 7:48 PM
To: 'Brandy (mediadiva)'
Subject: RE: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import


I don't think so . . .

}-----Original Message-----
}From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org 
}[mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of 
}Brandy (mediadiva)
}Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 6:55 PM
}To: John Lewis; css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
}Subject: Re: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
}
}
}can you have more then one import?
}
}
}----- Original Message ----- 
}From: "John Lewis" <gleemax@attbi.com>
}To: <css-d@lists.css-discuss.org>
}Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:49 PM
}Subject: Re: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
}
}
}> Brandy wrote on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 5:40:10 PM:
}> 
}> > can you have more then one media="all" on a page?
}> 
}> Yes. It simply means that each style sheet will be applied in all
}> media (screen, handheld, projection, and so on). For example,
}> 
}> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/global.css" 
}media="all">
}> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="local.css" media="all">
}> 
}> -- 
}> John Lewis
}> 
}> 
}______________________________________________________________________
}> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
}> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
}> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
}______________________________________________________________________
}css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
}http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
}Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
}


From matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com  Sat Apr 26 19:55:57 2003
From: matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com (Matthew Davey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:55:57 +0100
Subject: FW: [css-d] ems or percent?
Message-ID: <000f01c30c25$7bfe1c00$0100007f@localhost>

Damn outlook.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Davey [mailto:matt.davey@dsl.pipex.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 7:45 PM
To: 'Joel Young'
Subject: RE: [css-d] ems or percent?


Joel,

The way I've found to use these (and avoid the broken box model as much
as possible) it to decale the follwing in you style sheet:

body {
	font-size: 100%;
}

P (or your divs or whatever) {
	font-size: 0.8em;
	line-height: 1.166667em;
}

This give you the equivalent of 12px font sizing, and a 17.5px line
height.

The body { font-size: 100%; } should avoid it inheriting, as would
explicitly declaring all tags you use with { font-size:0.8em; } This
works in every windows browser that I've been able to find a download
for, though I don't own to a mac, so I don't know about those.

For sizing reference, 1em = 15px.

Matt

}-----Original Message-----
}From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org 
}[mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Joel Young
}Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 6:50 PM
}To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
}Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
}
}
}If this has been asked recently, I apologize for the repeat. 
}Feel free to 
}direct me to the thread if you like.
}
}I've been doing some testing with ems and %'s. I like the 
}versatility of 
}both, but which is better in today's browser compatibility 
}climate? I'm 
}concerned mostly about consistent results while avoiding the tiny text 
}syndrome that can occur on a Mac. (I don't have a Mac, so all 
}my design is 
}PC oriented.)
}
}My main goal is to design with less-than-default-size text, 
}but still give 
}users the ability to change it if they want to.
}
}TIA,
}
}Joel
}
}______________________________________________________________________
}css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
}http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
}Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
}


From gleemax at attbi.com  Sat Apr 26 19:54:58 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:54:58 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <017101c30c1c$f7a1a790$6001a8c0@felwithe>
References: 
 <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
 <00f401c30b7b$a108b050$6001a8c0@felwithe>
 <151129728197.20030425174900@attbi.com>
 <017101c30c1c$f7a1a790$6001a8c0@felwithe>
Message-ID: <148201738897.20030426135458@attbi.com>

Brandy wrote on Saturday, April 26, 2003 at 12:55:04 PM:

> can you have more then one import?

Yes, with the caveat that all @import rules must appear before all
other rules. For example, this is okay:

    @import "main.css";
    @import "print.css" print;
    h1{font-size:3em}

Also, keep in mind that an imported style sheet without a specified
media, like the first rule in the above example, has an implied media
of "all".

-- 
John Lewis

From matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com  Sat Apr 26 19:55:42 2003
From: matt.davey at dsl.pipex.com (Matthew Davey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:55:42 +0100
Subject: FW: [css-d] inline frame border...
Message-ID: <000e01c30c25$6fead4d0$0100007f@localhost>

And again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Davey [mailto:matt.davey@dsl.pipex.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 7:47 PM
To: 'Steven Kallstrom'
Subject: RE: [css-d] inline frame border...


Best of my knowledge, only framesets (urgh) or iframes will give you
this action. Don't know how to remove the IE iframe border with CSS
though.

}-----Original Message-----
}From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org 
}[mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of 
}Steven Kallstrom
}Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 5:47 PM
}To: 'CSS List'
}Subject: [css-d] inline frame border...
}
}
}CSS Experts,
}
}	I am working on a layout where I have a large graphic as
}background, and menu.  I don't want to reload that since it is static
}throughout, so I decided to just make it so that I would reload the
}content area.
}
}http://12.221.231.252/test/test.html
}
}1)  I can do this with an iframe...  I can get rid of the border with
}CSS in Mozilla, but to get rid of the iframe border through IE you need
}to do this... <iframe frameborder="0">  is there a way to get this done
}in the CSS so that I don't have it as an attribute?
}
}2)  is there a way that I could do this using CSS and divs instead of
}using an iframe...  I couldn't think of a way to load the 
}content inside
}the div without having all the different content pages in the same HTML
}file...  I wish they had something like <div src="page"> sort of like
}iframes, but you are simply change what is inbetween the divs...
}
}what do you think?
}
}Thanks a ton,
}
}Steven J. Kallstrom
}
}
}______________________________________________________________________
}css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
}http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
}Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
}


From bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com  Sat Apr 26 20:02:49 2003
From: bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com (Brett Merkey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:02:49 -0400
Subject: [css-d] inline frame border...
References: <000e01c30c13$829c7730$6401a8c0@MAIN>
Message-ID: <005701c30c26$6e5d1370$a0ca2341@lighthouse>

| 1)  I can do this with an iframe...  I can get rid of the border with
| CSS in Mozilla, but to get rid of the iframe border through IE you need
| to do this... <iframe frameborder="0">  is there a way to get this done
| in the CSS so that I don't have it as an attribute?

Not that I know of. This has been a complaint since IE3. In fact,
IFRAMEs in IE have other default attributes that override any
CSS property, sometimes with nasty consequences. 


| 2)  is there a way that I could do this using CSS and divs instead of
| using an iframe...  I couldn't think of a way to load the content inside
| the div without having all the different content pages in the same HTML
| file... 


No again. You may want to experiment using the OBJECT tag. For 
instance, this works in IE5/Win and Netscape 7:

<object data="another.htm" type="text/html" id="yourID"></object>

Note that the object tag must be given an explicit height and width,
either as attributes or thru the CSS. Note also that here again, IE
insists on a border.

Brett



From info at brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk  Sat Apr 26 20:21:56 2003
From: info at brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk (Brighton Freelance Web Design)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:21:56 +0100
Subject: [css-d] How to center an image using CSS
Message-ID: <58043926-781C-11D7-BF98-00039377C3E4@brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk>

Hi there,

I'm trying to center the image at the top of this page.

http://www.brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk/szoo/template.htm

using the following code.

.logo {
	width: 333px;
	margin-right: auto;
	margin-left: auto;
	margin-bottom: 55px;
	text-align: center;
}

It works on IE5.5 Mac but not on IE6 Win.

Any ideas how I can get it to center on the most common browsers?

Andy

From mrmazda at ij.net  Sat Apr 26 20:23:50 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:23:50 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <000f01c30c25$7bfe1c00$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <3EAADCC6.C4A@ij.net>

Matthew Davey wrote:
 
> The way I've found to use these (and avoid the broken box model as much
> as possible) it to decale the follwing in you style sheet:
 
> body {
>         font-size: 100%;
> }
 
> P (or your divs or whatever) {
>         font-size: 0.8em;
>         line-height: 1.166667em;
> }
 
> This give you the equivalent of 12px font sizing

.8em gives a little over a half size character box on a system that is
using the windoze common default of 12pt/16px@96DPI. (144 dot box vs 256
dot box; 56.25%).
 
> For sizing reference, 1em = 15px.

For what reference? 15px=1em if and only if the default size is 15px,
which is not the default case for any browser as a virgin installation
on any virgin PC OS. Netscape 4, IE6 & Mozilla/Netscape 6+ all default
to 16px/12pt. Windoze defaults to 96DPI. For IE6 you can see the few
instances where 15px would be the default in the charts at
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-IE6.html
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From knaepkens.luc at pandora.be  Sat Apr 26 20:28:28 2003
From: knaepkens.luc at pandora.be (Luc)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:28:28 +0200
Subject: FW: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <000f01c30c25$7bfe1c00$0100007f@localhost>
References: <000f01c30c25$7bfe1c00$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <12423476367.20030426212828@pandora.be>

Good evening Matthew,  
    

It was foretold that on 26-4-2003 @ 19:55:57 GMT+0100 (which was
20:55:57 where I live) Matthew Davey would mumble:

<snipped a bit>

MD> For sizing reference, 1em = 15px.
  
Matthew,  how  do  you  get  that value of 15px? In your example there
aren't  any  px set, only 100% (body) and ems.

I  thought  that  the  'em'  unit  equals  the  computed  value of the
'font-size'  property  of the element on which it is used, except when
it  occurs  in  the  value of the 'font-size' property itself. In that
case it refers to the font size of the parent element.

Or am i missing something fundamental here? (probably yes)
 
Best regards,
 Luc

--------------------------------------------
Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 3 and using the best browser: Opera.

"Men were made for war. Without it they wandered greyly about, getting
under the feet of the women, who were trying to organize the really
important things of life." - Alice Thomas Ellis
--------------------------------------------












From david at lenef.com  Sat Apr 26 20:44:00 2003
From: david at lenef.com (David Lenef)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:44:00 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Disappearing Div on Mac IE
Message-ID: <NFBBKJNGEDABMFKHCIFEAECKEAAA.david@lenef.com>

http://Lenef.com/elite/prodtest/
(Don't bother clicking the button - it doesn't work yet.)

Please refer to the above page on which I'm testing a product page layout.
On NetMechanic's Browser Photo, the right-hand content div does not appear
in Mac IE 5.0 screenshots, and most of it is way off the right edge of the
viewport on Mac IE 4.5.

It's supposed to be a 2-column layout with photos down the left side
(float:left) and text specs on the right (margin-left used to create the
right column effect and stay out of the way of the photos). Style sheet is
embedded in the page. Any ideas what I need to do to accommodate Mac users?

It will eventually be dropped into a container div on the final page.

(BTW, Mac users represent a miniscule portion of this site's audience, but
if one arrives at the page, they need to at least see the information.)

David Lenef
david@lenef.com
http://Lenef.com


From steve at mrclay.org  Sat Apr 26 20:48:17 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:48:17 -0400
Subject: [css-d] How to center an image using CSS
In-Reply-To: <58043926-781C-11D7-BF98-00039377C3E4@brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk>
References: 
 <58043926-781C-11D7-BF98-00039377C3E4@brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk>
Message-ID: <63-1549435046.20030426154817@mrclay.org>

Saturday, April 26, 2003, 3:21:56 PM, Brighton wrote:
BFWD> I'm trying to center the image at the top of this page.
BFWD> http://www.brighton-freelance-web-design.co.uk/szoo/template.htm

Drop the width and l/r margins on .logo.  It will expand to 100%
naturally and text-align will do its job.  You can also use IDs for
elements that only appear once in a document..

<div id="logo">
   <img src="images/logos/home_logo.jpg" width="333" height="96" />
</div>

#logo {
    margin-bottom: 55px;
    text-align: center;
}

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org/

From tbounds at gci.net  Sat Apr 26 20:50:53 2003
From: tbounds at gci.net (Tony Bounds)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:50:53 -0800
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
Message-ID: <3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>

Joel,
I've decided to use a combination of ems and %. First I set the font 
size as a percentage for the entire page as follows...

body {  font-size: 76%; }

Then, for different sections (divs) I set the font size to ems. Examples...

#middle { font-size: 1em; }
#left { font:-size: .9em }

I also set the font size by ems for other elements. Example...

h1 { font-size: 2em; }

This allows the fonts to resize in ems in relation to the first % 
declaration. Whether it works for you, or not I don't  know. You may 
want to try it and experiment changing % and em sizes and see if you can 
tweek it to your needs.
--
Tony

From ian at hixie.ch  Sat Apr 26 21:06:28 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
	<3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:
>
> I've decided to use a combination of ems and %. First I set the font
> size as a percentage for the entire page as follows...
>
> body {  font-size: 76%; }

Why?

I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From mrmazda at ij.net  Sat Apr 26 21:18:34 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:18:34 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EAAE99A.6684@ij.net>

Ian Hickson wrote:
 
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:

> > I've decided to use a combination of ems and %. First I set the font
> > size as a percentage for the entire page as follows...

> > body {  font-size: 76%; }
 
> Why?
 
> I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.

Shhhhh! You, of all people, should know better. For people like you and
me, this is how we want inconsiderate web designers to make their text
tiny. When they use 'body {font-size: 76%;}', it allows our user
stylesheet rule 'body {font-size: 100% !important;}' to put it back how
it belongs. ;-) When they use 100% in body and shrink everything
elsewhere, our simple blanket override rule can't work. Am I missing
something?
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From tbounds at gci.net  Sat Apr 26 21:26:05 2003
From: tbounds at gci.net (Tony Bounds)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:26:05 -0800
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
 <3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EAAEB5D.3050002@gci.net>

Ian,
Untimately almost anyone can set their font size as a user, even if the 
page is built to display at pixels. The designer sets the size they 
think is best. After that, its out of their hands and the viewer can do 
as they wish. I picked up the method I suggest from Owen Briggs...

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html

It made sense to me, so I went with it. He gives some good reasons as to 
why he uses % and ems.

As usual, the wiki for this list points to some excellent resources...

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize
--
Tony

Ian Hickson wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:
>  
>
>>I've decided to use a combination of ems and %. First I set the font
>>size as a percentage for the entire page as follows...
>>
>>body {  font-size: 76%; }
>>    
>>
>
>Why?
>
>I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
>page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.
>
>  
>

From ian at hixie.ch  Sat Apr 26 21:27:02 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAAE99A.6684@ij.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
	<3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EAAE99A.6684@ij.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261322140.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Felix Miata wrote:
> > >
> > > body {  font-size: 76%; }
> >
> > I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> > page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.
>
> Shhhhh! You, of all people, should know better.

Hehe.


> For people like you and me, this is how we want inconsiderate web
> designers to make their text tiny. When they use 'body {font-size:
> 76%;}', it allows our user stylesheet rule 'body {font-size: 100%
> !important;}' to put it back how it belongs. ;-) When they use 100% in
> body and shrink everything elsewhere, our simple blanket override rule
> can't work. Am I missing something?

I used to think this too, and indeed the logic makes sense. Then I tried
to use it.

It doesn't work.

The problem is that many people write pages that are sized in pixels, and
when you override their setting on body, you end up making entire pages
unreadable.

I guess it's better for authors to make their pages unreadable in one
place (the body rule above) rather than all over though, as you point out.
I just wish I understood why people are so obsessed with making their text
tiny.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From ian at hixie.ch  Sat Apr 26 21:32:19 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAAEB5D.3050002@gci.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
	<3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EAAEB5D.3050002@gci.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261328180.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:
>
> It made sense to me, so I went with it. He gives some good reasons as to
> why he uses % and ems.

Oh I wasn't disagreeing with using %s and ems -- indeed I have written my
own comments on the matter:

    http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1045789943&count=1

I'm just whining about people who decide they know the best font size to
use better than me. :-)

*crawls back into his ivory tower*

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Sat Apr 26 21:51:21 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:51:21 -0300
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAAE99A.6684@ij.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426172956.00bbff18@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>

Well, the replies to my message are certainly interesting. ;-)

I'm not entirely new to CSS, but I am new to sizing fonts with something 
other than pixels (yes I decided to give control back to the user). The use 
of ems vs % almost seems to be a personal preference, so I guess that 
doesn't really matter.

So if I use body {font-size: 100%}, then the rest of the page will be sized 
in relation to that (i.e. 80% of 100, 75% of 100), right? Or will there be 
some inheritance along the way under certain cirumstances?

And does this apply to ems as well? Or do ems act differently?


That's a lot of questions for just one answer, eh?  -- If there is only one 
answer :-)




At 05:18 PM 4/26/03, Felix Miata wrote:
>Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:
>
> > > I've decided to use a combination of ems and %. First I set the font
> > > size as a percentage for the entire page as follows...
>
> > > body {  font-size: 76%; }
>
> > Why?
>
> > I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> > page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.
>
>Shhhhh! You, of all people, should know better. For people like you and
>me, this is how we want inconsiderate web designers to make their text
>tiny. When they use 'body {font-size: 76%;}', it allows our user
>stylesheet rule 'body {font-size: 100% !important;}' to put it back how
>it belongs. ;-) When they use 100% in body and shrink everything
>elsewhere, our simple blanket override rule can't work. Am I missing
>something?
>--
>"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
>governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur
>
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
>Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
>http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
>Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

From mrmazda at ij.net  Sat Apr 26 21:57:22 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:57:22 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
	<3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261322140.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EAAF2B2.7C90@ij.net>

Ian Hickson wrote:
 
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Felix Miata wrote:

> > > > body {  font-size: 76%; }

> > > I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> > > page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.

> > Shhhhh! You, of all people, should know better.
 
> Hehe.
 
> > For people like you and me, this is how we want inconsiderate web
> > designers to make their text tiny. When they use 'body {font-size:
> > 76%;}', it allows our user stylesheet rule 'body {font-size: 100%
> > !important;}' to put it back how it belongs. ;-) When they use 100% in
> > body and shrink everything elsewhere, our simple blanket override rule
> > can't work. Am I missing something?
 
> I used to think this too, and indeed the logic makes sense. Then I tried
> to use it.
 
> It doesn't work.

Better than nothing.
 
> The problem is that many people write pages that are sized in pixels, and
> when you override their setting on body, you end up making entire pages
> unreadable.

Well, body 100% doesn't impact elements sized in px. :-( But, only for
the time it takes to use zoom, pending a fix someday maybe (users can
all hope, can't we?) for bug 4821, or even implementation of Jakob's
suggestion "Improving Future Browsers" at
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html.

> I guess it's better for authors to make their pages unreadable in one
> place (the body rule above) rather than all over though, as you point out.

Shhhhh!

> I just wish I understood why people are so obsessed with making their text
> tiny.

At URL below I've collected some reasons. Maybe you can add some I've
missed?
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html

From sarah at weed.org.nz  Sat Apr 26 22:02:01 2003
From: sarah at weed.org.nz (Sarah Wedde)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:02:01 +1200
Subject: [css-d] Disappearing Div on Mac IE
In-Reply-To: <NFBBKJNGEDABMFKHCIFEAECKEAAA.david@lenef.com>
Message-ID: <BAD14D09.8875%sarah@weed.org.nz>

David,

I think you  need to set an explicit width on the left-hand div (div.photo
{margin-bottom: 2em; width: 300px;}) in order to get Mac/IE5 to behave.

Sarah


On 4/27/03 7:44 AM, "David Lenef" <david@lenef.com> wrote:

> http://Lenef.com/elite/prodtest/

> On NetMechanic's Browser Photo, the right-hand content div does not appear
> in Mac IE 5.0 screenshots, and most of it is way off the right edge of the
> viewport on Mac IE 4.5.
 
> It's supposed to be a 2-column layout with photos down the left side
> (float:left) and text specs on the right (margin-left used to create the
> right column effect and stay out of the way of the photos). Style sheet is
> embedded in the page. Any ideas what I need to do to accommodate Mac users?
 
> David Lenef

From ian at hixie.ch  Sat Apr 26 22:11:58 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426172956.00bbff18@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030426172956.00bbff18@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261359140.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Joel Young wrote:
>
> And does this apply to ems as well? Or do ems act differently?

On the font-size property, 'em' and '%' mean exactly the same. (Well, 1em
is equivalent to 100%, so they mean the same thing given a factor of 100.)
Both of them refer to a value relative to the parent element's font-size.

On other properties, '%' refer to other measures, for example percentage
margins refer to the width of the containing block. On the other hand,
'em' units always refer to the element's font-size.

For example, given:

   h1 { font-size: 2em; }
   p { text-indent: 1em; }
   blockquote { font-size: 0.5em; }

...then:

  <body>              User's font size (1em)
   <h1> ... </h1>     Twice user's font size (2em of 1em)
   <p> ... </p>       User's font size (1em of 1em)
   <blockquote>
    <h1> ... </h1>    User's font size (2em of 0.5em of 1em)
    <p> ... </p>      Half user's font size (1em of 0.5em of 1em)
   </blockquote>
  </body>

HTH,
-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From kr43m0r at earthlink.net  Sat Apr 26 22:16:26 2003
From: kr43m0r at earthlink.net (Lonnie)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:16:26 -0500
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: 
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>

> > body {  font-size: 76%; }
>
> Why?
>
> I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.

Why? Because browsers typically set default font sizes larger than the OS. This
is often in conflict with the design.

What is expected? The size of menu items is a good gauge. X-browser, 76% is a
VERY good estimate. If you can read your menus, then you should be fairly
comfortable with reading text at that size.

If you, as a user, have set your general font size in YOUR browser to something
comfortable, it is certainly reasonable for a designer to mimic the size of your
menu text by adjusting the default browser font size with a % value.

Good for you if you've changed the default browser text size to fit your viewing
pleasure. By setting the default size to a percentage of the default, that
designer has opened the door for you to tweak it to suit your preference. Had he
specified pixels, you on IE would have little choice.

>From my point of view, if you find MOST of the sites you visit too difficult to
view, then you'd be advised to seek an alternative UA if your user preference
yields no improvement.

Can you read a typical book?

I'm going to stick with 70-80% of the default size in my designs. I did 100% at
one point and got an equal amount of suggestions from users to reduce or enlarge
the default size as I do now. Go figure?

Lonnie

From kr43m0r at earthlink.net  Sat Apr 26 22:26:02 2003
From: kr43m0r at earthlink.net (Lonnie)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:26:02 -0500
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: 
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EAAE99A.6684@ij.net>
Message-ID: <002101c30c3a$706aa6a0$6401a8c0@yoda>

Felix,

According to your calculations, I'm glad it is impossible for me to ever even
meet you half-way!

Lonnie

From chris at placenamehere.com  Sat Apr 26 22:31:46 2003
From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:31:46 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261328180.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>

on 4/26/03 4:32 PM, Ian Hickson at ian@hixie.ch wrote:

> I'm just whining about people who decide they know the best font size to
> use better than me. :-)
> 
> *crawls back into his ivory tower*

And while you're up there see if you can get the W3C to drop font settings
from CSS3 - or perhaps just drop fixed-size units all together - cause
that's the only way we'll never see this topic again. (and while you're at
it can we get some relative color units? Like "dark, darker, light, lighter"
or maybe that would screw with users who change their color settings to the
inverse of what authors expect... So maybe some way to reference an
"opposite" color would be needed... Hehe... Sorry)

As an author I find a base px size with relative units off of that (as a few
others have referred to in this thread) is sometimes the only sane way to do
things - especially when so many other items on a page are based on pixel
measurements. It just doesn't make sense not to give a default in pix to
maintain the balance of a layout for the vast majority of users who don't
touch their prefs. I also am generally pretty liberal with my choice of font
sizes - using what is some circles would consider "big".

