Re: [css-d] doctype

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Chris Blake wrote:

> HI,
> 
> Although it's not a CSS question it is strongly related to validation  
> which is something we all care about at css-discuss so I am sticking  
> my neck out a bit but hope to get an OK response.
> 
> I have validated a very simple layout and although it validates I am  
> getting a few warnings:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwch.redrunner.co.uk%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.767
> 
> Most seem to be to do with the doctype which is something I know  
> little about. Basically I want to chose the easiest one to use (easy  
> in the sense of validation). The results gave me a link to a page of  
> different doctypes and what I think is I should be choosing either  
> HTML 4.0.1, or xhtml 1.0, Transitional. Am I right? What's the  
> difference?

   I recommend 4.01 strict. If it's a new page, you shouldn't use
   transitional. That's for the transition of an old page to valid
   markup.

   Here is the list of valid doctypes:
    

> The site I am going to be using is going to be strictly HTML, CSS and  
> images. I may, depending on results need to use a PNG fix.


-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, 
   Author:
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Chris Blake]

Hi,

So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish   
about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it  
seems that it can't be validated.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd 
">



Worcester Community Housing | Rewards

I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line:  


What gives, I can't even pass 100% before writing anything!

Thanks, CB



On 01/04/2010, at 11:58 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Chris Blake wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>> Although it's not a CSS question it is strongly related to validation
>> which is something we all care about at css-discuss so I am sticking
>> my neck out a bit but hope to get an OK response.
>>
>> I have validated a very simple layout and although it validates I am
>> getting a few warnings:
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwch.redrunner.co.uk%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.767
>>
>> Most seem to be to do with the doctype which is something I know
>> little about. Basically I want to chose the easiest one to use (easy
>> in the sense of validation). The results gave me a link to a page of
>> different doctypes and what I think is I should be choosing either
>> HTML 4.0.1, or xhtml 1.0, Transitional. Am I right? What's the
>> difference?
>
>   I recommend 4.01 strict. If it's a new page, you shouldn't use
>   transitional. That's for the transition of an old page to valid
>   markup.
>
>   Here is the list of valid doctypes:
>   
>
>> The site I am going to be using is going to be strictly HTML, CSS and
>> images. I may, depending on results need to use a PNG fix.
>
>
> -- 
>   Chris F.A. Johnson, 
>   Author:
>   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
>   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
>

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Norman Fournier]

On 2010-03-31, at 9:27 PM, Chris Blake wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish   
> about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it  
> seems that it can't be validated.
> 
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd 
> ">
> 
>   
>   
>   Worcester Community Housing | Rewards
> 
> I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line:  
> 
> 
> What gives, I can't even pass 100% before writing anything!
> 
> Thanks, CB
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/04/2010, at 11:58 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Chris Blake wrote:
>> 
>>> HI,
>>> 
>>> Although it's not a CSS question it is strongly related to validation
>>> which is something we all care about at css-discuss so I am sticking
>>> my neck out a bit but hope to get an OK response.
>>> 
>>> I have validated a very simple layout and although it validates I am
>>> getting a few warnings:
>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwch.redrunner.co.uk%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.767
>>> 
>>> Most seem to be to do with the doctype which is something I know
>>> little about. Basically I want to chose the easiest one to use (easy
>>> in the sense of validation). The results gave me a link to a page of
>>> different doctypes and what I think is I should be choosing either
>>> HTML 4.0.1, or xhtml 1.0, Transitional. Am I right? What's the
>>> difference?
>> 
>>  I recommend 4.01 strict. If it's a new page, you shouldn't use
>>  transitional. That's for the transition of an old page to valid
>>  markup.
>> 
>>  Here is the list of valid doctypes:
>>  
>> 
>>> The site I am going to be using is going to be strictly HTML, CSS and
>>> images. I may, depending on results need to use a PNG fix.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>  Chris F.A. Johnson, 
>>  Author:
>>  Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
>>  Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
>> 


Try using XHTML, which is cleaner markup, with this doctype:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

Norman

---
http://www.normanfournier.com


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Thierry Koblentz]

Hi Chris,

> So I have made it 'strict' HTML, but it is now giving me some rubbish
> about character encoding. OK I have not added it because when i do it
> seems that it can't be validated.
> 
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd
> ">

This is HTML

> 
>   
> 
>   Worcester Community Housing | Rewards
> 
> I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line:
> 

This is XHTML
 
> What gives, I can't even pass 100% before writing anything!

