someone to tell me, I'm not up 100% on the float model myself), but
Moz is collapsing the box containing the floated divs as it should,
but it isn't taking into account the box made by the table and
collapsing. Perhaps it is because there is not set height on the
table? Could be that IE is letting the table continue to impact page
flow even though it is within a floated element too.
My suggestion...use margin-left for positioning your boxes, and kill
the floats, or hack it with min-height. Imo with a fixed width design,
floats should not have to be used for layout anyway.
Also the #pg_body declaration has a typo, but you may not want to fix
it... :)
--
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 2:25:49 PM, you wrote:
CG> Hi Sandy:
CG> Couple of points...
CG> First off, I agree whole-heartedly that coding for standards is in every coder/programmer's best interests. As long as we collectively continue to jump through hoops to get our sites to render
CG> in non-standards compliant browsers, we offer the browser manufacturers no incentives to adhere to standards themselves. We've already established a precedent that we'll write conditional after
CG> conditional and redirection after redirection to accomodate them.
CG> It definitely is liberating to be able to say, "I code to an accepted standard. If your browser doesn't view it properly, it's the browser's fault". Of course, not everybody can say that. Many
CG> are bound to make their sites accessible to as many browsers as possible and that unfortunately means having to continue the hoops-jumping-thru.
CG> Now I would like to vent about CSS...I've tried lately to move away from the table-based layouts in favor of css based layouts (which you seem to be a staunch advocate of). But doesn't CSS, at
CG> this point in time, suffer from the same problems of having to do "browser-sniffing"? Even on your blog...you used the rounded box corners courtesy of cssvault. Well, doesn't that style have an
CG> explicit 'condition' (for lack of a better term) to address a specific browser? My latest attempt at a table-less layout is at http://130.13.124.245:6699/comix/titles.cfm I built it while
CG> testing in IE 5.5/6 (yes, yes, i know...). It looks...horribly bad in some other browsers. I understand this to be due to IE's improper rendering of the box model.
CG> So one of the more prominent browsers out there (really, the most prominent browser) misinterprets the padding/margins on a div/span. So once again, we (coders/programmers) are forced to employ
CG> 'hacks' to accomodate different browsers.
CG> Bottom line is that I'm all for adhering to standards. I'm all for writing code that is faster/more efficient/more portable. But the one big question that I guess lingers in my mind is... "are
CG> we there yet?"
CG> After a few unsuccessful attempts at table-less layouts, I say no. Curious as to what opinions others have (in spite of what practices they may employ).
CG> Charlie
CG> ----- Original Message -----
CG> From: Sandy Clark
CG> To: CF-Community
CG> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:00 PM
CG> Subject: RE: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
CG> While its frustrating that some of the items promoted in the standards are
CG> not in any browser, blame the browser makers, not the standards
CG> organizations.
CG> I'm a tyrant on this subject (ask my co-workers), but being able to write
CG> HTML and CSS that complies with some sort of standard, makes my life easier.
CG> I'm not having to write a hack for every browser out there and having to
CG> re-write when a new browser comes on the market.
CG> If we all promote and use web standards, and use browsers which follow the
CG> standards, then there will be incentives for the browser makers to implemnet
CG> the standards in their web sites. If we don't and use what's out there,
CG> then where is the incentive?
CG> _____
CG> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CG> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:25 PM
CG> To: CF-Community
CG> Subject: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
CG> So with the semi-OT talk of standards over on cf-talk, it coincides with
CG> something I've been thinking and some frustrations I've been having.
CG> Standards don't exist.
CG> They are a frumious Bandersnatch. We can write the words and they can even
CG> have some kind of meaning to people, but they either don't seem to have the
CG> same meaning to everyone or they simply only exist as words and will never
CG> be seen in reality.
CG> Dave's quote was excellent and worth repeating I think:
CG> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
CG> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
CG> depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
CG> A current CSS frustration:
CG> display: table-column-group
CG> I really need that for a project I'm working on. I need the ability to
CG> control the display of a column in a table. Yes I can kludge around it, but
CG> it's not pretty. So what browsers support this CSS2 declaration that was
CG> ratified over 5 years ago? None. It's a standard that doesn't exist. It's my
CG> frumious Bandersnatch.
CG> -Kevin
CG> _____
CG>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