Yes using all relative units (or just not touching anything) would be
preferred, but because there's such a wide gap between the many who don't
know about their prefs, the few who do and take care to adjust accordingly,
and the clients that are paying the bills its sometimes not practical.

As a surfer I sometimes wish my browser(s) of choice were smarter in these
areas and could do things like remember text zoom settings, or alternate
style sheet choices across a site and across multiple sessions, similar to
how remembers image blocking or cookies choices. I also am quick to set a
minimum font size of 9 or 10px when I install a browser which causes some of
its own problems (e.g. may hide some implied document structure, or cause
overflow issues) but alleviates many of the worst offenders.

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ chris@placenamehere.com ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

From svendtofte at svendtofte.com  Sat Apr 26 22:42:31 2003
From: svendtofte at svendtofte.com (Svend Tofte)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:42:31 +0200
Subject: SV: [css-d] ems or percent?
Message-ID: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEENOCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>

> What is expected? The size of menu items is a good gauge.
> X-browser, 76% is a
> VERY good estimate. If you can read your menus, then you should be fairly
> comfortable with reading text at that size.

Just wanted to point out, that menu text, and "reading" text, is not the
same, and is not read in the same way. I would be veary of comparing maybe
ten small words, at the top of a window, with a page full of text, it's
totally different sizes here. Microsoft Word has a default size of 12pt.

Just a comment :)

Svend

From ian at hixie.ch  Sat Apr 26 23:15:04 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Felix Miata wrote:
> > >
> > > When they use 100% in body and shrink everything elsewhere, our
> > > simple blanket override rule can't work. Am I missing something?
> >
> > I used to think this too, and indeed the logic makes sense. Then I tried
> > to use it. It doesn't work.
>
> Better than nothing.

Not really. All it does is change one set of unreadable pages for another.
As you point out, what is really needed is full page zoom.


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Lonnie wrote:
>
> What is expected? The size of menu items is a good gauge. X-browser, 76% is a
> VERY good estimate. If you can read your menus, then you should be fairly
> comfortable with reading text at that size.

Interesting.

So basically I should set my font size to 130% of what I would want to see?

Unfortunately this makes sites that do honour my settings way too big.


> I'm going to stick with 70-80% of the default size in my designs. I
> did 100% at one point and got an equal amount of suggestions from
> users to reduce or enlarge the default size as I do now. Go figure?

If you got the same number of complaints when doing the right thing as
when doing the wrong thing, I would suggest doing the right thing. :-)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Chris Casciano wrote:
> on 4/26/03 4:32 PM, Ian Hickson at ian@hixie.ch wrote:
>
> > I'm just whining about people who decide they know the best font size to
> > use better than me. :-)
> >
> > *crawls back into his ivory tower*
>
> And while you're up there see if you can get the W3C to drop font settings
> from CSS3 - or perhaps just drop fixed-size units all together - cause
> that's the only way we'll never see this topic again.

Dropping absolute units has been considered several times, but as a
whole the working group feels that they do have valid use cases.


> (and while you're at it can we get some relative color units? Like
> "dark, darker, light, lighter" or maybe that would screw with users
> who change their color settings to the inverse of what authors
> expect... So maybe some way to reference an "opposite" color would
> be needed... Hehe... Sorry)

This is also being considered, although I hear there are issues with
how to define it. I recommend checking the www-style archives.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From tbounds at gci.net  Sat Apr 26 23:40:48 2003
From: tbounds at gci.net (Tony Bounds)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:40:48 -0800
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>

Ian,
What do you think of the designer being so bold as to not honor other 
user settings? For instance...

Font Type: Setting preferred font types. As with setting font size, 
doing such requires the user to go out of their way to apply what they 
may prefer.

Content Width: For instance, sizing the content to a fixed width and in 
effect removing the users control of such via a window resize.

Link Colors and Styles: Diverging from the standard and imposing a 
designers preference. 
--
Tony

From mrmazda at ij.net  Sat Apr 26 23:42:09 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:42:09 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
	<001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
Message-ID: <3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>

Lonnie wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:

> > Tony Bounds wrote:

> > > body {  font-size: 76%; }

> > Why?

> > I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the
> > page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.
 
> Why? Because browsers typically set default font sizes larger than the OS. This
> is often in conflict with the design.
 
> What is expected? The size of menu items is a good gauge.

Actually it is a terrible gauge propagated by Owen Biggs, who has also
shared such other gems as "the browser defaults are huge"
<http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html> and
"most browsers default to a text size that I have to back up to the
kitchen to read"
<http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html>.
It is apparent that Owen's eyes are not your average UA user's eyes,
being akin to those of an eagle, able to see the tiniest things at huge
distances. It is wholly unfair to assume most UA users have similar
ability.

> X-browser, 76% is a
> VERY good estimate. If you can read your menus, then you should be fairly
> comfortable with reading text at that size.

It's an awful and not even comparable estimate. Bogus, bogus, bogus. Can
read and comfortable read are entirely different things. If the menu
text is 76% of a comfortably set default page text, it is merely
legible, not comfortable. Simply legible is good enough for familiar
things like system controls. They get used frequently, but only briefly
each time. With each use, they become more familiar, eventually reaching
the point where experienced users wish they were smaller still, in order
to provide more space to the viewport, or to allow the use of smaller
windows, so that more of other windows could be seen simultaneously. The
familiarity all but dispenses with any need to read at all, with mouse
events targeted to remembered screen locations rather than words read. A
short squint at small controls here & there is far more tolerable than
full time squint required to read page text as small as controls text.

> If you, as a user, have set your general font size in YOUR browser to something
> comfortable, it is certainly reasonable for a designer to mimic the size of your
> menu text by adjusting the default browser font size with a % value.

No it isn't, and you don't know what size my menu text is anyway. In
windoze for example, controls text size varies according to DPI, which
also you don't know. The eagle-eyed may very well find that the default,
designed for low resolution displays, works perfectly fine even after
doubling the screen resolution from the low common values of 640 or 800
wide. Others, like me, and many others no longer under 40, welcome the
ability to increase controls size, whether or not increasing resolution,
taking away the need to squint to use system controls.

FWIW, the IE6/Mozilla defaults of 16px/12pt are close enough for me to
call just right, when I'm using 1024 wide resolution, and a 19" monitor.
When I drop the resolution back to 800 wide, 13px becomes slightly
taller than 16px is on 1024 wide, while 12px becomes slightly shorter
<http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/pixelsize2.html>, & I change my
default from 16 to 13.

Now, compare to Ian Hixie's settings
<http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1045789943&count=1>. Twice 12.5px is 25px
(prefs options include 24 & 26, but not 25). Twice 800 wide is 1600
wide. The only significant difference in conversion is his display is
smaller, but then he's probably not even half my age (50+), still
blessed with decent if not good eyesight. From what I've seen of his
musings on the subject of font sizes, I hesitate to assume his near
vision is excellent.
 
> Can you read a typical book?

There is no such thing as a typical book. My bible is a large print
edition. Many paperbacks use smaller text than newspapers. Newspapers
are a strain, so I get most of my news off TV, or the internet, where I
have a UA that allows me to override the common arrogant page designer
assumption that UA designers are ignorant morons who make the PC default
12pt/16px without good reason.
 
> I'm going to stick with 70-80% of the default size in my designs

I'd like to visit some of these. As long as I've been reading your
advocations of designer knows best I can't recall one instance of a URL
pointing to any of your work.

> I did 100% at
> one point and got an equal amount of suggestions from users to reduce or enlarge
> the default size as I do now. Go figure?

You place more value upon the clueless than the clued. 

Do you design sites using IE6 using the system defaults, with no
adjustment to the defaults, such as adjusting the browser default to
your liking before starting a design? One of these days section 508 is
liable to catch up with you.

It's certainly a good thing for users of sites made by people like you
that UA zoom and !important in user stylesheets are available.
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From chris at placenamehere.com  Sat Apr 26 23:59:51 2003
From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:59:51 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>
Message-ID: <BAD087A7.53B97%chris@placenamehere.com>

on 4/26/03 6:42 PM, Felix Miata at mrmazda@ij.net wrote:

> 
> You place more value upon the clueless than the clued.

Yes.

And until browsers come with install wizards that walk through configuration
I don't see that changing much.

... If you know how to set up your browser of choice for desktop for optimal
viewing I will try my damnedest to not screw you over (e.g. 0.5-0.7ems
others referenced) But I have a lot more confidence that you know how to
deal with what I as an author throw your way, then I have for Joe Internet
User.

*takes this moment to consider the absence of a list mom*

I know you'll never be satisfied with that answer Felix so I'm not going to
bother continuing down this road. I urge others on both sides to do the
same.

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ chris@placenamehere.com ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

From ian at hixie.ch  Sun Apr 27 00:00:59 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
 <3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261548211.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Tony Bounds wrote:
>
> What do you think of the designer being so bold as to not honor other
> user settings? For instance...
>
> Font Type: Setting preferred font types. As with setting font size,
> doing such requires the user to go out of their way to apply what they
> may prefer.

Overriding font-family is easy at the user stylesheet level, so I'm fine
with authors choosing their own typeface.


> Content Width: For instance, sizing the content to a fixed width and in
> effect removing the users control of such via a window resize.

I say good luck to them. My user agent gives me the ability to override
window resizing, etc. :-)


> Link Colors and Styles: Diverging from the standard and imposing a
> designers preference.

Like with font-family, colours are easy to override, so I'm fine with that
too. In general, and this applies to font-family too, different colours
don't make a page more or less readable for me, like font sizes do.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From cdwise at wiserways.com  Sun Apr 27 00:04:28 2003
From: cdwise at wiserways.com (Cheryl D. Wise)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:04:28 -0500
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
Message-ID: <003f01c30c48$30858060$1901a8c0@local.wiserways.com>

You may think on your monitor that 76% of the default setting is a "good
estimate" but I can't read 76% of the default on my laptop period, with
or without reading glasses.

While I applaud using % instead of fixed px (or even worse pt) sizes I
get very tired of having to adjust fonts up to read them. Funny enough I
can only think of one site that I even considered adjusting a font down
to a smaller size and it was a site on accessibility that seemed to use
an extra large size font.

Personally I'd rather a design be 'broken' than a site's contents be
unusable.

Cheryl D. Wise
WiserWays, LLC
www.wiserways.com
Office: 713.353.0139
Mobile: 713.412.0406
cdwise@wiserways.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Lonnie

> > body {  font-size: 76%; }
>
> Why?
>
> I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting the 
> page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems strange.

Why? Because browsers typically set default font sizes larger than the
OS. This is often in conflict with the design.

From mrmazda at ij.net  Sun Apr 27 00:12:47 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:12:47 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
	<3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>
Message-ID: <3EAB126F.7A2D@ij.net>

Tony Bounds wrote:

> Link Colors and Styles: Diverging from the standard and imposing a
> designers preference.

Eventually, the power for users to override using css will become
commonly exercised. e.g., this I do now:

:link:hover[target="_blank"],:visited:hover[target="_blank"] {
  color: white !important; background: red !important;
}
:link:hover[target="_new"],:visited:hover[target="_new"] {
  color: white !important; background: red !important;
}

http://www.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From simon at jessey.net  Sun Apr 27 00:33:20 2003
From: simon at jessey.net (Simon Jessey)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:33:20 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: 
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net><001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
	<3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>
Message-ID: <002001c30c4c$38dc10e0$6501a8c0@Simon2S0JP11>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Felix Miata" <mrmazda@ij.net>
Subject: Re: [css-d] ems or percent?


> If the menu
> text is 76% of a comfortably set default page text, it is merely
> legible, not comfortable. Simply legible is good enough for familiar
> things like system controls.


I have to agree with that. I have a 21 inch monitor attached to a Windows XP
platform set to 1280 x 1024. I use this setting because I want plenty of
screen real estate, but the menus (in their default setting) are a little
too small for my liking.

I make web documents using relative units, with the only exceptions being
the odd bit of padding, border width or letter spacing. In the case of
fonts, I almost always set a size of 100% in the BODY and then have 0.8em as
my smallest child size. Users have the option of making it quite a bit
smaller or larger if they desire. I like to make a font as large as possible
without it being ugly or impractical.

This new trend for microfonts is peculiar. I can only assume that the
typical designer has a gigantic monitor, or perhaps projects their computer
image on a wall. One site that particularly annoys me is Kaliber10000 (
http://www.k10k.net/ ). Let me quote from one of my own weblog entries:-

'The design is absolutely incredible, but the small font size being used
means that glyphs are dwarfed by medium-sized subatomic particles.'

And resizing the text isn't always the answer, assuming it is even possible.
Making the text bigger on the Kaliber10000 site reveals the structure of the
typeface, causing it to appear blocky and '80s computer-like'.

No. I am a firm believer in using CSS relative units and leaving the
decision up to the user. It is our job as web designers to conceive layouts
that don't break when text is resized. The fixed width site is a dinosaur -
power to the user!

Simon Jessey

w: http://jessey.net/blog/
e: simon@jessey.net



From gleemax at attbi.com  Sun Apr 27 01:02:27 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:02:27 -0500
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
References: 
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261303350.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
 <001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
Message-ID: <61220190472.20030426190227@attbi.com>

Lonnie wrote on Saturday, April 26, 2003 at 4:16:26 PM:

>> I, as a user, have set my font size to be what I prefer. Setting
>> the page's font size to 76% of my preferred font size seems
>> strange.

> Why? Because browsers typically set default font sizes larger than
> the OS. This is often in conflict with the design.

That may be a good reason to send a nasty letter to browser makers. On
the other hand, most browsers let the user choose their own default,
so it's not at all clear what you'd ask them to do. I'd argue that any
size has a great chance of conflicting with most designs.

I can already choose a good default size. My problem isn't with the
browser, it's with authors who assume I'm ignorant and lazy. They try
to "help" me because, after all, they're designers, so surely they
know what I want better than I do.

> What is expected? The size of menu items is a good gauge. X-browser,
> 76% is a VERY good estimate. If you can read your menus, then you
> should be fairly comfortable with reading text at that size.

76% of my preferred font-size = smaller than my preferred menu size,
and much smaller than my preferred font-size. What you're saying is
true if and only if the user hasn't changed their menu text size, the
user hasn't changed their browser text size, OS text scaling is off,
and they're using a common platform like Windows and IE on a monitor
of "normal" size. That's an assumption you can't make with confidence.
Oh, and of course then they need to have near perfect vision as well.

Nor are the two related; I set the menu size in my OS and I set the
default text size in my browser. Even if you can change the menu size
directly in your browser, I doubt it also rescales your default text
size. Further, the two serve different purposes. I want my menus
taking up as little space as possible while still being highly legible
(where legible means "read easily"). I want web pages to be highly
readable (where readable means "read easily at length"). The two serve
radically different purposes. As such, my menus are set to a pretty
small sans-serif and my user style sheet uses a larger serif.

I don't mind if you override my font-family, even if you choose
something lame like Times New Roman. I may be annoyed, I may disagree
with you, but at least the text is almost as readable as before. But
when you cut the size by a quarter, text suddenly becomes much harder
to read no matter what my preferred typeface is, and odds are your
style sheet will be disabled after about two seconds (Ctrl+G by
default in Opera). If your page is designed well, maybe I'll try
zooming first instead. Maybe I'll simply leave and go read something
else. One thing is certain: There's no way I'll sit there and try
reading tiny text.

> If you, as a user, have set your general font size in YOUR browser
> to something comfortable, it is certainly reasonable for a designer
> to mimic the size of your menu text by adjusting the default browser
> font size with a % value.

That doesn't make any sense. The only way it would make sense is if
you know the size of one or both, and you only have access to the size
of one (and even then you don't know the specified or actual size). As
a web page designer, it's impossible to mimic the size of a menu
without making assumptions about user settings. The two just aren't
related unless by happy accident.

As mentioned above, nor does it mean the text will be readable, even
if you could mimic the menu text.

> Good for you if you've changed the default browser text size to fit
> your viewing pleasure. By setting the default size to a percentage
> of the default, that designer has opened the door for you to tweak
> it to suit your preference. Had he specified pixels, you on IE would
> have little choice.

I use Opera, and I'm not the only one. Even more people use Mozilla
and Safari. Where do people get the idea that everyone uses IE?

> Can you read a typical book?

Yes. That doesn't seem related to CSS.

-- 
John Lewis

From malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk  Sun Apr 27 01:20:46 2003
From: malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk (malaja)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:20:46 +0100
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: 
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net><001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda><3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>
	<002001c30c4c$38dc10e0$6501a8c0@Simon2S0JP11>
Message-ID: <007d01c30c52$d918f950$fd00a8c0@mike>

I feel somewhat humble at asking a small question in the midst of CSS gurus,
with wide polarity of view (no pun intended), indulging in an excellent and
important debate. With my business consulting hat on, a simple question...
especially given the cogent example of http://www.k10k.net/, someone's
excellently designed window to the world but so difficult on the eyes.

On the basis that it's impossible to please all users at all times, what, in
your opinion(s) and in ems or %, is the best body/menu/heading/text font
settings "standard" to suit most browsers, on most platforms, for most
users, most of the time?

Mike
Edinburgh, Scotland

From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Sun Apr 27 01:38:50 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:38:50 -0300
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <007d01c30c52$d918f950$fd00a8c0@mike>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com>
 <3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net>
 <001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
 <3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>
 <002001c30c4c$38dc10e0$6501a8c0@Simon2S0JP11>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426213121.00bcd8b0@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>

At 09:20 PM 4/26/03, Mike wrote:
><snip>
>On the basis that it's impossible to please all users at all times, what, in
>your opinion(s) and in ems or %, is the best body/menu/heading/text font
>settings "standard" to suit most browsers, on most platforms, for most
>users, most of the time?
>
>Mike
>Edinburgh, Scotland



Yes! This is what my original question was about, and I'm glad you brought 
it back around, Mike. Hopefully someone will have an answer for us. In the 
meantime, let's see if I understand a few things.  Someone please tell me 
if I'm even close to knowing what I'm talking about.... :-)

===============
Scenario 1:
Assume that I start my page off like this: body {font-size: 80%}

This means that all text on the page will be rendered only 80%
of the browser's default. Yes? No?
===============
Scenario 2:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 1em}

All text on the page will still be 80% of the browser's default,
because basically 1em = 100%, and I'm only setting it to 20%
less (which is 80%).  Right? Wrong?
===============
Scenario 3:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 0.9em}

Okay, NOW the text will actually be just under 80% of the
browser default, because it is 9/10ths of 80% of default.
===============
Scenario 4:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 100%}

Again, the text remains at only 80% of default, because I've
set it to be 100% of the body font size (not that I would do that,
it's just for example)
===============
One more... Scenario 5:
body {font-size: 100%}
.classname {font-size: 1em} or {font-size: 80%}

Here, the text will either be the full browser default, or 80% of it.
Right?
===============


If all the above are correct, then it's just as easy to set the body at
100% all the time, and simply use smaller percentages for different
sizes.
That, or do body {font-size: 100%}, and use various em sizes, and
everything should work out - keeping the sizes within a reasonable
range, of course.

Did I reach home base, or am I somewhere in left field?


Joel

From mrmazda at ij.net  Sun Apr 27 01:57:04 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:57:04 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030426144155.00b91780@cbiweb.com><3EAAE31D.4080502@gci.net><001901c30c39$18eefad0$6401a8c0@yoda>
	<3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net> <002001c30c4c$38dc10e0$6501a8c0@Simon2S0JP11>
Message-ID: <3EAB2AE0.7C85@ij.net>

Simon Jessey wrote:
 
> This new trend for microfonts is peculiar. I can only assume that the
> typical designer has a gigantic monitor, or perhaps projects their computer
> image on a wall. One site that particularly annoys me is Kaliber10000 (
> http://www.k10k.net/ ). Let me quote from one of my own weblog entries:-
 
> 'The design is absolutely incredible, but the small font size being used
> means that glyphs are dwarfed by medium-sized subatomic particles.'

Zoom to only 150% in Mozilla trunk, and right in the middle text spills
out of its containing image
http://www.k10k.net/images/frontpage/features_wspecials.gif. The site
also depends on image substitutes for text. e.g.
http://www.k10k.net/images/backs/front_issuematrix.gif 
And, if you think it's tough now, try it at 1600 wide or higher
resolution. Hard to figure if the purpose of that site is anything more
than to show off someone's css-d skills.
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Sun Apr 27 02:06:58 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:06:58 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <BAD087A7.53B97%chris@placenamehere.com>
Message-ID: <001601c30c59$4d8f5e90$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>

> Chris Casciano :
>
> on 4/26/03 6:42 PM, Felix Miata at mrmazda@ij.net wrote:
> >
> > You place more value upon the clueless than the clued.
 
> Yes.

Emphatically agree with Chris. While I hesitate to even chime in on
this, since it seems more than played out and there seems to be
unwillingness to budge on both sides of the issue, I would just like to
add, while this is obviously a *philosophical* difference, if left to my
own devices I would design for the clueless EVERY time, since they make
up the vast majority of users that spend the cash.

Example: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/  

.. While it's an older article, so much of it is still true to this day.
Spend some time watching **REAL** users... Not only do many of them not
know what the Stop and Refresh button do, but I have NEVER seen ONE of
our non-technical test users change their font size.  Ever. I've even
asked some to do so specifically and was greeted with the astounded
reply of "you mean I can do that??".

I can't remember if this specific tale of woe is referenced in the above
article, or one that it links to, but I have actually, personally seen
one user complain that he couldn't hit a link in question because he
"ran out of desk".  This was a bio-chemist whose brain must weigh at
least 5 times what mine does, and  who had been using computers for
quite a few years, who didn't realize he could actually pick the mouse
up off the desk and reposition it without effecting the cursor position.
Do you think HE knows how to change his font size?  He doesn't, however
he estimates that a full 60%-70% of his non-essential purchases are made
on-line!!!  THIS is the guy I gotta design for??!!?!  Yes.  And when
presented with larger than life, default windows IE text size, he
detests the excessive scrolling he has to go through, and uses the back
button instead.  I heard him before hitting his back once mutter, "do
these people think I'm blind?".

My dear old mother, who still to this day double-clicks links AND form
buttons on web sites despite all her kids and grandkids telling her not
to, can't set the font size on her browser, even though she's actually
been shown how to a few times, and even had the font-size button added
to her IE toolbar for her. She can use three things.. A web site's
presented navigation, her back button, and her "x" button in the upper
right hand corner.  BUT, she Googles with the best of 'em, and is a
HEAVY internet shopper, even finding full-adult size "footie" pajamas
for my wife and I (which ain't an easy task, but much appreciated in
Northern Maine!).  From what I can discern, what she likes to see on web
sites is 12 pixel Arial, and will probably never learn how to apply her
personal preference at the browser level.. But will shop ecommerce sites
'till the day she dies.  For her, the back button is just easier than
bothering with all the "stupid buttons" on the browser (her words, not
mine).

So, yeah, I'm totally with Chris.  I don't place more 'value' on the
clueless than the "clued"... But the "clued" can figure it out on their
own if they want to. The clueless, who spend the same money that the
"clued" people do, and make up a greater number of users, would prefer
the back button over actually learning how to use their tools.  Bottom
line is: my job ain't to convince them to use their tools, never mind
teach them HOW, my job is to sell them crap, or convince them of
something.  