Fix this or, if you prefer using XHTML, change the DTD as Norman suggests.


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[MB]

Chris Blake said:

>What gives, I can't even pass 100% before writing anything!

You are mixing the syntax of HTML and XHTML. I wouldn't be using XHTML
unless I had specific reasons for that. From a pure CSS perspective the
reasons for choosing HTML or XHTML are close to nil. However, if you're
going to use CSS layout techniques the strict versions of either
language gives less surprises and more consistent results. There are
circumstances when it could be adviseable to choose the transitional,
but I would argue that's rare.
HTML 4.01 Strict is what I use:

http://www.w3.org/TR/
html4/strict.dtd">





and so on

Note there is no trailing "/" in the meta element.

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Philip TAYLOR]

Norman Fournier wrote:

> Try using XHTML, which is cleaner markup, with this doctype:
>
>   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

Unfortunately this would introduce a further complication, in that
the content should then be served with MIME-type

application/xhtml+xml

However, if you do this, then at least one major browser will
fail to handle it properly.  Thus, as others have already
said, you would do better to use one of the three HTML 4.01
variants (strict, transitional or frameset : the last is
irrelevant in this context), and whilst the purist in me
would advocate "strict", a more pragmatic person might
recommend transitional until you yourself become more familiar
with the standards.

Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[MB]

Chris Blake told:

>Sorry! This document can not be checked.
>
>When i try to validate anything that is UTF8.


If you kept reading you would see that the validation page says further down: 

"I am unable to validate this document because on line 35  it contained
one or more bytes that I cannot interpret as utf-8  (in other words, the
bytes found are not valid values in the specified Character Encoding)"

This means your file contains erroneus characters. What I usually do is
to start a new utf-8 encoded HTML-file and start anew.
If I have a more full source-file I copy the source and start a new
utf-8 encoded HTML-file in my editor and paste the source code into
that. Sometimes the erroneus characters may follow with the copy
process. In that case you have to make sure you copy only valid parts. 



__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Bill Braun]

I have struggled for the longest time to understand the obvious. For 
some reason the differences between HTML 4.01 and XHTML were completely 
lost on me.

And now? Eureka, the dawn finally breaks. Thanks to Chris, Norman, 
Thierry, MB, and Philip. I don't know that you said anything terribly 
different that what I've read before, but it was laid out in a real 
clear manner.

And thanks to Chris for the initial post.

Bill B



__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Bob Rosenberg]

At 12:47 +0200 on 04/01/2010, MB wrote about Re: [css-d] doctype:

>Chris Blake told:
>
>>Sorry! This document can not be checked.
>>
>>When i try to validate anything that is UTF8.
>
>
>If you kept reading you would see that the validation page says further down:
>
>"I am unable to validate this document because on line 35  it contained
>one or more bytes that I cannot interpret as utf-8  (in other words, the
>bytes found are not valid values in the specified Character Encoding)"
>
>This means your file contains erroneus characters. What I usually do is
>to start a new utf-8 encoded HTML-file and start anew.
>If I have a more full source-file I copy the source and start a new
>utf-8 encoded HTML-file in my editor and paste the source code into
>that. Sometimes the erroneus characters may follow with the copy
>process. In that case you have to make sure you copy only valid parts.