It just depends on what you do for a living and who your target is.
Programmers and Designers are in no way reflective of the average
internet user, though many of them think they are.

The usual disclaimers apply... Just my $0.02, IMHO, YMMV, etc.. :)

--Josh


From stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au  Sun Apr 27 06:00:01 2003
From: stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:30:01 +0930
Subject: [css-d] Content width (was: ems or percent?)
In-Reply-To: <3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net>
Message-ID: <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>

Tony Bounds wrote:
> ...
> 
> Content Width: For instance, sizing the content to a fixed width and in 
> effect removing the users control of such via a window resize.
> 
> ...

I've already been thru a flame war on this on another list, but 
css-d attracts a more sensible crowd, so ...

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but, one of my pet hates 
is sites which spread their text across the whole width of the 
window. This particularly applies to "minimal" sites where no 
use is made of CSS at all, but I've seen it in lots of other 
sites too.

Now, lots of studies have been done on this, and the evidence is 
not entirely equivocal, but a concensus seems to be that lines 
of text should not exceed a certain length for optimum 
readability. Therefore, it is arguably best to limit the width 
of blocks of text to, say, 33em. (I've played with this, and 
30em seemed too narrow, 35em too wide -- to my eyes.) Certainly, 
this corresponds more or less to what you'll find in any 
bookstore. If print publishing represents 500 years of trial and 
error, then we can feel at least a little confident that the 
present-day format for books represents a pretty good standard 
for readability. (Also black text on a white background, 
although that may also be influenced by printing costs.)

So there is an argument for using something like

	div.text { max-width:33em; ... }

to limit the width of a text block, regardless of the size of 
the user's screen.

But many seem to find any kind of limitations placed on user 
preference abhorrent, so I'm prepared to hear negative feedback 
on this suggestion.

A compromise I've adopted at my ebooks site, 
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/
is to open each ebook in a new window which is sized 
appropriately*, and leave the user free to resize the new window 
if they wish. But I'm still tempted to use max-width.

[* Javascript only lets you specify window size in pixels, so 
this is only going to be approximate at best.]

Regards,
Steve

-- 
Stephen Thomas,
Senior Systems Analyst,
Adelaide University Library
ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 8303 5190  Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au
URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/

From gleemax at attbi.com  Sun Apr 27 11:22:54 2003
From: gleemax at attbi.com (John Lewis)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 05:22:54 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Content width (was: ems or percent?)
In-Reply-To: <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
 <3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net> <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <181257423383.20030427052254@attbi.com>

Steve wrote on Sunday, April 27, 2003 at 12:00:01 AM:

> But many seem to find any kind of limitations placed on user
> preference abhorrent, so I'm prepared to hear negative feedback on
> this suggestion.

On the contrary, I think they'd be inclined to agree with you. I know
I do! I'll now start rambling on about CSS; feel free to stop reading
here if you're busy.

Using min-width in conjunction with max-width is usually superior to
sizing something with a basic em width. The difference is basically
that between a range (e.g., 16em to 32em) and a single number (24em).
I think we can all agree that a range is almost always better.

We don't have anything like min-width and max-width for font-size. If
we did, keeping with the same spirit of min-width and max-width, it
would probably be way too complicated (for author use) anyway. You can
either take monitor, resolution, preferred text size, window height,
and window width into account, or you can let it be useless. Including
only some of the above basically cuts its usefulness so much that you
might as well use font-size, and including it all (or most of it)
makes it so complicated that it would never be implemented, or
probably even specified. Users have their own set of problems. Let's
say it's specified for users instead, with no auto sizing for authors.
You have two main options for min-font-size:

    1. Specify a minimum legible font-size
    2. Specify a minimum readable font-size

The problem is, on a well designed page (1em body text and smaller
navigation text) specifying a minimum readable font-size is quite
imperfect. Sure, text will be your minimum readable font-size--but
that means that stuff you would prefer small (i.e., legible instead of
readable, like menus and legal text) will be too big. On a badly
designed page (smaller body text and much smaller navigation text),
the opposite happens. If you specify the min-font-size to be the
minimum legible size, to erase the possibility of illegible text but
not erase the possibility that text will be unreadable, the navigation
text, which was previously illegible, is now legible. The body text
was already legible, so it didn't change in size! It's still just as
unreadable, because "readable" and "legible" are two entirely
different concepts. Which means your two options above really are:

    1. Screw up small text at well designed sites, but fix badly
       designed sites as well as you can
    2. Don't fix badly designed sites, but leave well designed sites
       alone.

The same applies to max-font-size to a lesser degree, but since
max-font-size isn't quite as important as min-font-size (max-font-size
is like min-width, and min-font-size is like max-width, for those of
you confused but familiar with those properties--although I think
min-width is relatively more useful than max-font-size, so it's not a
fair comparison).

Setting a sane column width doesn't have as great an effect on
readability as decreasing a font-size from an optimum size, which is
by definition unsafe. It's hard to think of a user style sheet that
would cause problems if a page sensibly overrode max-width and
min-width values, unless the need was vital (in which case the user
would have already overriden, rendering the problem moot--keep in mind
I'm only talking about advanced users, since we can assume no one else
would use min-width or max-width or even have a user style sheet at
all).

In the case of neophyte users, setting a sane column width doesn't
have as adverse an effect on readability as decreasing a font-size
from an unknown size, because no matter the em value the column width
will make sense (even if it's unreadable, or produces a horizontal
scrollbar, it will still make sense if you're the page author--which
is all you can know, since you don't control the user or his
computer), because you have knowledge of the entire author style
sheet, there is no user style sheet by definition, and even if you
sniff for a browser and assume a default font size it may have been
changed by accident or by a different user or by OS settings. On the
other hand, decreasing an unknown font-size can lead to illegible and
unreadable fonts (e.g., if you're decreasing a font-size already on
the threshold of legibility or readability).

In reality, setting a max-width is like setting a line-height. It's
related to the font-size, and it affects readability greatly, but
they're both based on the font-size in CSS. You can change the
line-height, margin, padding, width, and so on that are based on ems
with wild abandon. Even changing colors affects readability (so try to
avoid fuschia on magenta, if it's no big deal). You can use them all
responsibly or irresponsibly. The fundamental difference in font-size
(compared to ems in other properties, in this example) is that by
changing it you affect a great deal. When you change the font-size,
margins and padding in ems are also decreased, the actual line-height
is usually decreased, and the width or height of a box sized in ems
decreases. That's a much bigger deal than changing most CSS
properties.

Not all ems are created equal. A value of .5em applied to a width is
always .5em, no matter the actual font-size. Since you know .5em = 1/2
the current font-size, that's valuable even if you don't know the
actual font-size. Setting em on width doesn't change the value; it's
consistent. On the other hand, a value of .5em applied to font-size
changes the meaning of an em. From now on, .5em of that font-size =
1/4 of the 1em and 1/2 of the current .5em, unless you're changing
font-size again, in which case you modify the value for that element
and its descendants as well. You've now lost basically all of the
usefulness of em. You can still calculate values of em, and fractions
and so on (like I did above), but it won't help you design a page
well, since you don't know the actual value. Much of the reason 1em is
so valuable is that it's 1em, not ".9em to 1.3em". That's why assuming
1em is more valuable than assuming everyone's browser default is 16px
except that group, whose default is 14px, etc. The absolute values are
inherently less useful. In a perfect world, you'd know all the values
and style according. You'd also know the users favorite colors and pet
peeves.

You need to know the actual value of 1em to change the value
significantly with confidence, if you want to know you're improving
the user experience. I define significantly as above 6.25%, but it's
sort of arbitrary. Sort of. You could practically change it by 18.5%
or so without causing major harm in most cases, but you're sure to
have an impact that's felt, and there is the very real possibility of
unreadable text. So, 93.75%? Hardly a big deal. I might not even
notice, and even if I do I'm not likely to be hurt terribly. On the
other hand, I'll notice and probably curse 81.5% (depending on the
typeface, leading, column width, and my mood). If you were against
changing font-size for body text generally, because you realized there
are bad things about doing so, you could still change it to 93.75% (or
so) and very few people would have cause to complain. Changing
non-body text to about 81.5% is about as safe. You could get
complaints from veteran users, and it could cause something to be
illegible, but very few people will have cause to complain.

Of course, all that's sort of useless, because my 1em is not Alison's
1em, or Sarah's 1em, or Aaron's 1em. It may be, but it isn't, and more
importantly it can change, from day to day and even more frequently.
For example, my preferred font-size changed no less than four times
yesterday. I wasn't doing much of anything strange--I think it changes
at least twice a day.

Even if a user has a max-width set on body, overriding that value is
less harmful than changing a font-size on body. Indeed, if max-width
on body could cause a problem with your page, you'd do well to
override it preemptively. I think it would be more harmful to not
consider the effect of max-width than to consider the effect and act
accordingly. It would be hard to argue otherwise.

> A compromise I've adopted at my ebooks site,
> http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/ is to open each ebook in a new
> window which is sized appropriately*, and leave the user free to
> resize the new window if they wish. But I'm still tempted to use
> max-width.

I say go for it! We need more intelligent uses of CSS on the web,
especially of relatively rare properties. Anything to stop JS windows,
I say. Of course, Win IE didn't support max-width last I checked, and
it's funny how most of the web uses Win IE. Oh well.


I thought about some guidelines for text sizing in CSS. At first I was
going to list my own guidelines (in fact, I wrote up the email
yesterday, but I didn't send it), but I think it would be more useful
to list "guidelines for designers." I already know what I'm doing and
what I like. If someone is likely to agree with me, I think they could
just as easily come up with similar guidelines. I might as well list
some things people may actually find helpful.

 1. Size everything relative to body (or the root element)

    Sizing everything relative to body gives you just as much control,
    and it lets a user easily override the "main" setting on body and
    have your page text resize accordingly, both larger and even
    smaller. Use math if you want exact values. For instance, instead
    of 14px body text and 28px headings, use 14px body text and 2em
    headings.

 2. Use safe line-height values

    There's hardly ever a need to specify dangerous line-height
    values. If you want to maintain an exact value from a certain
    size, use a little math. For example, 14px/19px would become
    14px/1.357 (and so on, if you'd like). It's most important to
    avoid 1em/19px or similar, because 1em could be much larger than
    19px, in which case the text would be illegible.

 3. Take text resizing into account

    There's a reason pixel-width layouts suck. If there's no room to
    breath, increased text size values lead to tiny columns of text.
    In an ideal world, you'd use min-width and max-width to size
    columns. The reality is there's no good solution today other than
    avoiding bad situations. That doesn't mean you should neglect
    min-width and max-width, it just means you shouldn't rely on them
    working. Keep it in your "complex" style sheet if that's how you
    do things.

 4. Try to avoid massive font-size changes relative to 1em

    In many ways, some random px value (as above, preferably on the
    body element) is better than a small % of my preferred font-size.
    A small % is surely going to cause headaches, but a random px
    value has a decent chance of working, and a much better chance of
    causing less harm if it doesn't work. On the other hand, about 80%
    of the body size on a menu stands a great chance of being helpful
    and a tiny chance of being harmful. So do that! It's pretty safe,
    and the payoff is big.

 5. Try to consider user style sheets

    I never realized how powerful user style sheets were until I
    started using them. Similarly, it helps a great deal if you've
    experimented with CSS before you tackle potential problems. For
    example, if have a rule like this in a user style sheet

        p{color:white;background:black}

    (ever mind how unlikely that is for the moment) and you have an
    author style sheet with this

        p{background:white}

    we have a problem. Try to set common values in pairs and whatnot.
    If something would look truly hideous with a border, and you could
    imagine someone putting a border on that element in a user style
    sheet, play it safe and override the border. Colors and
    backgrounds are meant to be together; on't forget about
    transparent backgrounds, since you'll probably need or want them
    at some point. Another thing, since so few CSS sites seem to do it
    (for whatever reason), please set a line-height if you assume the
    default value, even if you just use "normal." I don't think it's
    going to harm anyone, and it will benefit those of us trying to
    read a narrow column with a huge line-height (or, theoretically, a
    wide column with a tiny line-height, but that isn't exactly
    likely).

-- 
John Lewis

From moose at literarymoose.info  Sun Apr 27 12:41:52 2003
From: moose at literarymoose.info (The Moose)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 06:41:52 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Moovigation - a screenshot request
Message-ID: <oproadf2zb98ddih@mail.literarymoose.info>

Hello,

I have played a bit with the display of the unordered lists when they are 
used for navigation of a logical sequence of pages, and would like to ask 
for screenshots from the following browsers: *Safari*, *Camino*, 
*Konqueror*.

There are two pages (I'd like to get screenshots for both from each 
browser):

http://www.literarymoose.info/=/destroy/moovigation.html

http://www.literarymoose.info/=/destroy/moovigation-variant.html

The first features generated content (with entities only) hidden via 
html[xmlns] method, the second does not. Mozilla displays &#xxxx; instead 
of the character on the second page (I don't know why). Opera7.1 behaves in 
both cases.

The size of screenshots does not matter, I'll be watching my inbox.

thank you in advance,

Wojtek

p.s. styles embedded.
From outlaw at joseywales.com  Sun Apr 27 12:53:21 2003
From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:53:21 +0100
Subject: [css-d] OmniWeb (Mac) CSS hiding
Message-ID: <1051444403.6201@tweek.sebduggan.com>


Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and below
for OS X?

I've successfully divided my CSS into basic version, which gets read by all
browsers, and more advanced CSS, which gets read by browsers that understand
@import. This works perfectly in every browser I've thrown it at - including
the betas of OmniWeb 4.5, based on Apple's WebCore.

Unfortunately, OmniWeb 4.2 understands @import, but hasn't a clue about what
to do with the CSS afterwards.

Is there a CSS-based way of hiding styles from OmniWeb? Or would I be better
off detecting the user-agent on the server - and then add any other problem
browsers to my detection list?


Seb


From phiw at l-c-n.com  Sun Apr 27 14:09:17 2003
From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:09:17 +0900
Subject: [css-d] border-left IE5 mac problem
In-Reply-To: <1160748345-3816664@pointinspace.com>
Message-ID: <73BC372E-78B1-11D7-8BC9-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>


On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 01:21  AM, Rick Hurst wrote:

> for some reason this layout is missing the left border when displayed 
> in IE5 mac. The odd thing is that the space has been left for the 
> border, but no colour is showing. Any ideas why, or how I might fix > it?
>
> http://www.hypothecate.co.uk/css_test/v8.htm

Your <div id="myclear"> is empty, except for an absolute positioned 
image (which is taken out of the document flow any way). I deleted the 
'width' on your #myclear, and added a non-breaking space in the div, 
and then your layout worked out exactly as in Mozilla 1.4.

Philippe

== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

From phiw at l-c-n.com  Sun Apr 27 14:09:30 2003
From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:09:30 +0900
Subject: [css-d] OmniWeb (Mac) CSS hiding
In-Reply-To: <1051444403.6201@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <7B1D8EC7-78B1-11D7-8BC9-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>


On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 08:53  PM, Seb Duggan wrote:

> Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and 
> below
> for OS X?

I use <link rel="stylesheet"............media="Screen" />
(note the capital S)
<http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowsercsssupport.html>,
scroll down to the bottom.

Philippe

== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

From WebHead at wi.rr.com  Sun Apr 27 14:47:55 2003
From: WebHead at wi.rr.com (Arlen Walker)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 08:47:55 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Mac and Linux site check please
In-Reply-To: <000401c30c24$eeea14e0$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <D971F63A-78B6-11D7-A71B-0003934B1B7A@wi.rr.com>


On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 01:52  PM, Matthew Davey wrote:

> Works fine in all win browsers I've been able to download, no Mac, and 
> Linux
> till I get a spare day, so if any one with either of these platforms 
> could
> check it for me, I'd be most grateful.

Not bad. Suffers from the "phantom right margin" bug in IE5/Mac, because 
your "linksright" div is right-poistioned within 16px of the right edge 
of the viewport. When this happens, IE5/Mac adds another 16px to the 
width, forcing horizontal scrollbars when none are needed. Fix is not 
positioning it within 16 px of the edge and optionally giving a negative 
right margin to move the text over.

Also center column is a tad lower than the two outside ones.

Both of these are minor cosmetics, the second one could even be 
considered an intentional design choice (the "asymmetry adds visual 
interest" bit). Positioned as it is below the subtitle for your site, it 
actually works better than uniform starting positions, I think.

Then again, I always liked comic books with non-square panels, as well.

Have fun,
Arlen

-----
In God We Trust, all others must supply data

From css at nextw3.net  Sun Apr 27 17:42:17 2003
From: css at nextw3.net (Marcello Armand-Pilon)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:42:17 +0200
Subject: [css-d] IE Win positioning problem
Message-ID: <3E8423B100919A0B@smtp12.cp.tin.it> (added by
	postmaster@virgilio.it)

Hi all,

I am working on a site that displays correctly in a variety of browsers under Mac and Win, except IE6 Win. Sorry if I cannot provide a URL, 'cause I'm still working locally, but here's the main DIV that's causing the poblem:

#mainframe {
	position: absolute;
	text-align: center;
	width: 800px;
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px;
	padding: 0;
	text-align: left;
	}

With all the browsers I have tested so far, the left margin is anchored 20px far from the browser left side, but IE6 Win add a huge 400px margin (more or less) on the left side. If I change the position from absolute to relative, things run better, but the content is then liquid, while I want it to stay 20px from the browser left side, and don't move.

I'm sure this matter has been discussed already, but any help would be gratly appreciated.

Thanks, Marcello
From chris at placenamehere.com  Sun Apr 27 17:55:27 2003
From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:55:27 -0400
Subject: [css-d] OmniWeb (Mac) CSS hiding
In-Reply-To: <1051444403.6201@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <BAD183BF.53C5C%chris@placenamehere.com>

on 4/27/03 7:53 AM, Seb Duggan at outlaw@joseywales.com wrote:

> Unfortunately, OmniWeb 4.2 understands @import, but hasn't a clue about what
> to do with the CSS afterwards.
>

There's a point at which a user needs to be reminded they're using a flawed
product by seeing things break. Most site builders don't have the luxury of
putting NN4, IE, Safari or Moz in that category due to the politics of the
marketplace. I consider OmniWeb 4.2- as the exception for a few reasons:

* OmniWeb users as a whole seem to be the types that are more impressed by
UI features and control then they are with presentation of content. While
OmniGroup doesn't promote the fact that their rendering engine is behind
they don't cover the fact up at all. They maintain a more active part in the
general user community then any browser vendor I know and they are very in
tune with the interface features that users are looking for. The only
compelling reason (to date) to use OmniWeb is was for its interface options.
As a result, using the terminology of another recent thread, I would as a
rule consider OmniWeb users to be "clued" and able to roll with the punches.

* The OmniGroup folks are good people who know their product is flawed in
terms of CSS. For some time now they have had plans to rewrite their engine
so haven't totally overhauled their current NN4-like engine, but even with
that in mind they have always (IMExperience) been quick to fix errors that
caused the loss of access to a site. So in many ways having a broken page
has made the browser better in the short term.


So given that OW is a currently active development project (unlike NN4), and
its users are as a (my) rule the informed type (which is unheard of in all
other situations) and keep on top of software updates, I generally take the
stance that a site for a general audience should do very little to
accommodate OW users.

Please don't try and convince me that I'm wrong here, the above wasn't
intended to convince anyone of anything. Just thought it be appropriate to
state my (formed after 2 yrs of watching this very open community-like
project, cause I'm a software geek that way) position on the matter.

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ chris@placenamehere.com ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

From derek at derekrogerson.com  Sun Apr 27 20:06:46 2003
From: derek at derekrogerson.com (Derek R)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:06:46 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <3EAB0B41.2FD9@ij.net>
Message-ID: <001101c30cf0$27e7e8a0$96a95bd1@satellite>

	  
Somebody said:
>| I did 100% at one point and got an equal
>| amount of suggestions from users to reduce 
>| or enlarge the default size as I do now. Go figure?


It is my experience that designers tend to make their font-size as small
as possible simply because the content which the font-size contains is
largely, if not entirely, communicative.

This is to say, most blogs/websites/news-stories etc have no
information/knowledge to offer so ostentatious exhibition is instead
brought in to disguise --or make up for-- the absence of
content/substance, which is plainly absent when one reads the words
(i.e. it is communicative).

It is very much like Western/European culture in general, or say
Hollywood promotions, where what is promoted (the movie/tv-show, for
instance) is, upon real experience/inspection [i.e. sitting through the
entirety of the production] not-at-all-worth-the-time-spent, but
everybody-else-is-doing-it, so the tendency (fear) is not to appear
oppositional.

Small-font designers treat their text like greek-text, which is to say,
if they were to expand it and make it much larger-in-size it would
become *painfully* obvious just what is being said (nothing worthwhile).

To provide the /appearance/ of intelligence, relevance, and/or pleasure,
the designer uses small font-sizes to mask the content itself, thereby
saving-face through obscuring what the designer knows to be valueless.

This is the same as people who wear message t-shirts or highly-visible
branded clothing, who, by diverting attention to the message on the
material one is wearing, obscures the wearer (the person) thereby
saving-face and avoiding the pain of being responsible for who-they-are
(don't look in my eyes).  

This is not to say most everything online or in Western/European culture
has nothing genuine to say or lacks value, indeed, this is exactly what
I'm saying, but, rather, that *revelation* of this absence of
sense/content is, its own medicine, so to speak, so that the sight of it
makes one account for it.

In summary, a larger font-size (say 100% ~ the whole tamale) is more
prominent than the usual smaller font-sizes one encounters, which is to
say larger is bigger, which no doubt will cause attention to come
forward (to the content).

The real question is what are you saying (substance) and why are you
trying to hide it? (I understand ostentatious exhibition is largely the
substance of Western/European design).


This email is a characterization of a generalization (seething).


__________________________________________
"Chant down Babylon"
	 
	 

From tl at abhalfdan.dk  Sun Apr 27 20:57:11 2003
From: tl at abhalfdan.dk (Torben Linde)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:57:11 +0200
Subject: [css-d] IE missing borders on inline list menu
Message-ID: <20030427195711.28518@smtp.gnbolignet.dk>

Hello

I have made a tab-like menu for this page: www.bryggenet.dk using
unordered lists with inline li's. The page is valid xhtml 1.0 and css
(except the forum area).

The menus are located in div class="menua" and div class="menub". menua
is the tabs and menub is a submenu on the page of each tab.

The css-file is here: www.bryggenet.dk/layout/bryggenet.css

This works well in Mozilla and Safari, but the tab-like look is dependant
on changes in border color on the li's. 
IE/win will not show the top and bottom border on these elements and that
ruins the tab-effect somewhat.

Is there any way to make IE show the borders correctly?

I have tried to do the menus with left-floated divs instead but so far it
has not worked too well.



Torben Linde

From css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com  Sun Apr 27 21:42:10 2003
From: css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com (Alex Robinson)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:42:10 +0100
Subject: [css-d] 3Col_NN4_FMFM and IE 6 problem
Message-ID: <l03130300bad1d4c8a3aa@[192.168.1.36]>

>Hi Scott - I snagged Alex's layout and played for awhile with this, and I
>could get a number of variations on visible and invisible images, depending
>on where I put the image, or what it was or was not inside, as well as the
>size of the image

Just a quick note since I'm unfortunately tied up with mountains of work
and attempting to resuscitate my iBook which is dying the death of a
seemingly infinite number of colourful (and colourless) screens.

As Holly points out, it's not too hard to make css layouts fall over. The
page can't take in to account all possible bugs and flaws and it's not
meant to just be used as is - it's not a substitute for the dull and
thankless task of checking accross platforms and browsers.

That said, I'll try and pursue Holly's line of enquiries as to under what
precise circumstances things can vanish in IE6.

All I can suggest (untested since I have no IE6 at themoment) did is
setting the image's position to relative. Nested divs in this layout
require that and maybe images that fit the exact width need it too.
Alternatively you could increase the width of the right hand column and set
its margin

Anyhow when I've got a copy of IE6 again I'll investigate and also see if
the pure float model (FFFF rather than FMFM) suffers from the same problems.



From css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com  Sun Apr 27 22:32:11 2003
From: css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com (Alex Robinson)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:32:11 +0100
Subject: [css-d] OmniWeb (Mac) CSS hiding
In-Reply-To: <7B1D8EC7-78B1-11D7-8BC9-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>
References: <1051444403.6201@tweek.sebduggan.com>
Message-ID: <l03130301bad1f7eee1c5@[192.168.0.36]>

>> Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and
>> below
>> for OS X?

There is another way to hide CSS from OmniWeb which doesn't rely on an
external files like the Codebitch method does

<http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/test/OmniWebInlineHack.mhtml>

I'd guess that OmniWeb 4.5 with it's all new rendering engine will now do
the right thing (can't check that myself so any reports on that gratefully
received)


From peter.williams at hendersons.com.au  Sun Apr 27 22:36:58 2003
From: peter.williams at hendersons.com.au (Peter Williams)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:36:58 +1000
Subject: [css-d] Content width (was: ems or percent?)
In-Reply-To: <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <NBBBKHLHIPAOABOPCOCBEEGJAKAB.peter.williams@hendersons.com.au>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Thomas
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but, one of my pet hates 
> is sites which spread their text across the whole width of the 
> window. 
> 
> So there is an argument for using something like
> 
> 	div.text { max-width:33em; ... }
> 
> to limit the width of a text block, regardless of the size of 
> the user's screen.
> 

I've worked on line lengths of 43 chars in the past as being
comfortable for reading. Just last week I used the max-width
directive to prevent text running off to the right in an
unconstrained manner. It only works in some browsers though.
I've really started to try to use w3c standards and ignore
browser quirks and issues where possible for my intranet work.
Unless a page is rendered unusable in either Moz or IE5 and higher
I'll go with a clean, standard HTML 4 Strict or XHTML markup
and some CSS these days. Our public web site is a different
kettle of fish though, I'll make sure that works well in as many
browsers as possible, although I won't use non-validating markup.

<flame class="low crackle">
New windows of a size chosen by the page author are abhorent :-)
</flame>

--
Peter Williams

From css-d at elliz.com  Sun Apr 27 23:01:24 2003
From: css-d at elliz.com (Sam Ellis (css-d))
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:01:24 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
Message-ID: <000001c30d08$8ea98680$0501a8c0@golfbreaks.com>

Hi guys,
 
I have done pretty much all I can with my client's new site in 
css. (I know I have used tables in a couple of places, but that
was for avoiding IE problems with small screen widths ...
and time constraints)
 
I have tested in Win NS 4+, IE3+, Opera, 
Mac IE 5?
 
Please could someone give the site a quick once-over in other
MAC / UNIX browsers that I have no access to.
 
Thanks ...
 
... The address - nearly forgot to post it:
 
http://www.golfbreaks.com/
 
--
Sam Ellis - 
From RHulse at radionz.co.nz  Sun Apr 27 23:36:54 2003
From: RHulse at radionz.co.nz (Richard Hulse)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:36:54 +1200
Subject: [css-d] Unfixing fixed menus
Message-ID: <sead0460.099@rnz03.wgtn.radionz.co.nz>

I have posted this on WD-L for discussion.

I'm posting it here as it is of interest, even is slightly OT due the =
javascript content.

regards,
Richard
=AF---------------------------------
I have taken Eric Bednarz' example of fixed areas in IE at=20

http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/

and applied it to this sub-site at RNZ:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/digitallife/

It worked quite well but for one main issue - when the width of the screen =
is too narrow the scoll bar dissappears. I'm not sure if this can be fixed =
by tweaking the CSS files.

Anyway, as is always the case with fixed menus, if the window is not high =
enough you lose the bottom of the menu.

I have come up with a little JS that fixes both the problem. It works in =
Moz and IE 5/6. on PC (not sure about Mac).

In moz if the browser is too short then it unfixes the menu.
In IE it unfixes the menu, and re-fixes it if the browser is returned to a =
suitable size.

The JS relys on the IE style sheet having a title (which IE ignores).

Any suggestions and improvements appreciated.


From afternoon at uk2.net  Mon Apr 28 00:43:12 2003
From: afternoon at uk2.net (Ben Godfrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:43:12 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Problem layouts
Message-ID: <022269AB-790A-11D7-98B0-00039317C0C4@uk2.net>


Hello,

I've been using CSS for a while now and I'm beginning to feel that it 
doesn't quite offer me the design toolbox I need. During almost every 
project I work on there is a period of hacking with CSS to get the 
desired results. While most of this is due to browser bugs, I think 
that in some situations CSS lacks design nous.

I think that one of the reasons that CSS layout is being adopted very 
slowly (1 major site to date) is because it doesn't make it easy to 
rebuild your pages in the new syntax. Of course it's mainly because of 
bad browsers and the continuing use of legacy browsers that's to blame.

I'm trying to put together a list of problem layouts that people often 
want to build but can't do so simply. The worst one is positioning a 
block element at the centre of the browser window. I know there are 
lots of ways to achieve or almost achieve the required effect, using 
100% tables, margin:auto; or other options, but these are non-trivial 
solutions and use syntax in ways it wasn't designed for.

If you have come across situations where CSS doesn't offer the 
expressiveness you feel it should, please let me know either on- or 
off-list.

I apologise if you are also a member of www-style and have received 
this request twice.

Thanks,

Ben


(q)	Ben Godfrey?
(a)	Web Developer and Designer
	See http://aftnn.org/ for details

From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Mon Apr 28 03:02:51 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:02:51 -0300
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>

Hi everyone,

I searched the list archives for an answer but couldn't find one, so it's 
either well hidden or non-existent.

I can't get Mozilla and IE6 PC to compromise on setting a global font size. 
Here's what I did to test (and btw, Opera 7 acts the same as IE6 in all 
cases)...

On a page with no other styling, I did this:

      body {font-size: .7em}

In Mozilla, all my text is exactly the size I expected and wanted it to be. 
In IE6, there's no effect. The font size stays at the default 1em (100% / 
16px).

So to compensate, and hopefully make IE6 behave, I did this:

      body {font-size: .7em}
      td {font-size: .7em}

This puts IE6 the way I want it, but transforms Mozilla into miniscule text 
that Superman couldn't read.


So I tried this, thinking it would take care of both, since all I'm doing 
is styling the td's for the page, and td's are the same in all browsers - 
aren't they?....

      (no body styling this time)
      td {font-size: .7em}

That looks great in IE6, and only brings Mozilla up to legible with a 
strong pair of glasses.


All I want is to set a global font size, and make other sizing changes 
where necessary. So what's the secret?

From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 03:14:58 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:14:58 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Problem layouts
In-Reply-To: <022269AB-790A-11D7-98B0-00039317C0C4@uk2.net>
Message-ID: <000001c30d2b$fb536fd0$42d5fea9@Estes>


> 
> I'm trying to put together a list of problem layouts that 
> people often 
> want to build but can't do so simply. The worst one is positioning a 
> block element at the centre of the browser window. I know there are 
> lots of ways to achieve or almost achieve the required effect, using 
> 100% tables, margin:auto; or other options, but these are non-trivial 
> solutions and use syntax in ways it wasn't designed for.
> 

While I'm sure that you are about to get flamed by people, and rightly
so, I just want to address one part of your position.

You stated in you thread above that margin:auto, was a non-trivial
solution that uses syntax in ways it wasn't designed for.

The CSS1 Spec specifically says :

"Otherwise, if both 'margin-left' and 'margin-right' are 'auto', they
will be set to equal values. This will center the element inside its
parent. "

Which means that it is exactly what it is intended to do, and with /2/
lines of code which could be simplified to /one/ line of code.  You set
margin-left and margin-right to auto and it centers and that's how that
is accomplished.  If you are using other methods, then you are the one
doing it wrong not CSS.  That's "non-trivial"?...seems pretty simple
enough to me.

On another note, I find that my development efforts have been twice as
easy as in traditional table layouts, and that most 'hacks' can be
avoided in many if not all circumstances by using a wee bit more code in
your code.  You can review my "To hack or not to Hack" at
http://www.bewb.org/archiveposts.asp?id=11, to read why.

I feel (as the Lead Creative Artists and Lead Interface Developer for
the company I work for) that I have much more freedom in design than
when I was faced with supporting legacy browsers.  I have intentionally
stepped up my designs because I know that with the power of CSS and
XHTML, I can produce more vivid content in a more beatiful manner, all
while providing consistent renderings and with less code than ever
thought possible.

On one last note (and I said I was only addressing one point), there are
quite a few "major" sites adopting CSS layouts.  

To name a few:
http://www.cingular.com 
http://www.search.yahoo.com 
http://www.pga.com 
http://www.wired.com 
http://www.espn.com


Well anyway, I haven't found that there has been anything that I wanted
to create and couldn't because of the limitations of CSS and XHTML.  And
with the additional support of CSS2 and then CSS3, we'll have even more
to work with, and I for one can't wait!

Good luck to ya'

Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org
 



From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 03:17:39 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:17:39 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>
Message-ID: <000101c30d2c$5b0e6ce0$42d5fea9@Estes>


This is from the wiki http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingEms

A word of caution concerning IE. Be careful using ems. The most recent
versions of IE for Windows tend to flummox text with a font-size less
than 1em ("0.5em", for instance). Percentages tend to work more
predictably, and (for who knows what reason) are usually more accurate
(possibly rounding errors?) than their em equivalents. Please note that
this applies only to the font-size and line-height properties. All other
properties for which ems are suitable (margins, padding, width and
height, among others) are not so for percentages, since the latter are
calculated according to the dimensions of parent elements. - ShawnAllen

...and the other problem with EMs in IE is the resizing of them. If for
instance you set the root element (either <body> or <html>) to
font-size:1em, then just setting View > Text Size to "smaller" can cause
the text to become unreadable.


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org 
> [mailto:css-d-bounces@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Joel Young
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 8:03 PM
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I searched the list archives for an answer but couldn't find 
> one, so it's 
> either well hidden or non-existent.
> 
> I can't get Mozilla and IE6 PC to compromise on setting a 
> global font size. 
> Here's what I did to test (and btw, Opera 7 acts the same as 
> IE6 in all 
> cases)...
> 
> On a page with no other styling, I did this:
> 
>       body {font-size: .7em}
> 
> In Mozilla, all my text is exactly the size I expected and 
> wanted it to be. 
> In IE6, there's no effect. The font size stays at the default 
> 1em (100% / 
> 16px).
> 
> So to compensate, and hopefully make IE6 behave, I did this:
> 
>       body {font-size: .7em}
>       td {font-size: .7em}
> 
> This puts IE6 the way I want it, but transforms Mozilla into 
> miniscule text 
> that Superman couldn't read.
> 
> 
> So I tried this, thinking it would take care of both, since 
> all I'm doing 
> is styling the td's for the page, and td's are the same in 
> all browsers - 
> aren't they?....
> 
>       (no body styling this time)
>       td {font-size: .7em}
> 
> That looks great in IE6, and only brings Mozilla up to legible with a 
> strong pair of glasses.
> 
> 
> All I want is to set a global font size, and make other 
> sizing changes 
> where necessary. So what's the secret?
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 
> http://www.css-> discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported 
> by evolt.org -- 
> http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 



From stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au  Mon Apr 28 03:25:42 2003
From: stephen.thomas at adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:55:42 +0930
Subject: [css-d] Content width
In-Reply-To: <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>
References: <BAD07302.53B81%chris@placenamehere.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304261437210.26529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
	<3EAB0AF0.8040002@gci.net> <3EAB63D1.4050407@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <3EAC9126.6030101@adelaide.edu.au>

Steve Thomas wrote:

> ...
>
> So there is an argument for using something like
>
>     div.text { max-width:33em; ... }
>
> to limit the width of a text block, regardless of the size of the 
> user's screen. 

Experimentally, I've created a new ebook with a slight variation to my 
standard style sheet, to see how this looks and works in practice. You 
can see the result at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h27ro/

The style sheet now reads (in part):

BODY {
        margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 2em;
        color: #000000; background: #ffffff;
}
html>body { max-width:33em; margin:1em auto; }

The last line is the new bit, and this appears to work perfectly in 
Mozilla 1.3/Win. (Also prints beautifully.) It also displays OK on 
IE6/Win, although the max-width doesn't work. Maybe "html>body" isn't 
implemented on IE6? (Can't find that browser compatibility chart right 
now -- too many bookmarks!)

This approach also means that it will display OK on NN4, which ignores 
the last line (I guess).

I'd appreciate some feedback from those with Macs and/or different browsers.


Regards,
Steve

-- 

Stephen Thomas, 
Senior Systems Analyst, 
University of Adelaide Library
UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 8303 5190  Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au 
URL: http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/


From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 03:26:22 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:26:22 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>
Message-ID: <000201c30d2d$92a14dc0$42d5fea9@Estes>

 
> I can't get Mozilla and IE6 PC to compromise on setting a
> global font size. 
> Here's what I did to test (and btw, Opera 7 acts the same as 
> IE6 in all 
> cases)...
> 

I tested this and it seemed to work in both IE 6 and Moz 1.3 and Opera
7.1 on WinXP


<style type="text/css">
body,td {font-size:0.7em;}
</style>


Basically I just set both properties in the same statement and then it
doesn't inherit it in size it more in Moz, and stays constant in IE and
Opera

Looks good in all of them.


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org




From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Mon Apr 28 04:04:07 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:04:07 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Content width
In-Reply-To: <3EAC9126.6030101@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <003101c30d32$d59a2200$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>

>  Steve Thomas :
> <snip> Maybe "html>body" isn't 
> implemented on IE6? 

Nope, IE ignores the html>body selector entirely... For sure on Win, and
if I remember correctly (which is always a gamble at this hour) also on
Mac.  Reference the common Box Model Hack
http://www.tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.html.

--Josh


From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Mon Apr 28 04:10:16 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:10:16 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <000001c30d08$8ea98680$0501a8c0@golfbreaks.com>
Message-ID: <003201c30d33$b188c690$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>



> Sam  Ellis (css-d) :
> I have tested in Win NS 4+, IE3+, Opera, 
> Mac IE 5?
>  
> Please could someone give the site a quick once-over in other
> MAC / UNIX browsers that I have no access to.
>  
> Thanks ...
>  
> ... The address - nearly forgot to post it:
>  
http://www.golfbreaks.com/

Can't help with the Mac/Unix issues, sorry.  Hit your site with IE6 (Win
XP) and thought it was a very sharp lookin' design!  Good work.  But hit
it with Opera 7, and your left nav area disappears and the link text on
the page becomes completely unreadable.  I can upload screenshots if you
need, lemme know.

--Josh


From afternoon at uk2.net  Mon Apr 28 04:16:35 2003
From: afternoon at uk2.net (Ben Godfrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 04:16:35 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <003201c30d33$b188c690$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <D17FA29E-7927-11D7-98B0-00039317C0C4@uk2.net>


Looks good in Safari Beta 2 and Camino 0.7 on the Mac.

In IE 5 on OS X it looks good except the title area of the Featured 
Venues portlet has gone awry, it is the height of the picture and fully 
contains the image. I can provide a screenshot if you send me your 
address (I joined the list after you posted your request).

Ben


On Monday, Apr 28, 2003, at 04:10 Europe/London, Josh Ambrutis wrote:

>
>
>> Sam  Ellis (css-d) :
>> I have tested in Win NS 4+, IE3+, Opera,
>> Mac IE 5?
>>
>> Please could someone give the site a quick once-over in other
>> MAC / UNIX browsers that I have no access to.
>>
>> Thanks ...
>>
>> ... The address - nearly forgot to post it:
>>
> http://www.golfbreaks.com/
>
> Can't help with the Mac/Unix issues, sorry.  Hit your site with IE6 
> (Win
> XP) and thought it was a very sharp lookin' design!  Good work.  But 
> hit
> it with Opera 7, and your left nav area disappears and the link text on
> the page becomes completely unreadable.  I can upload screenshots if 
> you
> need, lemme know.
>
> --Josh
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
>

(q)	Ben Godfrey?
(a)	Web Developer and Designer
	See http://aftnn.org/ for details

From phiw at l-c-n.com  Mon Apr 28 04:29:33 2003
From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:29:33 +0900
Subject: [css-d] Content width
In-Reply-To: <003101c30d32$d59a2200$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <A0FFF166-7929-11D7-887C-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>


On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 12:04  PM, Josh Ambrutis wrote:

> Nope, IE ignores the html>body selector entirely... For sure on Win, 
> and
> if I remember correctly (which is always a gamble at this hour) also on
> Mac.  Reference the common Box Model Hack
> http://www.tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.html.

IE Mac does support html>body no problems. IE win does not understand 
the > child selector.

Philippe
== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Mon Apr 28 04:31:16 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:31:16 -0300
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
In-Reply-To: <000201c30d2d$92a14dc0$42d5fea9@Estes>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428000924.00bc40c8@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>

At 11:26 PM 4/27/03, Jason Estes wrote:

>I tested this and it seemed to work in both IE 6 and Moz 1.3 and Opera
>7.1 on WinXP
>
>
><style type="text/css">
>body,td {font-size:0.7em;}
></style>
>
>
>Basically I just set both properties in the same statement and then it
>doesn't inherit it in size it more in Moz, and stays constant in IE and
>Opera
>
>Looks good in all of them.



For some reason that's not working for me, and I'm using WinXP with the 
same browser versions you listed.  I have the IE browser set to 'Smaller', 
and Moz at '100%', which I believe are their defaults. Or not? But still, 
resizing Moz doesn't help at all. Even at 120% the text is tiny. I have no 
clue.

The other thing is, and I should've mentioned this before, my tests were 
only with no other styling in <body>, but for the actual page I'll be 
doing, <body> will contain more than that, and I don't want the <td>'s to 
have all those attributes. Sorry for not saying that before.

It's late where I am, so I'll pick this up tomorrow and see what's what.

Thanks!

Joel



From mrmazda at ij.net  Mon Apr 28 04:44:12 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:44:12 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030428000924.00bc40c8@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <3EACA38C.2134@ij.net>

Joel Young wrote:
 
> For some reason that's not working for me, and I'm using WinXP with the
> same browser versions you listed.  I have the IE browser set to 'Smaller',
> and Moz at '100%', which I believe are their defaults. Or not? But still,

Moz defaults to 16px regardless of other settings. Moz font sizes are
not impacted by system DPI setting except for the menu/chrome text, and
page text sized in points.

IE defaults to medium. What medium (or other sizes) means to IE depends
on the system DPI setting, which defaults to 96. Medium at 96 DPI is
16px. You can find other combinations at
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-IE6.html

> resizing Moz doesn't help at all. Even at 120% the text is tiny. I have no
> clue.

Are you using an ancient Mozilla version?
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From webapprentice at onemain.com  Mon Apr 28 05:01:59 2003
From: webapprentice at onemain.com (Webapprentice)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:01:59 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Making an area stretch to maximum area with CSS
Message-ID: <3EACA7B7.3070805@onemain.com>

Hello,

I have a question about the use of width property.

Look at this site in IE5.5+, Mozilla 1.0+, NS6.2+, etc.

http://www.cocoebiz.com/newsite/index.html

The middle white area, where there is a link to "See the style sheet," 
is not stretched all the way.  I'd like to stretch the white area so it 
almost reaches the right white area but not colliding with it.

I've tried "width: auto" and "width: 100%," but this doesn't work.

I'm trying to mimic the final look with as much CSS as possible:
http://www.cocoebiz.com/newsite/final.jpg

You can click the link "See the style sheet" to view the stylesheet.
Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Stephen

From nkaisare1 at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 28 05:20:40 2003
From: nkaisare1 at hotmail.com (Niket Kaisare)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 04:20:40 +0000
Subject: [css-d] Navigation links - list? (and Site Check)
Message-ID: <Law14-F682aZcdjaS3600023087@hotmail.com>

Hi,

I have four images (150*70px) as main navigation links and a list as a 
sub-navigation. Currently, I have the links as
<div>
<a href=""><img></a>
<ul><!-- List of sublinks --></ul>
<a href=""><img></a><br>
<a href=""><img></a><br>
<a href=""><img></a>
</div>

I read on accessibility issues that there should be something other than a 
<br> space or carriage return separating various links for accessibility. 
Hence I tried changing the main links also to a list. But the problem is 
that in NS4.7, it gets displayed like:
  ---------
  | IMAGE |
* ---------
(where * represents list marker)

This is no good because the display becomes confusing. It will be much 
better if display would be:
* ---------
  | IMAGE |
  ---------

Second thing is that the page does a FOUC 
(http://www.bluerobot.com/web/css/fouc.asp) I tried the method mentioned in 
this article, but that didn't help... I still get FOUC in Opera.

URL for the specific page:
http://atlanta.vibha.org/volunteer/
CSS for this page:
http://atlanta.vibha.org/image/real.css

Also, this is my first project using CSS. So any suggestions for improving 
will be appreciated.

TIA
Niket

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

From css-discuss at exclupen.com  Mon Apr 28 05:21:23 2003
From: css-discuss at exclupen.com (Marshall Roch)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:21:23 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Site check: Blogshares
Message-ID: <3EACAC43.8040901@exclupen.com>

Anyone here that plays on blogshares has probably noticed already that 
Seyed (the owner) changed the navigation images to text the other day 
(most likely to speed up load-time).  This led to an experiment on my 
part to see how much I could clean up the code.  I started from scratch 
to make the Blogshares stock page[1] and ended up with a version that is 
valid XHTML 1.0 Strict, 10kb smaller (20kb smaller if you include the 
supporting images/javascript), fluid-width, relative font sizes (I did 
what was easiest, perhaps not the best method, so don't go off on me 
like that ems vs % thread), and more Netscape-friendly (it's still ugly 
and not easy to use, but at least it's readable).

I'm mainly looking for a browser check. I've got Firebird (yesterday's 
nightly) and IE6, but I need others... especially Macs.  I know that 
IE/Mac has a huge horiz. scroll due to the stock ticker, but there 
doesn't seem to be any way to fix that without causing all kinds of 
other problems.

If you've got any comments on the layout unrelated to the browser or 
CSS, let me know anyway (maybe offlist?).