This line should read "All content © 2010 
WCH ..." and it will be OK. The problem is that there is a 
literal © pasted there and this is an invalid UTF-8 character (since 
it is High-ASCII and thus needs to be UTF-8 Encoded - Use of © 
fixes this issue).
-- 

Bob Rosenberg
RockMUG Webmaster
webmas...@rockmug.org
www.RockMUG.org
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Thierry Koblentz]

> From a pure CSS perspective the
> reasons for choosing HTML or XHTML are close to nil.

As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
authors to use an ID on  (which can be handy).


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




 

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Bill Braun]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
> authors to use an ID on  (which can be handy).
>   

That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?

Thank you,

Bill B


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Philip TAYLOR]

Bill Braun wrote:

> That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?

As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
believe it to be useful ?  I ask because there can
(and must) be exactly one instance of an HTML element,
so why would a CSS declaration for the HTML element
not be as useful as a CSS declaration for its ID ?

Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Apr 2, 2010, at 8:23 PM, Bill Braun wrote:

> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>> As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows
>> authors to use an ID on  (which can be handy).
>> 
> 
> That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?

In html4 strict, the only attributes allowed on the 'html' element are lang and 
dir
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-HTML

XHTML 1.0 strict strangely allows for the id attribute
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict
(search for 'Document Structure' in that document)

HTML5 also allows id and class on the html element:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-html-element-0
It then links to 'Global attributes'
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#global-attributes

more:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Mar/att-0105/table

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Apr 2, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

> As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
> spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
> HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
> believe it to be useful ?  I ask because there can
> (and must) be exactly one instance of an HTML element,
> so why would a CSS declaration for the HTML element
> not be as useful as a CSS declaration for its ID ?

A number of scripts out there append a class to the root element (html) to 
style elements based on that. Modernizr comes to mind:
http://www.modernizr.com/




html.is-ie-6 body { display: none; }
or something like that... :-)

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Philip TAYLOR]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

> html.is-ie-6 body { display: none; }
> or something like that... :-)

Oh, if only html.ishtml5 {visibility: hidden} :-)))

** Phil.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Thierry Koblentz]

> > That's another mystery to me. Could you unpack a few details?
> 
> As a supplementary question to this, I agree that the
> spec. for XHTML permits this (whilst the spec. for
> HTML does not) but in what circumstance(s) do you
> believe it to be useful ?  I ask because there can
> (and must) be exactly one instance of an HTML element,
> so why would a CSS declaration for the HTML element
> not be as useful as a CSS declaration for its ID ?

As Philippe suggested, it is mostly script related.
For example, one could use JS to plug an id on  so elements can be
styled depending on that hook.

#WeKnowJSisAvailable .widgetPanel {display:none;}

This is much better than using a class or ID on body as it will prevent a
reflow.

Note that because this is generated markup there is not really a validation
issue, but still, I think it's better to do stuff the DTD allows.


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[cFA]

#WeKnowJSisAvailable .widgetPanel {display:none;}

This is much better than using a class or ID on body as it will prevent a
reflow.

---
Hmm, this wouldn't reflow?

_clint
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype

[Thierry Koblentz]

> #WeKnowJSisAvailable .widgetPanel {display:none;}
> 
> This is much better than using a class or ID on body as it will prevent
> a
> reflow.
> 
> ---
> Hmm, this wouldn't reflow?

No, it would not


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype problem

[Vladislav Vladimirov]

> I have a side navigation column that is a normal verticle list of links.
> when I give the link a display: block; rule I seem to get an extra
> bottom margin of 15px. The only browsers that seem to display properly
> are Opera and Safari?

Since you didn't provide a demo link, I could only guess you are
having  elements separating the -s of the navigation. The
breaks should be the cause of the unexpected margin. If you don't have
access to the menu code to delete them, you can hide them through css
like this:

#navigation br {
 display:none;
}

Regards,
Vladislav Vladimirov
http://www.ovalpixels.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Roger Roelofs]

Shelly,

On Jan 17, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Design Groups wrote:

> What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*?  I know it determines how the 
> browser
> should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen 
> if
> you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's standards, but served 
> your
> website as HTML 4.01 Transitional?