[Note: I do not work for Blogshares. Seyed hasn't even seen this layout 
yet, although I emailed him just before sending this to the list]

--
Marshall Roch

[1] 
http://www.blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogshares.com%2F


From css-discuss at exclupen.com  Mon Apr 28 05:43:24 2003
From: css-discuss at exclupen.com (Marshall Roch)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:43:24 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Site check: Blogshares
In-Reply-To: <3EACAC43.8040901@exclupen.com>
References: <3EACAC43.8040901@exclupen.com>
Message-ID: <3EACB16C.4020309@exclupen.com>

Marshall Roch wrote:
> I'm mainly looking for a browser check. I've got Firebird (yesterday's 
> nightly) and IE6, but I need others... especially Macs.  I know that 
> IE/Mac has a huge horiz. scroll due to the stock ticker, but there 
> doesn't seem to be any way to fix that without causing all kinds of 
> other problems.

Easier to help me if I include a link, huh?  Oops..

http://www.exclupen.com/projects/blogshares/

--
Marshall Roch


From tbounds at gci.net  Mon Apr 28 06:48:39 2003
From: tbounds at gci.net (Tony Bounds)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:48:39 -0800
Subject: [css-d] Site check: Blogshares
References: <3EACAC43.8040901@exclupen.com>
Message-ID: <3EACC0B7.9060005@gci.net>

Marshall,
On ie5.1.5mac the 'GO' button is shifted underneath the input field on 
your search form. Also, the background is missing to the left of the top 
banner leaving a blank white space. The ticker is missing completely.

On ns7.02mac the ticker is overlayed atop the blue 'Fantasy Blog Shares 
Market' rule and is unreadable. It also takes up so many cpu cycles that 
its making typing this creep along slowly and painfully.
--
Tony

From css-d at elliz.com  Mon Apr 28 08:24:17 2003
From: css-d at elliz.com (Sam Ellis (css-d))
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:24:17 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <003201c30d33$b188c690$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <000001c30d57$30f3b660$0501a8c0@golfbreaks.com>


>  
> http://www.golfbreaks.com/

> it with Opera 7, and your left nav area disappears and the link text on
> the page becomes completely unreadable.  I can upload screenshots if you
> need, lemme know.

Thanks for the heads up.

I had only checked with Opera 6, and I think I changed the css for that bar
recently - since testing

Sam



From sasha at amm.com.au  Mon Apr 28 08:30:57 2003
From: sasha at amm.com.au (Sasha Gerrand)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:30:57 +1000
Subject: [css-d] Re: Moovigation - a screenshot request
In-Reply-To: <oproadf2zb98ddih@mail.literarymoose.info>
Message-ID: <BAD315D1.BFD0%sasha@amm.com.au>

Try these:

http://203.56.191.1:6660/literarymoose-camino1.jpg
http://203.56.191.1:6660/literarymoose-camino1.jpg

http://203.56.191.1:6660/literarymoose-safari1.jpg
http://203.56.191.1:6660/literarymoose-safari2.jpg

HTH - both on OS X 10.2.5

Cheers,
Sasha

--=AD--=AD--=AD--=AD--
Sasha Gerrand
sasha@amm.com.au
+61 425 745 207

EOM=20

NOTICE - This message and any attached files may contain information that i=
s
confidential and/or subject of legal privilege intended only for use by the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, be advise=
d
that you have received this message in error and that any dissemination,
copying or use of this message or attachment is strictly forbidden, as is
the disclosure of the information therein. If you have received this messag=
e
in error please notify the sender immediately and delete the message.

> From: The Moose <moose@literarymoose.info>
> Organization: LiteraryMoose.info
> Reply-To: moose@literarymoose.info
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 06:41:52 -0500
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: [css-d] Moovigation - a screenshot request
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I have played a bit with the display of the unordered lists when they are
> used for navigation of a logical sequence of pages, and would like to ask
> for screenshots from the following browsers: *Safari*, *Camino*,
> *Konqueror*.
>=20
> There are two pages (I'd like to get screenshots for both from each
> browser):
>=20
> http://www.literarymoose.info/=3D/destroy/moovigation.html
>=20
> http://www.literarymoose.info/=3D/destroy/moovigation-variant.html
>=20
> The first features generated content (with entities only) hidden via
> html[xmlns] method, the second does not. Mozilla displays &#xxxx; instead
> of the character on the second page (I don't know why). Opera7.1 behaves =
in
> both cases.
>=20
> The size of screenshots does not matter, I'll be watching my inbox.
>=20
> thank you in advance,
>=20
> Wojtek
>=20
> p.s. styles embedded.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>=20

From css-d at elliz.com  Mon Apr 28 08:34:47 2003
From: css-d at elliz.com (Sam Ellis (css-d))
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:34:47 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <003201c30d33$b188c690$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <000101c30d58$af49ac30$0501a8c0@golfbreaks.com>


> .. with Opera 7, and your left nav area disappears and the link text on
> the page becomes completely unreadable.  I can upload screenshots if you
> need, lemme know.
> -- Josh

Just downloaded Opera 7.1 and I cannot see the problem ...

It looks as if your version of Opera is looking at the print stylesheet
(try print previewing). What version are you using? It would be very
useful to see screenshots. Does anyone else know about Opera rendering
css from a media=print stylesheet?

.. maybe it is my use of the !important rule...?

The only issue I can see is that the text on the Features Venues goes
over the Request Brochure images (because of position: relative to
avoid the ie6 peekaboo bug)

Thanks

Sam


From rijk at opera.com  Mon Apr 28 08:42:17 2003
From: rijk at opera.com (Rijk van Geijtenbeek)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:42:17 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
In-Reply-To: <000201c30d2d$92a14dc0$42d5fea9@Estes>
References: <000201c30d2d$92a14dc0$42d5fea9@Estes>
Message-ID: <oprobw0rt0yoq9u9@localhost>

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:26:22 -0500, Jason Estes <ckestes@bewb.org> wrote:

>> I can't get Mozilla and IE6 PC to compromise on setting a
>> global font size. Here's what I did to test (and btw, Opera 7 acts the 
>> same as IE6 in all cases)...

In Opera 7 and MSIE, you'll get behavior like Mozilla when you trigger 
Standards mode. In Quirks mode rendering, font-sizes don't inherit into a 
tables... In Opera 5-6 and MSIE 4-5.5 you are stuck, as these browsers 
don't have a Standards mode.

> I tested this and it seemed to work in both IE 6 and Moz 1.3 and Opera
> 7.1 on WinXP
>
> <style type="text/css">
> body,td {font-size:0.7em;}
> </style>
>
> Basically I just set both properties in the same statement and then it
> doesn't inherit it in size it more in Moz, and stays constant in IE and
> Opera
>
> Looks good in all of them.

It shouldn't work that way according to the specs (TD fonts should be sized 
at .49 of the default size...), so it will probably break in Opera 7, MSIE 
6 and Mozilla when you trigger Standards mode. But if you make sure to 
trigger Quirks mode, this might be a compromise because it will also work 
in MSIE 4-5.5 and Opera 4-6.

-- 
 If you don't like having choices    |  Rijk van Geijtenbeek
 made for you, you should start      |   Documentation & QA
 making your own. -  Neal Stephenson |  mailto:rijk@opera.com M

From design at q7design.demon.co.uk  Sun Apr 27 22:35:04 2003
From: design at q7design.demon.co.uk (David Leader)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:35:04 +0100
Subject: [css-d] OT: Stats for browsers on Mac?
Message-ID: <p04330100bad1fbd43502@[194.222.231.193]>

On the topic of Safari uptake on MacOS X, I'd just like to mention 
that at the moment Safari is the only Mac browser that supports Java 
1.4. (I was suprised when I read this on a Mac Java list but I've 
tested it and find that currently IE and Mozilla do not support the 
Java 1.4 plugin) This may have nothing to do with css, but it has a 
lot to do with the sort of reasons Mac users might switch to Safari 
and why I presume Apple decided to have its own browser, i.e. to 
ensure Mac users were not dependent on third parties for access to 
web content (e.g. on-line banking).

It is clearly important from a css standpoint that as much 
constructive criticism as possible is brought to bear to ensure that 
Safari has good css support. One imagines Apple and the Safari will 
be receptive to this.

David
From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Mon Apr 28 09:10:55 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (Rick Hurst)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:10:55 +0100
Subject: [css-d] border-left IE5 mac problem
In-Reply-To: <73BC372E-78B1-11D7-8BC9-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>
References: <73BC372E-78B1-11D7-8BC9-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>
Message-ID: <3EACE20F.6030806@starskiweb.co.uk>

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

> Your <div id="myclear"> is empty, except for an absolute positioned 
> image (which is taken out of the document flow any way). I deleted the 
> 'width' on your #myclear, and added a non-breaking space in the div, and 
> then your layout worked out exactly as in Mozilla 1.4.

Thanks for the advice Philippe, but I haven't managed to get mine to 
work using the above advice:-

http://hypothecate.co.uk/css_test/v8.2.htm

The left border is still missing on IE5 mac

unless the person who is testing this for me has a different version of 
mac IE5?

From phiw at l-c-n.com  Mon Apr 28 09:46:49 2003
From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:46:49 +0900
Subject: [css-d] border-left IE5 mac problem
In-Reply-To: <3EACE20F.6030806@starskiweb.co.uk>
Message-ID: <F34BB1E0-7955-11D7-887C-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>


On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 05:10  PM, Rick Hurst wrote:

> Thanks for the advice Philippe, but I haven't managed to get mine to 
> work using the above advice:-
>
> http://hypothecate.co.uk/css_test/v8.2.htm
>
> The left border is still missing on IE5 mac

Comparing your stylesheet, and what I used:
#document-wrap {
	border-top:12px solid black;
	border-left:12px solid black;
	/*height: 100%;*/
}

I had commented out the height declaration, I should've mentioned it, I 
guess.

Philippe
== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Mon Apr 28 10:19:14 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:19:14 -0300
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428000924.00bc40c8@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
References: <000201c30d2d$92a14dc0$42d5fea9@Estes>
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030427222235.00b89e60@cbiweb.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428061642.00bcf118@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>


>Joel Young wrote:
> > resizing Moz doesn't help at all. Even at 120% the text is tiny. I have no
> > clue.


At 12:44 AM 4/28/03, Felix Miata wrote:

>Are you using an ancient Mozilla version?



No. I'm using 1.3... I use the most recent release of any browser I test on. 

From tarquin at planetunreal.com  Mon Apr 28 10:37:55 2003
From: tarquin at planetunreal.com (tarquin)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:37:55 +0100
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
Message-ID: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>

what are your opinions on -moz CSS rules?
as seen here to make rounded corners:

http://grayrest.com/moz/evangelism/tutorials/dominspectortutorial.shtml

should we avoid these because they are non-standard? (the same way we 
should be avoiding IE-only stuff like scrollbar, filters, & marquee)

is there a reference for these somewhere?


From tarquin at planetunreal.com  Mon Apr 28 10:47:05 2003
From: tarquin at planetunreal.com (tarquin)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:47:05 +0100
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
In-Reply-To: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>
References: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>
Message-ID: <3EACF899.6050902@planetunreal.com>

tarquin wrote:

>
>
> is there a reference for these somewhere?

found something:

http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/properties/extensions/nsextensions.htm
:-)

& started a page on the wiki


From Josh at Ambrutis.com  Mon Apr 28 12:24:32 2003
From: Josh at Ambrutis.com (Josh Ambrutis)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:24:32 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <000101c30d58$af49ac30$0501a8c0@golfbreaks.com>
Message-ID: <002901c30d78$be93a6d0$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>



> Sam Ellis (css-d) : 
> Just downloaded Opera 7.1 and I cannot see the problem ...
> 
> It looks as if your version of Opera is looking at the print 
> stylesheet
> (try print previewing). What version are you using? It would be very
> useful to see screenshots. Does anyone else know about Opera rendering
> css from a media=print stylesheet?

http://portalsmith.com/golfbreaks-ss.jpg

Opera 7.02, Win XP.  Did a print preview, and while some of the layout
changed, it didn't change much... Text links still unreadable, but the
content switched from anchored left to centered, and the green
backgrounds were dropped.  HTH a bit.

--Josh


From liorean at f2o.org  Mon Apr 28 12:55:49 2003
From: liorean at f2o.org (liorean)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:55:49 +0200
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
In-Reply-To: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>
References: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>
Message-ID: <3EAD16C5.6010202@f2o.org>

tarquin wrote:
> what are your opinions on -moz CSS rules?
> as seen here to make rounded corners:
> http://grayrest.com/moz/evangelism/tutorials/dominspectortutorial.shtml

There are three reasons for vendor specific properties and values:
1. Implementing a not-yet-standard css property, such as css3 rounded
corners.
2. Allowin the specification of behaviors and handling in css for
behaviors that you can not for the momemnt achieve with your current
supported base of standards.
3. Adding new functionality that neither can be defined in other
technologies for the web or is upcoming in an upcoming new or updated
standard.

In moz, we see quite a few cases of 1 and some of 2. I suppose there
might be some 3 as well, but if so I don't know about it.
In op7, we see 2 alone, from what I can tell - if their "web
specifications supported in opera" page is correct.
In ie, we see mainly a bunch of 3 and a few 2.
In saf/konq, I have no idea what may or may not exist when it comes to
this, but I would think the engine is rather clean.

> should we avoid these because they are non-standard? (the same way we 
> should be avoiding IE-only stuff like scrollbar, filters, & marquee)

You should stay clearly away from 3.
You should consider avoiding 2.
I see no reason to stay away from 1.

You should use 1 in combination with the W3C upcoming if you wish to use
that feature.

> is there a reference for these somewhere?

Oh, they are spread over the vendors using them.
Opera:
<http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/properties/extensions/operaextensions.htm>
Opera 7: <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#xml-css-link>
Mozilla:
<http://unstable.elemental.com/mozilla/build/latest/mozilla/dom/dox/interfacensIDOMNSCSS2Properties.html>, 

<http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/properties/extensions/nsextensions.htm>
Microsoft:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/css/reference/attributes.asp>

There are also a few that MSDN doesn't contain any documentation for,
like the expression(jsExpression) syntax. (It only contains
documentation for the getExpression, setExpression and removeExpression,
and this document is about the best I can find about expression():
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/recalc.asp>)

-- 
liorean <mailto:liorean@user.bip.net>

ViewStyles, ViewScripts, ToggleStyles and GraphicsInfo bookmarklets and
Theme Switcher, Cookies Handler scripts:
<http://liorean.web-graphics.com/>


From grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de  Mon Apr 28 12:52:03 2003
From: grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de (Jens Grochtdreis)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:52:03 +0200
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
References: 
	<523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A2C4ACF@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
	<004101c30b44$fdd740d0$6401a8c0@BIGAL>
Message-ID: <004501c30d7c$993e5250$d201a8c0@jenspc>

Hi Al,

>
> Here're a couple more:
> http://www.projectseven.com/mxvision/fixednav/fixedbar.htm (cool but
> problematic on Mac)

sorry to disappoint you, but your menue doesn't work as intended on MSIE 5.0
on W2k. The menue just scrolls with the rest of the page. no fixed menue.
unfortunately.

greetings from germany,

Jens Grochtdreis

From css-d at elliz.com  Mon Apr 28 13:04:11 2003
From: css-d at elliz.com (Sam Ellis (css-d))
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:04:11 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Mac please Golfbreaks.com
In-Reply-To: <002901c30d78$be93a6d0$6502a8c0@Dreamfire>
Message-ID: <001301c30d7e$4ba8cd20$6300a8c0@golfbreaks.com>


> http://portalsmith.com/golfbreaks-ss.jpg
> Opera 7.02, Win XP.  Did a print preview, and while some of the layout
> changed, it didn't change much... Text links still unreadable, but the

the links are meant to be small - this is for printing and if they are too
big they much up the entire site (and take up too much screen realestate)
and as most people do not want to read them, they are in fine print - only
if the person wants to go to the page ... probably me being too hi-tech!

looks like Opera 7.02 is using all the !important css in the print.css
stylesheet throughout the entire media range, instead of print only.

I'm going try to download 7.02 to test, if not will post again

Cheers
Sam


From joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca  Mon Apr 28 13:09:39 2003
From: joel.young at ns.sympatico.ca (Joel Young)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:09:39 -0300
Subject: (resend) Re: [css-d] ems or percent?
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428090440.00bb3f48@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>

(I think the email below may have gotten lost in the shuffle
over the weekend, so I'm resending it.
If I've broken any etiquette by doing so, I apologize.)



At 09:20 PM 4/26/03, Mike wrote:
><snip>
>On the basis that it's impossible to please all users at all times, what, in
>your opinion(s) and in ems or %, is the best body/menu/heading/text font
>settings "standard" to suit most browsers, on most platforms, for most
>users, most of the time?
>
>Mike
>Edinburgh, Scotland




Yes! This is what my original question was about, and I'm glad you brought 
it back around, Mike. Hopefully someone will have an answer for us. In the 
meantime, let's see if I understand a few things.  Someone please tell me 
if I'm even close to knowing what I'm talking about.... :-)

===============
Scenario 1:
Assume that I start my page off like this: body {font-size: 80%}

This means that all text on the page will be rendered only 80%
of the browser's default. Yes? No?
===============
Scenario 2:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 1em}

All text on the page will still be 80% of the browser's default,
because basically 1em = 100%, and I'm only setting it to 20%
less (which is 80%).  Right? Wrong?
===============
Scenario 3:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 0.9em}

Okay, NOW the text will actually be just under 80% of the
browser default, because it is 9/10ths of 80% of default.
===============
Scenario 4:
body {font-size: 80%}
.classname {font-size: 100%}

Again, the text remains at only 80% of default, because I've
set it to be 100% of the body font size (not that I would do that,
it's just for example)
===============
One more... Scenario 5:
body {font-size: 100%}
.classname {font-size: 1em} or {font-size: 80%}

Here, the text will either be the full browser default, or 80% of it.
Right?
===============


If all the above are correct, then it's just as easy to set the body at
100% all the time, and simply use smaller percentages for different
sizes.
That, or do body {font-size: 100%}, and use various em sizes, and
everything should work out - keeping the sizes within a reasonable
range, of course.

Did I reach home base, or am I somewhere in left field?


Joel

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Mon Apr 28 13:11:27 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:11:27 +0200
Subject: [css-d] min-height in IE 5 on Mac
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4223C234D@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but min-height isn't supported in IE 5 on Mac,
right?

In that case, how do I get an element to adapt its size after its
content,
but that it will still be a specified height otherwise.

For example, I want a DIV to be at least 20 px height, but if its
content is more,=20
then I want it to adapt its size (and the whole document's flow after
that).

This works with min-height:20px; in Opera, Gecko etc, and with
height:20px; in IE on PC.
But in IE 5 on Mac the height is only 20 px no matter the content (and
if the content is
more, it just flows outside of the element...).

Any solutions for this?


/Robert
From rijk at opera.com  Mon Apr 28 13:13:59 2003
From: rijk at opera.com (Rijk van Geijtenbeek)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:59 +0200
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
In-Reply-To: <3EAD16C5.6010202@f2o.org>
References: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com> <3EAD16C5.6010202@f2o.org>
Message-ID: <oprob9llpayoq9u9@localhost>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:55:49 +0200, liorean <liorean@f2o.org> wrote:

> tarquin wrote:
>> what are your opinions on -moz CSS rules?
>> as seen here to make rounded corners:
>> http://grayrest.com/moz/evangelism/tutorials/dominspectortutorial.shtml

This page looks fine (maybe a bit boxy) in Opera 7. No harm done, IMO.

> There are three reasons for vendor specific properties and values:
> 1. Implementing a not-yet-standard css property, such as css3 rounded
> corners.
> 2. Allowing the specification of behaviors and handling in css for
> behaviors that you can not for the momemnt achieve with your current
> supported base of standards.
> 3. Adding new functionality that neither can be defined in other
> technologies for the web or is upcoming in an upcoming new or updated
> standard.
[..]
> You should stay clearly away from 3.
> You should consider avoiding 2.
> I see no reason to stay away from 1.
>
> You should use 1 in combination with the W3C upcoming if you wish to use
> that feature.

For both 1, 2 and 3 it is important that the page doesn't depend on the 
non-standard property to be useful and good looking. But even when they 
don't cause problems in other browsers, it is best to avoid such features 
if you want to build robust public pages. Even in category 1, the property 
might change a bit before it gets into the standard, and it might be also 
problematic when someone else has to take over the maintainance of a page.

-- 
 If you don't like having choices    |  Rijk van Geijtenbeek
 made for you, you should start      |   Documentation & QA
 making your own. -  Neal Stephenson |  mailto:rijk@opera.com

From phiw at l-c-n.com  Mon Apr 28 13:30:01 2003
From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:30:01 +0900
Subject: [css-d] min-height in IE 5 on Mac
In-Reply-To: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4223C234D@centus_ex_01.centus.com>
Message-ID: <220371DF-7975-11D7-887C-003065B2D440@l-c-n.com>


On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 09:11  PM, Robert Nyman wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but min-height isn't supported in IE 5 on Mac,
> right?

Nope, doesn't work in IE5 mac.
>
> In that case, how do I get an element to adapt its size after its
> content,
> but that it will still be a specified height otherwise.
>
> For example, I want a DIV to be at least 20 px height, but if its
> content is more,
> then I want it to adapt its size (and the whole document's flow after
> that).
>

Using the intrinsic (is that the word ?) height of the element ? 
Without a real sample it is a bit difficult to say, of course.
div {border:1px solid #000; padding: 2px, font-size:12px; 
line-height:14px;} should give something you want.

Or do I miss something ?

Philippe


== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

From eoghan at redry.net  Mon Apr 28 13:49:01 2003
From: eoghan at redry.net (eoghan)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:49:01 +0100
Subject: [css-d] select problem
Message-ID: <3EAD233D.3000203@redry.net>

hello,
i am referring to a problem that occurs in particular with ie5+ on 
windows. the
<select> form element is apparently described as a "windowed elements"...
so this means that they should paint themselves on top of all other 
elements on a
page. so, when using dropdown menus, selects will appear through them. 
this behaviour
doesnt occur in nn7/moz1+ or firebird0.5. however, these browsers do 
have problems
when the "multiple" attribute is applied to the select, or when the 
select is opened.
i was wondering if anyone else had come across this issue. using a 
z-index in this
case will not work. and apart from avoiding this problem, has anyone 
come up with
any workarounds for this issue. for a
small example, see here:

http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/css/001.html

thanks


From moose at literarymoose.info  Mon Apr 28 13:45:20 2003
From: moose at literarymoose.info (The Moose)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:45:20 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Moovigation - a screenshot request
In-Reply-To: <3EAD1DF2.1020700@jeugdhuisx.be>
References: <3EAD1DF2.1020700@jeugdhuisx.be>
Message-ID: <oproca1u1m98ddih@mail.literarymoose.info>

> You'd have to encode the entities with the \xxxx values. I think they are 
> in hex, but am not 100% sure.

Well, thank you kindly, my good sir! You have helped me more than you would 
think. I have now made the variant obsolete, and rewrote the entities in 
hex (eg. content: "\xxxx", " ";). Now I must start rewriting where thus far 
I had misused it.

grazie,

Wojtek

p.s. I now have screenshots complete. Many thanks to everyone who sent 
theirs.
From robert.nyman at centus.com  Mon Apr 28 13:57:44 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:57:44 +0200
Subject: [css-d] min-height in IE 5 on Mac
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4223C234E@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> line-height:14px;} should give something you want.
> Or do I miss something ?

Line-height won't help in this case...

Well, take this example:

div.levelItem{
	position:relative;
	width:100px;
	border:1px solid black;	=09
	background:#ffffa2;
	min-height:20px;
}

and then for IE on PC I add this:

div.levelItem{
	height:20px;
}

But if the content is, for instance, a full sentence, I want the DIV to
expand its height
according to the space that the sentence takes up
(which works with min-height, and in IE on PC it resizes automatically).

How do I get that kind of resizing for IE on Mac?


/Robert


From dmead at optiem.com  Mon Apr 28 14:02:51 2003
From: dmead at optiem.com (David Mead)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:02:51 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Flash & CSS ?
Message-ID: <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A1E9290@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>

Dear all,

I was asked the following question last week:

"Can you use FLASH in the same way as you can with images in CSS to
provide background and/or rollover effects for links".

My first reaction was no as (I believe) FLASH has to be the top layer of
a web page and also how would you code the EMBED statement?  Then I
thought I'd ask here as CSS is still fairly new to me and maybe I'm
missing something.

Comments?

Thanks,

Dave

From web2k2 at premonition.co.uk  Mon Apr 28 14:39:17 2003
From: web2k2 at premonition.co.uk (Geoff Sheridan)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:39:17 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Flash & CSS ?
In-Reply-To: 
 <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A1E9290@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>
References: 
 <BFEED6F44251624A93C2DA00B8A6285A1E9290@opclesmbiz01.internal.optiem.com>
Message-ID: <p0510030dbad2ddc8ef7c@[192.168.8.3]>

>"Can you use FLASH in the same way as you can with images in CSS to
>provide background and/or rollover effects for links".
>
>My first reaction was no as (I believe) FLASH has to be the top layer of
>a web page and also how would you code the EMBED statement?  Then I
>thought I'd ask here as CSS is still fairly new to me and maybe I'm
>missing something.

Your first reaction was right. Unless you did something like :
a:hover object {display:none;}
in which case you can probably hide/show flash content on rollover.
I haven't tested and certainly do not recommend this.
What's the point, when flash contains it's own rollover events which 
are likely to give a much better result?
It would be nice to be able to have flash content as background 
images 'tho. I can imagine this being egregiously misused but it 
would be very handy for all sorts of great visual effects.

Geoff
From moronicbajebus at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 28 14:48:36 2003
From: moronicbajebus at yahoo.com (Seamus Leahy)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
In-Reply-To: <3EACF673.4090606@planetunreal.com>
Message-ID: <20030428134836.91265.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com>


--- tarquin <tarquin@planetunreal.com> wrote:
> what are your opinions on -moz CSS rules?

I think the -moz rules were created for effects in the
user interface of Mozilla because XUL (the Mozilla
interface) uses CSS. 



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
From robert.nyman at centus.com  Mon Apr 28 14:51:43 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:51:43 +0200
Subject: [css-d] min-height in IE 5 on Mac
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4223C234F@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> div {height: 20px;} /*IE win*/
> html>body div {min-height:20px; height:auto;} /*all others*/

But that doesn't solve my problem with IE on Mac. I have no problems
with
getting it to work for IE on PC and all other browsers.

The only one that it doesn't work in is in IE on Mac, which doesn't
understand min-height,
hence it doesn't get the element to expand its size accordingly to the
text, not even with height:auto.


/Robert

From robert.nyman at centus.com  Mon Apr 28 15:12:39 2003
From: robert.nyman at centus.com (Robert Nyman)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:12:39 +0200
Subject: [css-d] min-height in IE 5 on Mac
Message-ID: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052FE@centus_ex_01.centus.com>

> The only one that it doesn't work in is in IE on Mac

My bad...
Using height:auto and line-height solved the problem...

/Robert
From george.smyth at USNA.COM  Mon Apr 28 15:48:12 2003
From: george.smyth at USNA.COM (George Smyth)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:48:12 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Redesign Problem
Message-ID: <C07E1FAF6146764086BB888BB8E5496701C7420F@win2kexch.aa-naf.net>

I have got a problem with a redesign and am wondering if anyone can help me
out.

I have a class that defines the look of a div and I apply it to each section
of the navigation bar on the left.  Oddly enough, the border color
characteristics are not being displayed on the home page (the other
characteristics do work), but do work on other pages.  The code "should" be
the same, with the exception of no active "Home" link on the home page (the
only real code difference I can tell is that the other pages are being drawn
via an include statement, but doing so on the home page still exhibits the
problem).

The home page is located at http://test.usna.com/, and if you click the
Events link you will see how it should be displayed.  I've looked and looked
at this and just can't figure out why the home page is not being displayed
properly.

Thanks for looking -

george

From christopher at christopher.org  Mon Apr 28 16:24:18 2003
From: christopher at christopher.org (Christopher)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:24:18 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ANNC: 50+ Headings
In-Reply-To: <2971830BF2404F4E9FDB861233E7C4224052FE@centus_ex_01.centus.com>
Message-ID: <BAD2BFE2.10978%christopher@christopher.org>

Hi, all,

Headings in Web pages--marked up with h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, or h6
elements=8B-help the reader determine the purpose of sections in content. It
also does one other thing: it helps the reader judge if the material is
something they want to read.

The only problem is that the default rendering of those headings is often
visually bland.

In order to help people create better designed headings, I've released the
CSS resource, 50+ Headings, where you can see up to fifty headings designs
and their variations.

You can submit their own heading variations as well--which represents the
"plus" in the title.

< http://www.cssbook.com/resources/css/headings/ >


Best,
Christopher Schmitt
  Author, "Designing CSS Web Pages" -- http://www.cssbook.com/
  Web Design Specialist -- http://www.christopherschmitt.com/

From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Mon Apr 28 16:35:36 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:35:36 -0700
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
Message-ID: <OFD278A69D.7CC3E6CA-ON88256D16.00545AA2@capgroup.com>


Joel Young wrote:

> So to compensate, and hopefully make IE6 behave, I did this:
>
>       body {font-size: .7em}
>       td {font-size: .7em}
>
> This puts IE6 the way I want it, but transforms Mozilla into miniscule
text
> that Superman couldn't read.
>
>
> So I tried this, thinking it would take care of both, since all I'm doing

> is styling the td's for the page, and td's are the same in all browsers -

> aren't they?....
>
>       (no body styling this time)
>       td {font-size: .7em}
>
> That looks great in IE6, and only brings Mozilla up to legible with a
> strong pair of glasses.

Welcome, Joel!

There are two tricks here:

1) IE does not inherit font sizes through the table tag, but the td tag
does inherit correctly. Instead of the body/td style combo above, try this:

    body {font-size: 70%}
    table {font-size: 100%}

This tells IE to inherit the font size through the table, which will then
allow the td fonts to size correctly. It also doesn't cause any side
effects in more compliant browsers, because 100% of 100% is, well, 100%. If
you have reasons to change font sizes for specific td's, this also lets you
do so without worrying about clobbering the browser compatibility fix.

2) Jason Estes mentioned the issue with setting font sizes in ems -- it
causes IE to do strange things when the browser is set to anything other
than "Medium". I can't agree more strongly, with respect with the body font
size. Basically, IE will misbehave if you use ems as the font-size that
everything else is relative to, so something like

    body {font-size: 0.7em}
    cite {font-size: 0.9em}

will shrink to unreadable proportions. If, however, you set your outermost
font-size using percents, you can then make all other font sizes in ems, if
you prefer reading them that way. In other words,

    body {font-size: 70%}
    cite (font-size: 0.9em}

will behave correctly.

HTH,

MikeL

From gary at star-chaser.com  Mon Apr 28 16:46:41 2003
From: gary at star-chaser.com (Gary)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:46:41 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
In-Reply-To: <004501c30d7c$993e5250$d201a8c0@jenspc>
References: 
	<523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A2C4ACF@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
	<004101c30b44$fdd740d0$6401a8c0@BIGAL> <004501c30d7c$993e5250$d201a8c0@jenspc>
Message-ID: <3EAD4CE1.9010008@star-chaser.com>

Jens Grochtdreis wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> 
>>Here're a couple more:
>>http://www.projectseven.com/mxvision/fixednav/fixedbar.htm (cool but
>>problematic on Mac)
> 
> 
> sorry to disappoint you, but your menue doesn't work as intended on MSIE 5.0
> on W2k. The menue just scrolls with the rest of the page. no fixed menue.
> unfortunately.
> 
> greetings from germany,
> 
> Jens Grochtdreis

Why not take the time to read the material before posting? The 
information on the page makes no mention of it working in IE5 Win.

<quote>
"It will work as intended in MSIE5-MAC, MSIE6-PC, Netscape 6.2+, 
Netscape 7, Mozilla 1x, and Opera5+. It will degrade nicely in lesser 
browsers."
</quote>

Gary


From chris at placenamehere.com  Mon Apr 28 17:13:50 2003
From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:13:50 -0400
Subject: [css-d] -moz rules
In-Reply-To: <oprob9llpayoq9u9@localhost>
Message-ID: <BAD2CB7E.53E2B%chris@placenamehere.com>

on 4/28/03 8:13 AM, Rijk van Geijtenbeek at rijk@opera.com wrote:

> 
> For both 1, 2 and 3 it is important that the page doesn't depend on the
> non-standard property to be useful and good looking. But even when they
> don't cause problems in other browsers, it is best to avoid such features
> if you want to build robust public pages. Even in category 1, the property
> might change a bit before it gets into the standard, and it might be also
> problematic when someone else has to take over the maintainance of a page.

I'd like reiterate the point about "change a bit" as there's nothing
stopping the VND in question not for changing the property at will.

I'll take the -moz- extensions as an example. Those that are there to
provide an implementation of the spec before its a recommendation are
expected to change. Because the spec may change there is no promise of a
direct translation from "-moz-property" to "property". When "property" gets
finalized and support is in the browser -moz-property and property may
actually conflict so if you think you're smart by sneaking "property" in
their for forward compatibility expect to have to edit your pages anyway
(although I don't know what the odds of this happening are).

There is no promise of backwards compatibility within the extension itself.
A real example this time:

There was once a time before bug 195883 where -moz-opacity would accept both
%age units and floating point values between 0 & 1. Well, we're now
post-195883 and %ages don't work anymore. Sucks to be anyone who
experimented with them in the past only to have long forgotten demos break
(me included).

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ chris@placenamehere.com ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

From BillC at VanEerden.com  Mon Apr 28 17:55:36 2003
From: BillC at VanEerden.com (Bill Creswell)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:55:36 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
Message-ID: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B73@vec01.vaneerden.com>

Webtrends is saying I have a higher % of 5.0 than 4, or 6/7. But is that tracking Gecko, or old NS? I find mixed opinions in web searches.

 1 Netscape 5.0 7,004 83.56% 91 
 2 Netscape 6.2.1 537 6.40% 33 
 3 Netscape 7.01 180 2.14% 10 
 4 Netscape 4.7 42 0.50% 8 
 5 Netscape 7.0 127 1.51% 7 

Bill Creswell
Helpdesk/Webmaster
Van Eerden Distribution
http://www.vaneerden.com
(616) 452-1426 Ext. 293
From ian at hixie.ch  Mon Apr 28 17:55:50 2003
From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Media="all" vs. @import
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
References: <523ED78FF1F87A44A40907C74F83CBC20A4A1FD3@mail.bgm.globeinteractive.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.50.0304240948260.14317-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304280947420.26619-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Ian Hickson (that's me) wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Saila, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The only catch with this is that the default media for LINK is
>> "screen", so /technically/ other media types would never see the
>> embedded @media stuff.
>
> That's an error in the HTML spec. The HTML working group has delegated
> authority over the "media" attribute to the CSS working group, who has
> decided to change the default to "all".
>
> Unfortunately I can't find a public reference to this decision. I'll
> look into it.

I've found a formal reference to this decision:

   http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/HTML-4.01?id=528;expression=screen;user=guest

That's the relevant entry in the HTML working group issues database.

HTH,
-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
From afternoon at uk2.net  Mon Apr 28 18:15:24 2003
From: afternoon at uk2.net (Ben Godfrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:15:24 +0100
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
In-Reply-To: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B73@vec01.vaneerden.com>
Message-ID: <000B1247-799D-11D7-88C8-00039317C0C4@uk2.net>


Obviously this is not the complete answer, but I've had my copy of 
Safari confused for the mythical NS 5 before now.

Ben


On Monday, Apr 28, 2003, at 17:55 Europe/London, Bill Creswell wrote:

> Webtrends is saying I have a higher % of 5.0 than 4, or 6/7. But is 
> that tracking Gecko, or old NS? I find mixed opinions in web searches.
>
>  1 Netscape 5.0 7,004 83.56% 91
>  2 Netscape 6.2.1 537 6.40% 33
>  3 Netscape 7.01 180 2.14% 10
>  4 Netscape 4.7 42 0.50% 8
>  5 Netscape 7.0 127 1.51% 7
>
> Bill Creswell
> Helpdesk/Webmaster
> Van Eerden Distribution
> http://www.vaneerden.com
> (616) 452-1426 Ext. 293
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
>

(q)	Ben Godfrey?
(a)	Web Developer and Designer
	See http://aftnn.org/ for details

From dnelson at netbank.com  Mon Apr 28 19:02:07 2003
From: dnelson at netbank.com (Dave Nelson)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:02:07 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
Message-ID: <4EF4322541E0D311A8BB009027E7E57B04B2EBA5@ntbkexch.atlnetbank.com>

I think that Netscape 5.0 is actually Netscape 6.0. The dot release of 6.1
was the first time its userAgent changed to 6.x

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Creswell [mailto:BillC@VanEerden.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:56 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?


Webtrends is saying I have a higher % of 5.0 than 4, or 6/7. But is that
tracking Gecko, or old NS? I find mixed opinions in web searches.

 1 Netscape 5.0 7,004 83.56% 91 
 2 Netscape 6.2.1 537 6.40% 33 
 3 Netscape 7.01 180 2.14% 10 
 4 Netscape 4.7 42 0.50% 8 
 5 Netscape 7.0 127 1.51% 7 

Bill Creswell
Helpdesk/Webmaster
Van Eerden Distribution
http://www.vaneerden.com
(616) 452-1426 Ext. 293
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
From me at chrismcleod.net  Mon Apr 28 19:21:28 2003
From: me at chrismcleod.net (Chris McLeod)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:21:28 +0100
Subject: [css-d] a div that is at least the full height of the window...
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030428185406.00b18cd0@mail.qawebhosting.com>

I've been trying to create a ALA style layout for a site template. This bit 
is all simple enough... However, I need the main content area to stretch 
the full height of the window at the very least. The content area is a 
different colour from the page background, and it looks a bit silly as just 
a block in the upper corner.

I've tried height and min-height equal to 100% or auto, but neither have 
worked at all, if the positioning is done with floats or relative 
positioning. If I set the positioning to absolute, it works but it forces 
scroll bars, which is obviously undesirable.

Is it possible to have a floated div fill the entire height of the window? 
Or will I have to create the effect using a background image (which is my 
backup plan...)


Thanks,


Chris.

From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Mon Apr 28 19:26:41 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (Rick Hurst)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:26:41 +0100
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
Message-ID: <3EAD7261.7070003@starskiweb.co.uk>

Is there a way to clear/reset all styles applied to a selector without 
having to specifically overide them?

We are doing some work on a content management system interface where 
styles have already been applied to selectors such as <p> and we want to 
  "reset" them for certain situations without editing the default 
stylesheet.

e.g. if the styles already applied in the default stylesheet are 
something like:-

p {font-size:2em;color:red;margin:20px;}

and in our custom interface we want to use something like

#mystyle p {(ignore all styles already applied to p without overiding 
them one by one)}

From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 19:51:15 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:51:15 -0500
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
References: <3EAD7261.7070003@starskiweb.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003901c30db7$25e162d0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> Is there a way to clear/reset all styles applied to a selector without
> having to specifically overide them?


You can use the specificity in CSS to override the values.  So if the values
are originally set with p {declarations}
you can use body p{declarations} which has a higher specificity.  You can
replace body with whatever the parent selector is.

Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org



From BillC at VanEerden.com  Mon Apr 28 19:41:56 2003
From: BillC at VanEerden.com (Bill Creswell)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:41:56 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
Message-ID: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B74@vec01.vaneerden.com>

>I think that Netscape 5.0 is actually Netscape 6.0. The dot release of 6.1
>was the first time its userAgent changed to 6.x

Do we know that? I was thinking WebTrends was mis-interpreting Moz 1.4 (which reads Mozilla/5.0 in the userAgent string).\

Bill
From svendtofte at svendtofte.com  Mon Apr 28 20:01:35 2003
From: svendtofte at svendtofte.com (Svend Tofte)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:01:35 +0200
Subject: SV: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
In-Reply-To: <003901c30db7$25e162d0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
Message-ID: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEEPHCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>

You'd still have to override all the individual rules, no? Otherwise they
would cascade in.

> You can use the specificity in CSS to override the values.  So if
> the values
> are originally set with p {declarations}
> you can use body p{declarations} which has a higher specificity.  You can
> replace body with whatever the parent selector is.

From ksoh at colby.edu  Mon Apr 28 20:18:15 2003
From: ksoh at colby.edu (Karen Oh)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:18:15 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Mac and Linux site check please
In-Reply-To: <000401c30c24$eeea14e0$0100007f@localhost>
References: <000401c30c24$eeea14e0$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <a05111b0dbad32e3aed12@[137.146.196.147]>


>http://blogstreetjournal.com/index.php

Hi,
not sure if you got feedback. .

Mac OS 9.2

IE5
Fonts are teeny
3-column layout, 1st and 2nd col touch, 2nd and 3rd do not (have a 
little gutter between them).

2nd col is not vertically aligned with 1 and 3.

NN4.7
Not that legible--degrades poorly, overlapping text, etc.

NN7
Looks Great! (Fonts may be a little bigger. . . like 12px)

hth,
karen
From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 20:19:31 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:19:31 -0500
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
References: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEEPHCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>
Message-ID: <005901c30dbb$1890bcd0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> You'd still have to override all the individual rules, no? Otherwise they
> would cascade in.
>


In the original email he said they were set up as

p {declarations}

and wanted something like

#mysite p {declarations}

but instead of applying an ID which would require modifying the markup, he
could just use a selector like

#wrapper p {declarations} where #wrapper is already the <div> surrounding
the content area. of if he wanted to apply the styles to all the p's then he
could use

body p {declarations} which would apply to all the p's on the page.

It's hard to account for specific circumstances of inheritance without
seeing the code though.  Maybe Rick could provide us some sample of what
he's got.


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org


From steve at mrclay.org  Mon Apr 28 20:16:29 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:16:29 -0400
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
In-Reply-To: <3EAD7261.7070003@starskiweb.co.uk>
References: <3EAD7261.7070003@starskiweb.co.uk>
Message-ID: <17715762453.20030428151629@mrclay.org>

Monday, April 28, 2003, 2:26:41 PM, Rick Hurst wrote:
RH> Is there a way to clear/reset all styles applied to a selector without 
RH> having to specifically overide them?

No, *however*, you can use a copy of Mozilla's HTML.css file (the
browser's default stylesheet) as a guide to help you return properties
to their original values.  If you know a property was set and that
property can have a value of "inherit", set it to inherit.

RH> We are doing some work on a content management system interface where
RH> styles have already been applied

If a stylesheet is out of your control, it's out of your control.  You
can disable a stylesheet with javascript, but this isn't a solution.
Your situation is similar to writing a user stylesheet - In your case
the author is your CMS.  The only way is to redefine all the properties
you need control over.

This is another good reason to write stylesheets to take advantage of
inheritance.  It easier for everyone to write stylesheets to extend
the existing one.

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From lists at dramatic.co.nz  Mon Apr 28 20:45:36 2003
From: lists at dramatic.co.nz (Richard Grevers)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:45:36 +1200
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
In-Reply-To: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B74@vec01.vaneerden.com>
References: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B74@vec01.vaneerden.com>
Message-ID: <oprocuiajczs1r4a@localhost>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:41:56 -0400, Bill Creswell <BillC@VanEerden.com> 
gave utterance to the following:

>> I think that Netscape 5.0 is actually Netscape 6.0. The dot release of 
>> 6.1
>> was the first time its userAgent changed to 6.x
>
> Do we know that? I was thinking WebTrends was mis-interpreting Moz 1.4 
> (which reads Mozilla/5.0 in the userAgent string).\
>
Or any other Mozilla from around 0.5 onwards - False reports of Netscape 
5.0 have been cropping up in stats for a year or two now.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From gary at star-chaser.com  Mon Apr 28 20:54:02 2003
From: gary at star-chaser.com (Gary)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:54:02 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
In-Reply-To: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B73@vec01.vaneerden.com>
References: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B73@vec01.vaneerden.com>
Message-ID: <3EAD86DA.9090706@star-chaser.com>

Bill Creswell wrote:
> Webtrends is saying I have a higher % of 5.0 than 4, or 6/7. But is that tracking Gecko, or old NS? I find mixed opinions in web searches.
> 
>  1 Netscape 5.0 7,004 83.56% 91 
>  2 Netscape 6.2.1 537 6.40% 33 
>  3 Netscape 7.01 180 2.14% 10 
>  4 Netscape 4.7 42 0.50% 8 
>  5 Netscape 7.0 127 1.51% 7 
> 
looks like your logs are identifying Mozilla as Netscape, All gecko 
based browsers id themselves as mozilla/5.0 unless they have been re 
branded. you have to look at the whole string to determine what browser 
it is.

example netscape 7.0 string
Mozilla/5.0 (windows; U; NT4.0; en-us) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0

A mozilla string
  Mozilla/5.001 (windows; U; NT4.0; en-us) Gecko/25250101

If they have been re branded then they will still use Mozilla and gecko 
in their string.

  Mozilla/9.876 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686, en) Gecko/25250101 
Netscape/5.432b1 (C-MindSpring)


HTH
Gary


Gary Bland
StarChaser Web Architecture
http://star-chaser.com
Building Tomorrow's World Today

From css-discuss at exclupen.com  Mon Apr 28 21:08:15 2003
From: css-discuss at exclupen.com (Marshall Roch)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:08:15 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Site check: Blogshares
In-Reply-To: <3EACC0B7.9060005@gci.net>
References: <3EACAC43.8040901@exclupen.com> <3EACC0B7.9060005@gci.net>
Message-ID: <3EAD8A2F.4080603@exclupen.com>

Tony Bounds wrote:

> Marshall,
> On ie5.1.5mac the 'GO' button is shifted underneath the input field on 
> your search form. Also, the background is missing to the left of the top 
> banner leaving a blank white space. The ticker is missing completely.

I'm at a loss to why that background isn't working.

This was the rule for that div:

#header {
padding-right: 10px;
background: url('images/logo_bg.gif') top left repeat-x;
text-align: right;
}

I just changed the 's to "s, let me know if that helps.

> On ns7.02mac the ticker is overlayed atop the blue 'Fantasy Blog Shares 
> Market' rule and is unreadable. It also takes up so many cpu cycles that 
> its making typing this creep along slowly and painfully.

I don't know what to do about that ticker... It's from DevEdge[1], but
it doesn't work very well in Netscape anyway.  To get it to stay inside
the width that I need it, I had to set it absolutely inside the main
column div, which has margins the size of the left and right columns.
However, it was overlapping the title (BlogShares - Blah blah blah) so I
gave it a top: -20px; which causes that overlap of the logo in
Opera7/Win too.  Any ideas on what to do there?