It describes what 'type' of document it is.  Every markup language has 
rules.  A doctype tells the browser what set of rules this particular 
document follows.  In reality it is just something the browser looks 
for to try to figure out how to render the document.  There are 2 basic 
rendering modes 'quirks' mode using the old box model and 'standards' 
mode that uses the css box model.  In quirks mode, boxes with padding 
and borders will be narrower than they would be in standards mode based 
on any padding and borders.

hth
-- 
Roger Roelofs
"Remember, if you’re headed in the wrong direction,
God allows U-turns!"
  ~Allison Gappa Bottke
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Jim Nannery]

Afternoon Shelly

You wrote


> Here's a question that was brought to my attention today...
>
> What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*?  I know it determines how the 
> browser
> should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen if
> you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's standards, but served your
> website as HTML 4.01 Transitional?  How out of whack would it throw your
> CSS?  Are there things that HTML 4.01 doesn't even recognize, because it's
> not that far ahead in the game?  If so, what?  Would upping it one notch 
> by
> adding the URI (or changing to HTML 4.01 Strict) make it function 
> properly,
> or would you need to change completely to XHTML 1.0 Transitional at the 
> very
> least?
>
> I was just curious...it was just an interesting thing that passed my way
> today, and I understand the need for the right Doctypes, but I couldn't 
> find
> anything that *exactly* told me how to tell which doctype is best suited 
> for
> whatever you're designing/recognizes (or doesn't) certain parts of CSS.
>
> Hope I made sense here!
>
> ~Shelly
>

One if the best explanations and list of resources can be found a Matthias 
Gutfeldt's page on this subject. [1]

If your document is in "Standard" mode browsers will use the modern Box 
model.  In "Quirks" mode browsers will render the mark up using the old IE 
5x box model.

With Internet Explorer 6 or later, when you use the !DOCTYPE declaration to 
switch on standards-compliant mode, the width and height properties specify 
the distance between the left and right edges and top and bottom edges of 
the bounding box, respectively. The border and padding belts are not 
included. (from the MS library [2] )

When the !DOCTYPE declaration does not switch on standards-compliant mode, 
as with earlier versions of Internet Explorer, the width property includes 
the object's content box, plus the values of the following properties: 
border-left, border-right, padding-left, and padding-right. Subtracting the 
sum of the values of these properties from the value of the width property 
equals the width of the parent object's content box. Likewise, subtracting 
the sum of the values of the border-top, border-bottom, padding-top, and 
padding-bottom properties from the value of the height property equals the 
height of the parent object's content box.  (from the MS library [2] )

There is also good infomation in the CSS-D Wiki [3]  See "Switching:

Hope this helps a little.

[1] http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html
[2] 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp
[3] http://css-discuss.incutio.com/

Jim Nannery
www.redfernenterprises.com 


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Uwe Kaiser]

On 18.01.2006 01:40, Design Groups wrote:
> Here's a question that was brought to my attention today...
> 
> What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*? 

Unfortunately the use of doctype is not very intuitive,
and I too don't understand the *exactly* sense of it.

All I know is:

1)The document declaration is primarily used, in order
   to validate a document.

2)Browsers never validate a document, since it is bare
   of any sense to do it.  As long as the document is
   "well-formed" they will always display it.

3)The XML-parser of a browser don't need a doctype, but
   a name space only.

4)A HTML-parsers don't need a doctype to render a document,
   but they use the the doctype to switch to different modes,
   by convention of browser vendors and W3C.


The only related article I found, is:

DOCTYPE declarations for versioning information
< http://slashdot.org/~Quantum%20Jim/journal/111067 >



I hope, that hepls a bit.