I'm not sure what to do about the slowness of it.. Does anyone know of a
cross-browser ticker that uses HTML to store the content (instead of
embedding it in a JS)?

--
Marshall Roch

[1] http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/examples/2001/stock-ticker/



From cicero2002 at centrum.cz  Mon Apr 28 21:16:25 2003
From: cicero2002 at centrum.cz (bill shakespeare)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:16:25 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Redesign Problem
Message-ID: <20030428201632Z317121-615+143500@mail2.centrum.cz>


George,

There are many, many "deep-water mines" concealed from an untrained 
eye in your code.  Incidentally, whatever happened to those mine 
sniffing dolphins, plowing the waters of the Gulf ?  The last I heard 
of them was a week or so into the Operation.

Problemo Uno:

Your front page sports a different doctype from that of Events.htm.  
Believe it or not, I may make a helluva difference.

Problemo Due:

Your front page sports, furthermore, this line:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

I recommend tossing it out.  Most of the time it's more of a nuisance 
than a benefit.  It may send IE6/Win into a tailspin.

Problemo Tre:

The best practice calls for introducing a stylesheet before any 
JavaScript.

Rectifying the problems does not guarantee a desired effect.  Yet, 
it's a very good start.


--------------------
Vyhrajte kuchy� za 200 000 K�, leteck� z�jezd a dal�� zaj�mav� ceny! Z��astn�te se �ten��sk� ankety IDE�LN� MU� na http://zena.centrum.cz/ideal



From incoming at kubaton.com  Mon Apr 28 21:42:39 2003
From: incoming at kubaton.com (incoming@kubaton.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:42:39 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
Message-ID: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>

Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?

http://riotgrrrl.com/

The "riotgrrrl.com" is going to be at the top of every page and I like
having it stretch. I've designed the rest of my site without tables but I
couldn't find a way to do this without them. Anyone know a way to do it?

_Lea

From csslist at theparagon.org  Mon Apr 28 22:01:39 2003
From: csslist at theparagon.org ({ schaapy })
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:01:39 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
In-Reply-To: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
Message-ID: <BAD30EF3.1F95%csslist@theparagon.org>



I would do something like:

#header {
    height: 15px;
}

#header.letters {
    float: left;
}



<div id="header">
    <div class="letters">r</div>
    <div class="letters">i</div>
    <div class="letters">o</div>
    <div class="letters">t</div>
</div>


Give each letter a transparent background - this will let you change the
color of the top bar if you so choose.

------------------------------
Aaron Schaap
www.theparagon.org

They tell me the internet never sleeps ...
... Evidently, that means I don't get to either.

> From: <incoming@kubaton.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:42:39 -0400
> To: "'Css-D'" <css-d@lists.css-discuss.org>
> Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
> 
> Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
> 
> http://riotgrrrl.com/
> 
> The "riotgrrrl.com" is going to be at the top of every page and I like
> having it stretch. I've designed the rest of my site without tables but I
> couldn't find a way to do this without them. Anyone know a way to do it?
> 
> _Lea
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 

From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 22:13:30 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:13:30 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
References: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
Message-ID: <008301c30dcb$050b1380$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>


> Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
>
> http://riotgrrrl.com/
>
> The "riotgrrrl.com" is going to be at the top of every page and I like
> having it stretch. I've designed the rest of my site without tables but I
> couldn't find a way to do this without them. Anyone know a way to do it?


Here you go, I couldn't tell if it worked perfectly cause I didn't have the
images, but looks ok from what I can tell.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//Ddiv HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>
<head>
 <title>Untitled Document</title>
 <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
   <link href="global.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
   <style type="text/css">
    body {
    margin:0;
    padding:0;
}
   .piece {
    text-align:center;
 width:6%;
 background-image:url(images/top/background.png) repeat-x;
 float:left;
 }
   .heading2 {
    clear:both;
 }
   </style>


</head>

<body>

<div id="topbanner">
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/left.png" width="16" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/r.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/i.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/o.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/t.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/g.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/r2.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/r3.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/r4.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/l.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/dot.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/c.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/o2.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/m.png" width="36" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
  <div class="piece"><img src="images/top/right.png" width="16" height="42"
alt="riotgrrrl.com"></div>
</div>

<p class="heading2">New &amp; Improved Coming Soon</p>

</body>

</html>

Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org



From mrmazda at ij.net  Mon Apr 28 22:13:32 2003
From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:13:32 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Mozilla vs IE6 PC font sizing
References: <OFD278A69D.7CC3E6CA-ON88256D16.00545AA2@capgroup.com>
Message-ID: <3EAD997C.4DB1@ij.net>

Michael_Landis@capgroup.com wrote:
 
> Joel Young wrote:
 
> > So to compensate, and hopefully make IE6 behave, I did this:

> >       body {font-size: .7em}
> >       td {font-size: .7em}

> > This puts IE6 the way I want it, but transforms Mozilla into miniscule text
> > that Superman couldn't read.

> > So I tried this, thinking it would take care of both, since all I'm doing

> > is styling the td's for the page, and td's are the same in all browsers -

> > aren't they?....

> >       (no body styling this time)
> >       td {font-size: .7em}

> > That looks great in IE6, and only brings Mozilla up to legible with a
> > strong pair of glasses.
 
> There are two tricks here:
 
> 1) IE does not inherit font sizes through the table tag, but the td tag
> does inherit correctly. Instead of the body/td style combo above, try this:
 
>     body {font-size: 70%}
>     table {font-size: 100%}
 
> This tells IE to inherit the font size through the table, which will then
> allow the td fonts to size correctly. It also doesn't cause any side
> effects in more compliant browsers, because 100% of 100% is, well, 100%. If
> you have reasons to change font sizes for specific td's, this also lets you
> do so without worrying about clobbering the browser compatibility fix.
 
> 2) Jason Estes mentioned the issue with setting font sizes in ems -- it
> causes IE to do strange things when the browser is set to anything other
> than "Medium". I can't agree more strongly, with respect with the body font
> size. Basically, IE will misbehave if you use ems as the font-size that
> everything else is relative to, so something like
 
>     body {font-size: 0.7em}
>     cite {font-size: 0.9em}
 
> will shrink to unreadable proportions. If, however, you set your outermost
> font-size using percents, you can then make all other font sizes in ems, if
> you prefer reading them that way. In other words,
> 
>     body {font-size: 70%}
>     cite (font-size: 0.9em}
> 
> will behave correctly.

Since Matthew Davey started the ems or percent? thread over the weekend,
I've been playing around with IE6 off and on trying to understand the
pattern. NAICT so far, and using standards mode exclusively, IE
misbehaves on font-size inheritance under more conditions than just
tables. I just haven't found the pattern yet.

For example, at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ie/IE6tB.html, which
has only two font-size rules applied to the whole page (table=100% &
td=.8em), upon setting IE6 to "smaller" and Gecko to 13px, the first 6
non-blank rows (1 apparent paragraph) display the same font sizes in
both Gecko and IE, since all are specified in px.

The next apparent paragraph (3 rows) match the first two rows at
13px=medium and 12px=small. In the next row, Gecko shows x-small at 10px
(leaving 9px for xx-small), while IE drops to 9px.

The 3rd apparent paragraph (3 rows) shows matches only in the first row
at 13px=medium. The next two rows exhibit the mis-sizing problem in IE,
while they display as expected in Gecko, which correctly applies .8em to
the 2nd row and .8emX.8em=.64em to the third row. Note that this
paragraph is three nested divs, no tables, and yet what IE appears to
have done is apply .8emX.8em to row two, and .8emX.8emX.8em=.51em or
.8emX.8emX.8emX.8em=.41em to row three.

Next 2 paragraphs/rows are simply for reference for what follows, but
note that .8em is smaller in IE, even though the default is the same
13px.

Last, is a three row table, with another table in the 2nd row. Again,
Gecko renders exactly as expected. In contrast, IE, which supposedly
fubars em text sizing *too small* if a % size is not set in body or html
and not set in prefs to medium, displays the first two rows, sized in
ems, *larger* than Gecko. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
-- 
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of
governmental power."                General Douglas MacArthur

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html

From ckestes at bewb.org  Mon Apr 28 22:26:14 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:26:14 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
References: <BAD30EF3.1F95%csslist@theparagon.org>
Message-ID: <008901c30dcc$cc8789b0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

>
> I would do something like:
>
> #header {
>     height: 15px;
> }
>
> #header.letters {
>     float: left;
> }
>
>
>
> <div id="header">
>     <div class="letters">r</div>
>     <div class="letters">i</div>
>     <div class="letters">o</div>
>     <div class="letters">t</div>
> </div>

The only problem with this is that you didn't explicitly set the width of
the letters, which is required for floats.  That is until CSS 2.1 is
finalized.  If you use this without explicit declaration of width it will
break in IE 5.x on the mac, most other browsers will display it
appropriately..


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org




From andrewyao at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 28 23:48:34 2003
From: andrewyao at yahoo.com (Andrew Yao)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
Message-ID: <20030428224834.33497.qmail@web41212.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Folks,

There is a subtle effect with both solutions presented
so far: when you resie the browser width so it is
smaller than the combined width of all the images, the
banner will wrap into multiple lines.. I don't know if
this is the desired effect.

I propose to use multiple spans in a div and
white-space:nowrap 

<html>
	<head>
		<title>Untitled Document</title>
		<style type="text/css">
			#topbanner {
				white-space:nowrap;
				background-image:url(images/top/background.png);
				background-repeat:repeat-x;
			}
			#topbanner span {
				width:6%;
			}
		</style>
	</head>
	<body>
		<div id="topbanner">
			<span><img src="images/top/left.png" width="16"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/r.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/i.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/o.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/t.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/g.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/r2.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/r3.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/r4.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/l.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/dot.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/c.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/o2.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/m.png" width="36"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
			<span><img src="images/top/right.png" width="16"
height="42" alt="riotgrrrl.com"/></span>
		</div>
	</body>
</html>

cheers

Andrew

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
From steve at mrclay.org  Tue Apr 29 00:20:41 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:20:41 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
In-Reply-To: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
References: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
Message-ID: <156730414296.20030428192041@mrclay.org>

Monday, April 28, 2003, 4:42:39 PM, incoming@kubaton.com wrote:
ikc> Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
ikc> http://riotgrrrl.com/

Fun stuff.  http://mrclay.org/secret/riot/
This uses all spans and background-images, so no messy imgs or block
containers in markup.  A min-width prevents wrap.

Moz/Opera7: works great.
IE6: fine, but right piece is missing.
Others: shudder to imagine.

Since this is all basically presentational markup, I'd make an
average-sized img and put it in a noscript element, then
document.write in all this markup from an external .js file.  At least
you'll have cleaner documents and the mess cached.

Or you might experiment with an img stretched horizontally with CSS,
it might not look as tight, but would be much cleaner and possibly
more reliable:

<img (left piece) /><img style="width:80%" ... /><img (right piece) />

Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com  Tue Apr 29 00:36:12 2003
From: css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com (Alex Robinson)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:36:12 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
In-Reply-To: <156730414296.20030428192041@mrclay.org>
References: <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
 <83886C07B810E545AD385040F00FDBDEA6E4C3@MAIL-04VS.atlarge.net>
Message-ID: <l03130317bad36b51335b@[192.168.0.36]>

>ikc> Can this be done with DIV instead of TABLE?
>ikc> http://riotgrrrl.com/
>
>Fun stuff.  http://mrclay.org/secret/riot/

Wow, looks like everyone's stepped up to the bat on this one - mine's not a
million miles from Steve's though I think mine is just that bit sleeker.
However, what with the embarrassment of riches now on display, I can't be
bothered to finish it but I think the proof of concept is there.

<http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/cssjunk/Riotgirl.mhtml>

Of course, I'd junk the images as text and just justify the text but that's
just me...




From Curt2305 at aol.com  Tue Apr 29 01:33:52 2003
From: Curt2305 at aol.com (Curt2305@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:33:52 EDT
Subject: [css-d] List readability problems
Message-ID: <1ea.79417d2.2bdf2270@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/28/2003 1:36:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
ironmike@inav.net writes:


> <.bold> Is this bold in your reader? <.h2>It should be in regular text

I think it's fine, but I don't think it will be picked up by the rest of this 
List.

I am interested in the list you refer to. If you could send some info on it 
to me, I'd appreciate being able to check it out. Thanks for the suggestion.


Curt
From holnkids at netscape.net  Tue Apr 29 03:47:36 2003
From: holnkids at netscape.net (Holly Bergevin)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:47:36 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Making an area stretch to maximum area with CSS
Message-ID: <1B326182.65ADBA44.009CE500@netscape.net>

Webapprentice <webapprentice@onemain.com> wrote:

>http://www.cocoebiz.com/newsite/index.html
>
>The middle white area, where there is a link to "See the style sheet," 
>is not stretched all the way. �I'd like to stretch the white area so it 
>almost reaches the right white area but not colliding with it.
>
>I've tried "width: auto" and "width: 100%," but this doesn't work.

Hi Stephen - You have a couple of options here, and which you chose may depend on what else you put on the page.

To use absolute positioning as currently written on the div#contentarea and get the browsers to expand a greater distance than the short amount of text you have in there now, specifiy a width for #contentarea. You might choose your min-width value for this. Depending on the browser size and/or screen resolution of your user, the gap will be wider or narrower (or non-existant) with this method. I suspect that this probably isn't what you want to have to deal with.

Another option is to use relative positioning instead, and use right margining to set the distance away from the right border, much like you already have. This will allow the div#contentarea to expand the full width of the area available, as long as it is greater than the min-width you have set. You will also have to adjust the top position, and you shouldn't need the width property at all. 

#contentarea {
 � �other: styles;
 � �position: relative;/* change */
 � �top: 46px; � � � �/* change also */
 � �/*width: auto;*/ /* probably not necessary */

The min-width property will keep the #contentarea from collapsing beyond the value you have set as the browser narrows, but the #rightnavarea will slide on top of the #contentarea as the browser is narrowed beyond the min-width (except in IE-win which doesn't recognize min-width). If you want that middle column fluid in all browsers, remove the min-width property.

HTH,

~holly




__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
From webapprentice at onemain.com  Tue Apr 29 05:02:46 2003
From: webapprentice at onemain.com (Webapprentice)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:02:46 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Making an area stretch to maximum area with CSS
In-Reply-To: <1B326182.65ADBA44.009CE500@netscape.net>
References: <1B326182.65ADBA44.009CE500@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <3EADF966.6080700@onemain.com>

Hi Holly,
Thank you for the quick reply.

You are correct that absolute positioning + min-width was not the way I 
wanted go.  I  wanted the middle column to be fluid, much like the old 
HTML table hack of setting a td width to 100%.

Your second option of relative positioning intrigued me.  I have never 
quite gotten that to behave properly, so I've always used absolute 
positioning.  I had a lot of problems trying to combine 
relatively-positioned elements with absolutely-positioned elements.  I 
probably don't understand page flow enough.

I've employed your relatively-positioned idea, and it works.  I must 
have been very close to solving my problem, since I only had to change 
two properties for #contentarea, position and top.

http://www.cocoebiz.com/newsite/index.html

I'm kind of amazed that relatively-positioned elements and 
absolutely-positioned elements can cooperate.

I have to examine relative positioning more closely.

Thank you Holly.

Sincerely,
Stephen

From rick at starskiweb.co.uk  Tue Apr 29 07:01:46 2003
From: rick at starskiweb.co.uk (Rick Hurst)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:01:46 +0100
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
In-Reply-To: <005901c30dbb$1890bcd0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
References: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEEPHCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>
	<005901c30dbb$1890bcd0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>
Message-ID: <3EAE154A.905@starskiweb.co.uk>

Jason Estes wrote:

> In the original email he said they were set up as
> 
> p {declarations}
> 
> and wanted something like
> 
> #mysite p {declarations}

I probably wasn't being specific enough - i'll explain the set-up:-

There are two templates involved - one CMS admin template which already 
has a stylesheet attached (and needs to stay attached), and we have 
attached our own additional stylesheet and one public site template 
which has just our style sheet. Within the admin template you create 
"inner templates" such as "news item" which are inserted into the public 
site template, but the problem is when you try to preview these inner 
templates within the admin template, they also inherit the global styles 
from the admin style sheet.

The admin style sheet has rules defined for p, h1, h2 etc and so does 
our public style sheet, and although we can redefine each of these rule 
by rule, this means we would need to add loads of extra rules to our 
public style sheet to catch everything.

I was trying to find a way to stop the inheritance for everything within 
a particular div without having to overide the styles one by one.

Hope thats clearer!

From andy at webprojects.co.uk  Tue Apr 29 08:48:42 2003
From: andy at webprojects.co.uk (Andy Walker)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:48:42 +0100
Subject: [css-d] IE6  absolute positioning problems
Message-ID: <002f01c30e23$c2a8ea40$c501a8c0@holly>

Looks fine in everything except IE6

I was using an ie6 - specific hack...

#leftsidebar {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 140px; =
background-color: white; text-align: right;}
/* IE6 ignores the left:0px stuff so detection needed here...*/
* html #leftsidebar { /*\*/ left:-150px; /* */}

This worked fine, but in IE 5.0, it positioned the sidebar off the =
left-hand edge of the page.

I have changed it to...

#leftsidebar {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 140px; =
background-color: white; text-align: right;}
/* IE6 ignores the left:0px stuff so detection needed here...*/
* html #leftsidebar { /*\*/ left:0px; /* */}

...for the purposes of testing in ie 5.0, but the menu's now incorrectly =
positioned in ie6

http://www.webprojects.co.uk/csslist/

any ideas?
From Andreas.Reuterberg at staff.spray.se  Tue Apr 29 09:55:40 2003
From: Andreas.Reuterberg at staff.spray.se (Andreas Reuterberg)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:55:40 +0200
Subject: [css-d] 2 columns centered but unkown width?
Message-ID: <8E9E6E8B6A579344999D9B303F0B3B2D306312@safir.i.spray.se>

I have a slight problem. I know how to solve it but I would like an =
easier alternative. I have two columns, one of them is 200px wide (for =
example) and the other one is sometimes 200px and sometimes 0px =
(shouldn't be shown). The problem is that these two columns need to be =
centered on the page and to do that I need to put them in a <div> and =
set that width to the width of them both together. But I need to get rid =
of that set width (300px) because the content in the right column is =
there sometimes and sometimes it's not (it contains a banner). I know =
how to do this with tables but.. Well, tables suck :)

Can anyone help me? This is a short example of the code:

<body style=3D"text-align:center;">
	<div style=3D"width:300px; border:1px solid;">
		<div style=3D"float:left; width:200px; border:1px solid;">200px</div>
		<div style=3D"float:left; border:1px solid;">100px</div>
	</div>
</body>


Andreas
From knaepkens.luc at pandora.be  Tue Apr 29 11:51:27 2003
From: knaepkens.luc at pandora.be (Luc)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:51:27 +0200
Subject: [css-d] IE and the fixed position
Message-ID: <1448902190.20030429125127@pandora.be>

 Good afternoon list,      

 I read up on http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/ to make the fixed
 position work in IE but i seem to have a serious brain damage: i
 can't get it to work.

 My testpage:

 http://users.pandora.be/luc_test/Projecten/Test/Pages/Test.htm

 sheet:

 http://users.pandora.be/luc_test/Stylesheets/test.css

 The top banner and left nav should be fixed (Opera does it) but i
 can't get it fixed in IE.  Could some of you kind souls explain me
 how to implement the devnull hack or provide me the code for my
 project so i can try and figger it out myself?
 
-- 
Best regards,
 Luc
--------------------------------------------
Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 3 and using the best browser: Opera.

"Acting is just a way of making a living, the family is life." -
Denzel Washington (1954-____).
--------------------------------------------


From BillC at VanEerden.com  Tue Apr 29 11:54:15 2003
From: BillC at VanEerden.com (Bill Creswell)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 06:54:15 -0400
Subject: [css-d] position:fixed and IE
Message-ID: <615A7A1331831E4E88D61D05F20F84C1099B90@vec01.vaneerden.com>

>>Here're a couple more:
>>http://www.projectseven.com/mxvision/fixednav/fixedbar.htm (cool but
>>problematic on Mac)

Caution to all: If you use this, remember that (800x600 Firebird) I can't do anything to make the bottom of the menu visible.

Bill Creswell
Helpdesk/Webmaster
Van Eerden Distribution
http://www.vaneerden.com
(616) 452-1426 Ext. 293
 

From steve at mrclay.org  Tue Apr 29 12:11:39 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:11:39 -0400
Subject: [css-d] reset all applied styles for selector?
In-Reply-To: <3EAE154A.905@starskiweb.co.uk>
References: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEEPHCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>
 <005901c30dbb$1890bcd0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH> <3EAE154A.905@starskiweb.co.uk>
Message-ID: <56127789375.20030429071139@mrclay.org>

Tuesday, April 29, 2003, 2:01:46 AM, Rick wrote:
RH> when you try to preview these inner templates within the admin
RH> template, they also inherit the global styles from the admin style
RH> sheet.

Ooooh, you're preview environment is basically corrupted by an admin
CSS file that won't be there for the user, but you need /some/ of the
admin rules to keep the CMS "chrome" nice during preview.  Here are a
couple ideas for which you'll need a partial admin.css file with what
you don't want stripped out:

1) Write a bookmarklet that disables link to admin.css and adds link
to partialAdmin.css  You'd have to run this with every preview

2) Temporarily replace admin.css with partialAdmin.css on the server.
Try to tie the code to do this into the preview function of your CMS.

If partialAdmin.css can't be created, your dev team would just have
to live with the admin "chrome" being unstyled during preview.  Just
/move/ or disable admin.css temporarily.

HTH,
Steve
-- 
http://mrclay.org/

From malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk  Tue Apr 29 13:24:48 2003
From: malaja at malaja.f9.co.uk (malaja)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:24:48 +0100
Subject: [css-d] Site check please... Global 3 Col Fluid CSS Template
References: <LNEPLDGPPPMJAEKAAELDEEPHCKAA.svendtofte@svendtofte.com>
	<005901c30dbb$1890bcd0$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH> <3EAE154A.905@starskiweb.co.uk>
	<56127789375.20030429071139@mrclay.org>
Message-ID: <00b501c30e4a$53696250$fd00a8c0@mike>

I hope some kind folk can help with a site check... please!

Given recent discussions on this list, especially regarding em's v % and
browser compatibility/hacks, I decided to create global templates that
address some regular issues. My aim is to create some sort of "Standard", a
good starter for people to use which also explains how the page builds from
beginning to final design.

The first of these templates is for a 3 column, cross-browser, cross
platform, standards compliant, table-less, fluid page. The first-draft home
page is at
http://www.china-and-west.com/cssTemps/layout1_3col/three_col_home.htm and
its layout is at
http://www.china-and-west.com/cssTemps/layout1_3col/three_col_testbasic.htm
. The layout test page is a bit messy but there so the code is seen at the
place of relevance in the layout.

I would appreciate site checks on as many platforms as possible. To save
cluttering the list with replies I would appreciate a direct reply unless
there are issues which may be of design relevance to all.