Uwe Kaiser
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Keith Sader]

Try this article:
http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=E2F258C46D285FEE

On 1/17/06, Uwe Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>


--
Keith Sader
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.saderfamily.org/roller/page/ksader
http://www.jroller.com/page/certifieddanger
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[David Dorward]

On 18/01/06, Uwe Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 1)The document declaration is primarily used, in order
>to validate a document.

Well. In theory, ...ish. The Doctype states the markup language being
used. This can then be tested against.

In practise, browsers look at it to do doctype switching more often
then documents get validated.

> 2)Browsers never validate a document,

Some browsers do validate documents (well, sort of, the only example
I've seen uses Tidy, and Tidy isn't a real validator). They warn users
if there are errors. Its useful when testing your own pages.

> since it is bare
>of any sense to do it.  As long as the document is
>"well-formed" they will always display it.

Browsers do amazing amounts of error correction. They try to render
non-well-formed documents too.

> 3)The XML-parser of a browser don't need a doctype, but
>a name space only.

Current implementations of some browsers use the namespace to
determine if some XML is an XML language they recognise.

> 4)A HTML-parsers don't need a doctype to render a document,
>but they use the the doctype to switch to different modes,
>by convention of browser vendors and W3C.

I'm pretty sure that the W3C don't support Doctype Switching.

--
David Dorward 
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Nick Fitzsimons]

> What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*?  I know it determines how the
> browser
> should treat the display of the page and stuff...but what would happen if
> you used perfect CSS that's on par with today's standards, but served your
> website as HTML 4.01 Transitional?  How out of whack would it throw your
> CSS?  Are there things that HTML 4.01 doesn't even recognize, because it's
> not that far ahead in the game?  If so, what?  Would upping it one notch
> by
> adding the URI (or changing to HTML 4.01 Strict) make it function
> properly,
> or would you need to change completely to XHTML 1.0 Transitional at the
> very
> least?
>

HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are the same, as stated on the W3C site:
"XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML 4.01 in XML". [1] The only
difference is the requirement that XHTML be well-formed XML; there's no
hypertext markup language "game" in which one is ahead of the other.

If you are using some aspect of HTML only found in the Transitional DTD
[2] then it is a Transitional document; if you only use elements and
attributes specified in Strict [3], it is a Strict document.

As others have pointed out, browsers use the doctype as a way of switching
rendering mode, but this has nothing to do with the DTD conformance or
otherwise of the document, and it is not the purpose of the doctype. The
Document Type Declaration, to give it its full title, is defined at [4].

To summarise: the document type declaration must correctly identify the
document type definition to which the document is conformant. Using it to
try to force particular browser behaviour, without actually conforming to
the stated doctype, is bad practise at best and could well lead to browser
rendering issues at worst. This is the reason for the oft-heard cry
(around here at least) "Make your code valid and see if it's still
broken."

Check out the article "Liberty! Equality! Validity!" [5] at the Mozilla
site for a more in-depth examination of the issues.

HTH,

Nick.

[1] 
[2] 
[3] 
[4] 
[5] 



-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Design Groups]

Well, I thank you all for the wealth of information!  It's going to take a 
little to wrap my head around all of this - but you've definitely given me 
some things to think about (and you've made me glad that, on my part, I 
validate like crazy and try to ensure as close to "perfect" markup as I can 
make!)

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I appreciate all of the 
input - thanks a bunch!

~Shelly 

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[bj]

Uwe et al. Another article about doctype that you might find helpful. It 
explains what doctype does re the rendering engines of the different 
browsers re quirksmode and such. VERY detailed, and might prove helpful 
if you're looking to fix a problem in a specific browser.



On 18.01.2006 01:40, Design Groups wrote:

>> Here's a question that was brought to my attention today...
>> 
>> What, exactly, does the Doctype *do*? 
>  
>

Unfortunately the use of doctype is not very intuitive,
and I too don't understand the *exactly* sense of it.