One intention is to fully comment both the CSS and page, so commentary is as
important as design competence.

I need the type of templates I am designing. At the same time I considered
they should be available to all, thus saving re-invention and enabling
designers (especially those new to CSS) to grasp some issues constantly
discussed on the list. I am happy to act as a conduit (do the work) to
benefit others. If, when finished, someone wants to put these templates on
their own CSS-help sites or in publications then okay, so long as this helps
towards good design standards.

When this one's complete I intend to produce fully commented templates for
2-column, photo album, and E-book pages. I'll add more if I'm not totally
exhausted after that!

Many thanks!

Mike A
Edinburgh, Scotland
malaja@malaja.f9.co.uk (preferred for this subject)
mike@china-and-west.com
T. 00 44 31 664 6604

From ehmer at pacific.net.au  Tue Apr 29 13:49:00 2003
From: ehmer at pacific.net.au (David & Angela Ehmer)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:49:00 +1000
Subject: [css-d] Books on CSS positioning?
Message-ID: <004001c30e4d$b6c5e8c0$a6f88fcb@ehmer>

Appreciate any thoughts on recently released books that cover CSS in some
detail.  Especially page layout/positioning of elements with thoroughly
explained examples.

Thanks
David

From grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de  Tue Apr 29 13:58:56 2003
From: grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de (Jens Grochtdreis)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:58:56 +0200
Subject: [css-d] Books on CSS positioning?
References: <004001c30e4d$b6c5e8c0$a6f88fcb@ehmer>
Message-ID: <007301c30e4f$1b61def0$d201a8c0@jenspc>

Hi David,

my favourite is "Eric Meyer on CSS" [http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/].
It is full of advanced CSS-Stuff which you only can understand, if you have
a little bit of CSS-practice.

And I hope, there will be a 2nd Edition of his "normal" CSS-Book at
O'Reilly.

Greetings from Germany,

Jens

From ksoh at colby.edu  Tue Apr 29 14:13:04 2003
From: ksoh at colby.edu (Karen Oh)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:13:04 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Books on CSS positioning?
In-Reply-To: <004001c30e4d$b6c5e8c0$a6f88fcb@ehmer>
References: <004001c30e4d$b6c5e8c0$a6f88fcb@ehmer>
Message-ID: <a05111b09bad42a3626b7@[137.146.196.147]>

I got Eric Meyer's "Eric Meyer on CSS."

It's decent if you are interested in learning CSS from the start. 
Each chapter is an case study of a design and he shows you how to 
create that design using CSS with step by step instructions. Good 
beginner tutorial book, but not a reference book.

If you want a reference type of book that gives crude examples (boxes 
and text mainly, nothing designed or whatnot), the O'Reilly book on 
CSS is a good base. That's how I am learning.

Plus, there's tons of stuff online.

HTH
Karen


>Appreciate any thoughts on recently released books that cover CSS in some
>detail.  Especially page layout/positioning of elements with thoroughly
>explained examples.
From ckestes at bewb.org  Tue Apr 29 14:31:36 2003
From: ckestes at bewb.org (Jason Estes)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:31:36 -0500
Subject: [css-d] Books on CSS positioning?
References: <004001c30e4d$b6c5e8c0$a6f88fcb@ehmer>
Message-ID: <001701c30e53$a8dfa790$2901a8c0@SWORDFISH>

> Appreciate any thoughts on recently released books that cover CSS in some
> detail.  Especially page layout/positioning of elements with thoroughly
> explained examples.


I too have "Eric Meyer on CSS" and I think it's a fantastic tool.  It starts
with simple pages in tables and progresses through entire pages done
strictly with CSS.  It delves into a few of the finer points of CSS which I
think is great, plus there are online files you can download to "play along"
with the book, which is infinitely more helpful than just reading text.


Jason Estes
The BEWB
www.bewb.org


From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Tue Apr 29 14:58:03 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 06:58:03 -0700
Subject: [css-d] IE6  absolute positioning problems
Message-ID: <OFF0EE69DE.6470F02F-ON88256D17.004BAB72@capgroup.com>


[n.b.: I've reformatted the styles for folks whose mail readers
automatically wrap text...]

Andy wrote:

> I was using an ie6 - specific hack...

> #leftsidebar {
>   position: absolute;
>   left: 0px;
>   top: 0px;
>   width: 140px;
>   background-color: white;
>   text-align: right;
> }
> /* IE6 ignores the left:0px stuff so detection needed here...*/
> * html #leftsidebar {
>   /*\*/
>   left:-150px;
>   /* */
> }

I've seen that hack identified for hiding properties in Mac IE 5, but not
IE 6. Try

* html #leftsidebar {
   /*\*/
   lef\t:-150px;
   /* */
}

This assumes that Mac IE 5 works fine with left: 0px. The escaped "t"
causes all IE versions except for 6.0 to ignore the style -- see "A
Modified SBMH" on http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack

If Mac IE needs the same fix, remove the comments. See Edwardson Tan's
great page on comment hacks at
http://www.info.com.ph/~etan/w3pantheon/style/commentbugs.html for other
variations.

HTH,

MikeL

From jazzsnot at optonline.net  Tue Apr 29 15:03:57 2003
From: jazzsnot at optonline.net (jazzsnot@optonline.net)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:03:57 -0400
Subject: [css-d] Books on CSS positioning?
Message-ID: <b4f13b2bfc.b2bfcb4f13@optonline.net>

"Designing CSS Web Pages" is an amazing book, especially for design. It teaches you how to design pages properly and put CSS to use. It has made me think totally different after reading it. Highly recommended.

Roy

From gsam at trini0.org  Tue Apr 29 16:06:45 2003
From: gsam at trini0.org (Gerard Samuel)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:06:45 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What's the difference, when to use?
Message-ID: <3EAE9505.9020309@trini0.org>

Just beginning my journeys with CSS.
With <p> <div> and <span>, I've noticed that
<p> creates 2 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
<div> creates 1 line break before/after the open/close tags.
<span> creates 0 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.

Im just looking for verification on this observation.
If Im correct, are there any rules as to when or when not to use these 
to gain a "special" effect.

For example, Im currently recoding an online poll, and Im trying not to 
use tables for layout.
The only way I can make the input and options line up in a line by line 
fashion is by ->
<input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
<div></div>
<input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>

(Yes, they aren't styled, its just for show) So one can potentially 
control the space between options, style the option text,
and if I wrap the inputs in a <span>, or "class" the input tag, style 
the form inputs.

Thanks for any insight you may provide.

From steve at mrclay.org  Tue Apr 29 16:14:27 2003
From: steve at mrclay.org (Steve Clay)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:14:27 -0400
Subject: [css-d] what is troubling IE6?
Message-ID: <132787639953.20030429111427@mrclay.org>

Lea's layout made me think of the old Mad Fold-Ins, so I put together
this in CSS: http://mrclay.org/junk/mad/ (narrow the window)

I know IE doesn't have min/max widths, but I don't see where the rest
of this is failing.  The wider inside image seems to be missing (or
rendering at width:0).  Any ideas to fix this?

Everything is held by abs. positioning:

outer div:
|--- img ---|--- inside span ---|--- img --- | (max-width set)
   left:0;        left:95px;       right:0;
                  right:95px;
                 display:block;
inside span:
|---- img ----|
  width:100%;

Steve

PS: Where I can get a funnier fold-in?
-- 
http://mrclay.org

From dnelson at netbank.com  Tue Apr 29 16:14:18 2003
From: dnelson at netbank.com (Dave Nelson)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:14:18 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
Message-ID: <4EF4322541E0D311A8BB009027E7E57B04B2EBB4@ntbkexch.atlnetbank.com>

Bill Creswell [mailto:BillC@VanEerden.com] said:

>> I think that Netscape 5.0 is actually Netscape 6.0. The dot release of
6.1
>> was the first time its userAgent changed to 6.x
>
> Do we know that? I was thinking WebTrends was mis-interpreting Moz 1.4
(which reads Mozilla/5.0 in the userAgent > string).\
>
> Bill

I downloaded and installed Netscape 6 from the evolt archive and if it is
the same install from the initial release I was wrong. It is clearly
identified as Netscape 6

userAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; m18)
Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0

My own stats from AWStats so far this month:
23 million hits total
91% IE
 4% NS

Netscape5   250854
Netscape6.0   1832 

From afternoon at uk2.net  Tue Apr 29 16:26:50 2003
From: afternoon at uk2.net (Ben Godfrey)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:26:50 +0100
Subject: [css-d] What's the difference, when to use?
In-Reply-To: <3EAE9505.9020309@trini0.org>
Message-ID: <FF8EE716-7A56-11D7-BCD5-00039317C0C4@uk2.net>


<span> and <div> are unstyled tags and contain no style properties, 
except that span is inline in it's display and div is block. This 
creates the effect you describe.

<p> on the other hand has more default properties. Commonly this 
involves a margin or padding area equal in height to one line. 
Different browsers define this standard style differently. IE PC places 
some space above and below the text, Moz places it all below. You can 
override this space with a rule like:

p { margin:0; padding:0; margin-bottom:1em; }

For your example, I would recommend something along the lines of the 
following:

<div class="f"> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /> 
bar</div>
<div class="f" > <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /> 
bar</div>

And in your CSS:

.f { margin-bottom:1em; }

Or whatever presentation you desire.

HTH,

Ben

> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
> <div></div>
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>

On Tuesday, Apr 29, 2003, at 16:06 Europe/London, Gerard Samuel wrote:

> Just beginning my journeys with CSS.
> With <p> <div> and <span>, I've noticed that
> <p> creates 2 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
> <div> creates 1 line break before/after the open/close tags.
> <span> creates 0 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
>
> Im just looking for verification on this observation.
> If Im correct, are there any rules as to when or when not to use these 
> to gain a "special" effect.
>
> For example, Im currently recoding an online poll, and Im trying not 
> to use tables for layout.
> The only way I can make the input and options line up in a line by 
> line fashion is by ->
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
> <div></div>
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
>
> (Yes, they aren't styled, its just for show) So one can potentially 
> control the space between options, style the option text,
> and if I wrap the inputs in a <span>, or "class" the input tag, style 
> the form inputs.
>
> Thanks for any insight you may provide.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
>

(q)	Ben Godfrey?
(a)	Web Developer and Designer
	See http://aftnn.org/ for details

From justin at get-put.com  Tue Apr 29 16:29:50 2003
From: justin at get-put.com (justin braem)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:29:50 -0500
Subject: [css-d] align-bottom
Message-ID: <6AAAFCBE-7A57-11D7-B8A8-000393C28C30@get-put.com>

I'm new here, so my apologies if this has been covered before.

Is there any way to align a div to the bottom of a page without 
resorting to finding the window height with javascript?

From Michael_Landis at capgroup.com  Tue Apr 29 17:18:02 2003
From: Michael_Landis at capgroup.com (Michael_Landis@capgroup.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:18:02 -0700
Subject: [css-d] What's the difference, when to use?
Message-ID: <OFFD126CEE.4F42D79A-ON88256D17.00570F2F@capgroup.com>


Gerard Samuel wrote:

> Just beginning my journeys with CSS.
> With <p> <div> and <span>, I've noticed that
> <p> creates 2 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
> <div> creates 1 line break before/after the open/close tags.
> <span> creates 0 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
>
> Im just looking for verification on this observation.
> If Im correct, are there any rules as to when or when not to use these
> to gain a "special" effect.
>
> For example, Im currently recoding an online poll, and Im trying not to
> use tables for layout.
> The only way I can make the input and options line up in a line by line
> fashion is by ->
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
> <div></div>
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>

Welcome to the world of CSS, Gerard! It sounds like you are also beginning
to get into the world of structural (or semantic) HTML.

Basically, each tag represents some type of information. <p> tags are
designed to represent paragraphs. Most browsers place space between
paragraphs to identify where it begins or ends. Some browsers put one full
line space between paragraphs, others place half a space. Either of these
can be overridden with CSS, though.

<div> and <span> tags are generic containers used to enclose content that
has some common purpose. <div> tags are intended to represent discrete
blocks of information, while <span> tags are intended to represent specific
information inside of a block. (More accurately, <div> tags are block-level
containers that typically create carriage returns, and <span> tags are
inline containers.)

In most circumstances, you would want to wrap information that belongs in
its own block in <div> tags, so that

<input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
<div></div>
<input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>

becomes

<div><input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo"
/><span>bar</span></div>
<div><input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo"
/><span>bar</span></div>

This tells the browser that the label "bar" belongs with the checkbox as a
single unit. You can then apply CSS styles to the divs, to properly space
the blocks apart.

<div> tags can also contain other block-level tags like <p> and other
<div>s, but paragraphs can only contain non-block-level elements like
<span>, <em>, etc. (If you consider <p> tags as representing paragraphs it
makes some sense -- you might emphasize some text in a paragraph, but you
typically wouldn't place a paragraph inside of another paragraph, for
example.)

Another enhancement you might consider is replacing the <span> tags with
<label> tags. Inside forms, <label> tags permit you to add semantic value
to this text. You can associate labels with inputs, so that clicking the
label highlights the input as well. As an example, you can rewrite the
above checkboxes as follows:

<div><input type="checkbox" name="option[]" id="optionFoo" value="foo"
/><label for="optionFoo">foo</label></div>
<div><input type="checkbox" name="option[]" id="optionBar" value="bar"
/><label for="optionBar">bar</label></div>

As long as the "for" attribute in the label matches the "id" attribute in
the input, you can click the text and it will check/uncheck the checkbox.
You can style the label tag in the same way as you would've intended to
style the span tag. Also, the <label> tag more semantically represents the
purpose of this text.

For more information, check out the "Forms" section of the HTML 4.01
specification:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html

This spec can also be useful (albeit a bit daunting at first) for finding
out how W3C intended HTML to be put together in a document.

HTH,

MikeL

From scotts at rci-nv.com  Tue Apr 29 17:20:50 2003
From: scotts at rci-nv.com (Scott Schrantz)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:20:50 -0700
Subject: [css-d] What's the difference, when to use?
Message-ID: <D719D61D4BD8D311A26700A0C9E0E7B649EE3B@SERVER1>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Samuel [mailto:gsam@trini0.org]
> 
> Just beginning my journeys with CSS.
> With <p> <div> and <span>, I've noticed that
> <p> creates 2 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
> <div> creates 1 line break before/after the open/close tags.
> <span> creates 0 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
> 
> Im just looking for verification on this observation.
> If Im correct, are there any rules as to when or when not to 
> use these to gain a "special" effect.

One of the first things to learn when using CSS is not to choose elements
based on what their default presentation is, but rather on what structure
they give to the page. You then use CSS to give them the presentation you
want.

<p> denotes a paragraph. Use it when you are marking up a single paragraph
of text. It is a block element, meaning that there is a line break before
and after it. It doesn't "create 2 line breaks", it has margins that create
white space between it and other elements. That white space can be done away
with using CSS.

p {margin: 0px;}

<div> is a container, used for grouping elements. You use it when several
paragraphs need to have the same style or be separated from the rest of the
page somehow. It is also a block element, but its margins are zero by
default.

<span> is also a container, but it is an inline container. As you noticed,
it doesn't come with any line break or margins. You use it when you need to
isolate a few words or a passage in the middle of a paragraph and give them
a particular style.

The true way to use CSS is to start by using basic HTML properly, and then
add the CSS to make it look the way you want. Don't choose HTML elemnts for
their "special effects". Add the effects with CSS.

--
Scott Schrantz
www.computer-vet.com/weblog/
scotts@computer-vet.com
From grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de  Tue Apr 29 17:27:50 2003
From: grochtdreis.jens at bartenbach.de (Jens Grochtdreis)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:27:50 +0200
Subject: [css-d] What is Netscape 5.0?
References: <4EF4322541E0D311A8BB009027E7E57B04B2EBB4@ntbkexch.atlnetbank.com>
Message-ID: <00b001c30e6c$4a62c670$d201a8c0@jenspc>

Hi,

according to Apple the new Safari-Browser may be your Netscape5.
On http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari_faq.html#2 you can read:

<cite>
The entire Safari user-agent string is:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/XX (KHTML, like
Gecko) Safari/YY

...where XX is the version of Apple's web technology used by Safari and YY
is the version of the Safari application.
And remember, since the rendering engine used by Safari behaves most like
Netscape, the Safari JavaScript engine will report navigator.appName as
"Netscape". Other Navigator values include:

      navigator.appCodeName = "Mozilla" navigator.appName = "Netscape"
      navigator.appVersion = "5.0" navigator.platform = "MacPPC"
      navigator.product = "Gecko" navigator.productSub = "20030107"
      navigator.vendor = "Apple Computer, Inc."

</cite>

HTH,

Jens

From gsam at trini0.org  Tue Apr 29 18:55:01 2003
From: gsam at trini0.org (Gerard Samuel)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:55:01 -0400
Subject: [css-d] What's the difference, when to use?
In-Reply-To: <3EAE9505.9020309@trini0.org>
References: <3EAE9505.9020309@trini0.org>
Message-ID: <3EAEBC75.7010602@trini0.org>

Thanks to all those who replied.  It has become a little clearer for me.
I felt that what I was trying to do was cheat the system, and I didn't 
want to develop bad
habits from the start.
Now I think I understand why Eric Meyer requested to pull all <br> and 
&nbsp; tags out of
your html document when converting to CSS in the book "Eric Meyer on 
CSS" (excellent resource so far for me).
So back to work for me, till my next question :)

Gerard Samuel wrote:

> Just beginning my journeys with CSS.
> With <p> <div> and <span>, I've noticed that
> <p> creates 2 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
> <div> creates 1 line break before/after the open/close tags.
> <span> creates 0 line breaks before/after the open/close tags.
>
> Im just looking for verification on this observation.
> If Im correct, are there any rules as to when or when not to use these 
> to gain a "special" effect.
>
> For example, Im currently recoding an online poll, and Im trying not 
> to use tables for layout.
> The only way I can make the input and options line up in a line by 
> line fashion is by ->
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
> <div></div>
> <input type="checkbox" name="option[]" value="foo" /><span>bar</span>
>
> (Yes, they aren't styled, its just for show) So one can potentially 
> control the space between options, style the option text,
> and if I wrap the inputs in a <span>, or "class" the input tag, style 
> the form inputs.
>
> Thanks for any insight you may provide.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
>

From weston at canncentral.org  Tue Apr 29 19:37:27 2003
From: weston at canncentral.org (Weston Cann)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:37:27 -0600
Subject: [css-d] Trying to hide styles from different browsers (IE Win, IE
	Mac, everything else)
Message-ID: <A0B8F58A-7A71-11D7-94CC-0050E4F9FA12@canncentral.org>

I've got a layout with some absolutely positioned elements that seem to 
display a few pixels off from browser to browser. After some reflection, 
I've decided to try and feed different sets of values to three general 
kinds of browsers:

(1) MS IE Win
(2) MS IE Mac
(3) Any other child-selector recognizing browser

The scheme I've been trying to use to accomplish this has been:

(1) Feed the IE Win value straight out in the style sheet ( example: 
#tlmenu { position: absolute; top: 118px; } )
(2) Feed the IE Mac value using a child selector expression, which is 
therefore hidden from IE Win (example: #centring>#tlmenu { top: 119px } )
(3) Use the \ comment hack and another child selector expression to feed 
another value to all other child-selector reading browsers (example: /* 
hack \ */ #centring>#tlmenu { top: 120px; } )

The problem is: the Gecko-based browser I'm using (Chimera/Navigator .6) 
seems to be oblivious to everything I put in #3. Am I going about this 
in a fundamentally wrong way, or is there just a detail I'm missing? Are 
there other, better schemes?

(If you want the full context, go to 
http://weston.canncentral.org/misc/XVoyager/about.html ... it's got the 
XHTML and style sheets)

Thanks,

	Weston

~ == ~
http://weston.canncentral.org/
Maybe the reason the invisible hand is invisible is because it isn't 
there.

From css.rules at ntlworld.com  Tue Apr 29 20:53:08 2003
From: css.rules at ntlworld.com (Standards R'Us)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:53:08 +0100
Subject: [css-d] IE 5 Margin Woes
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAr8lY0hVSt0GwCUriyH46gcKDAAAQAAAAUrRwFaryNk+fCMqWmDO7KAEAAAAA@ntlworld.com>

Hi all - newbie to the list - hope you all are well,

Now to the matters in hand, can anyone help/advise me on the following
point.

Firstly the CSS validates and the XHTML does as strict. 

But....IE 5 seems to ignore the margin for the nav.a and nav.a:hover
declaration set on my css in regards to the CSS below;

.nav{
background-image:url('../img/navbg.jpg');
background-repeat:no-repeat;
border-left:1px solid #CCCCCC;
border-right:1px solid #CCCCCC;
border-top:medium none;
margin:0px;
padding:0px;
width:780px
}
.nav a{
color:#000000;
font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;
font-size:12px;
font-weight:normal;
line-height:52px;
margin-left:14px;    /ignores
margin-right:14px;  /ignores
padding:0px;
text-decoration:none;
text-transform:capitalize;
}
.nav a:hover{
color:#FF0000;
font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;
font-size:12px;
line-height:52px;
margin-left:14px;    /ignores
margin-right:14px;  /ignores
text-decoration:none;
text-transform:capitalize;
}

Any suggestions?

TIA

Jeremy


From akuehn at nc.rr.com  Tue Apr 29 20:59:56 2003
From: akuehn at nc.rr.com (Adam Kuehn)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:59:56 -0400
Subject: [css-d] ems or percent?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428090440.00bb3f48@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030428090440.00bb3f48@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <p05210607bad4798b4575@[152.3.174.98]>

At 9:09 AM -0300 4/28/03, Joel Young wrote:
>===============
>Scenario 1:
>Assume that I start my page off like this: body {font-size: 80%}
>
>This means that all text on the page will be rendered only 80%
>of the browser's default. Yes? No?

This is a non-flame-war aspect to this problem, so I'll answer.  Yes, 
your reading is correct on this point and all the points that follow, 
with one caveat: be clear that "browser's default" refers to the 
person doing the browsing, not the piece of software.  As has been 
thoroughly discussed, the individual may have changed his or her 
settings, so what they see may not be the same as what the browser 
ships configured to display.  So long as you are aware of that 
possibility, you have calculated resulting sizes correctly.

You have to decide for yourself if it is more important to cater to 
the cognoscenti or the clueless.  Just be aware that whichever group 
you pick, the other group will see something different when it comes 
to font size.  Also, it is pretty much universally acknowledged that 
the clueless is by far the larger group.

<opinion type="strongly held">
My own view is that it is better to be concerned more about 
accessibility and less about aesthetics.  Text that is slightly too 
small is less easily accommodated than text that is slightly too 
large.  In addition, my experience is that more users back out of 
sites with text they find too small than sites with text they find 
too large.  This is the primary - and contrary to popular belief, 
carefully-considered - reason that browser makers have chosen font 
size defaults rather on the large side.  Take care in overriding 
their judgment.

In any case, be extremely sure of your choice if making non-header 
font sizes greater than 150% or less than 75-80% of the default 
*anywhere* on a site.  Sizes outside that range are virtually assured 
of irritating some of your users.  (That is, constructions like your 
third example, which made the inner text 72% of the "browser's 
default", should generally be avoided.)
</opinion>

-- 

-Adam Kuehn