All I know is:

1)The document declaration is primarily used, in order
   to validate a document.

2)Browsers never validate a document, since it is bare
   of any sense to do it.  As long as the document is
   "well-formed" they will always display it.

3)The XML-parser of a browser don't need a doctype, but
   a name space only.

4)A HTML-parsers don't need a doctype to render a document,
   but they use the the doctype to switch to different modes,
   by convention of browser vendors and W3C.


The only related article I found, is:

DOCTYPE declarations for versioning information
< http://slashdot.org/~Quantum%20Jim/journal/111067 >




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound says I'm squeaky clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0603-3, 01/18/2006
Tested on: 1/18/2006 2:33:06 PM


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] doctype and css

[Karl Dawson]

Shelly,

A recent 
articleI
wrote might be just the right level of pitch for you?

Cheers,
--
Karl Dawson
Crusader for Web Standards and Accessibility
http://www.thatstandardsguy.co.uk
--
Accessites Team Member - http://www.accessites.org/
--

"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless
of disability is an essential aspect."
Tim Berners-Lee - W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Doctype and CSS

[Zoe M. Gillenwater]

Jim Nannery wrote:

>If your document is in "Standard" mode browsers will use the modern Box 
>model.  In "Quirks" mode browsers will render the mark up using the old IE 
>5x box model.
>  
>

Just to clarify -- not all browsers will use IE 5's box model when in 
Quirks Mode, just IE 6 will.  Other browsers may make rendering changes 
while they are in Quirks Mode, but these changes don't include a switch 
to IE 5's box model.

I'm sure you meant that, Jim, but I wanted to clarify for others.

Zoe

-- 
Zoe M. Gillenwater
Design Services Manager
UNC Highway Safety Research Center
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DocType on page question.

[David Dorward]

2008/10/16 Majestic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have come across some pages that do not used a DocType so does that
> mean you don't need a Doctype on a page

The Doctype is mandatory in most versions of HTML.

Documents served as text/html with no Doctype trigger Quirks modes in
browsers which leads to much inconsistency and pain.

> and if so how do these pages
> work around this so that there page validates ?

In theory, another system of validation could be used - such as an XML schema.

-- 
David Dorward 
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DocType on page question.

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Majestic wrote:
> I have come across some pages that do not used a DocType so does that
>  mean you don't need a Doctype on a page

Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype...

...although most web designers need a doctype to assure some consistency
across browser-land.

> and if so how do these pages work around this so that there page 
> validates ?

Generally: they don't.

regards
Georg
-- 
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DocType on page question.

[David Dorward]

2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype...
> 

"""
  IE is the only browser I'm avare of that makes a clear distinction
between what it supports in which mode.
"""

The author clearly didn't do much research then.

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_Quirks_Mode_Behavior
http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/doctype/
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html

-- 
David Dorward 
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DocType on page question.

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

David Dorward wrote:
> 2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype... 
>> 
> 
> """ IE is the only browser I'm avare of that makes a clear 
> distinction between what it supports in which mode. """
> 
> The author clearly didn't do much research then.
> 
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_Quirks_Mode_Behavior 
> http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/doctype/ 
> http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html

Yes, he did, and found that the designer could level out
mode-differences in all browsers but IE, without leaving standards.
So, he wrote that.
If additional notes are of any help in clarifying the matter, then this
author won't mind writing some...


What this author found, and his article says: IE doesn't only change
rendering-rules when it switches mode - it changes the list of what it
supports and what it doesn't.

Other browsers switches rendering-rules when they switches mode, but
support for all commands from the standards is present in both modes,
which means they switches rules for _what they do_ with each command.
These non-IE browsers changes what they do with most non-standard quirks
when in standards mode - as the referred documents says.

This means the designer has control in both modes and can level out all
but the minutest mode-differences simply by carefully selecting and
using commands from the W3C specs - even the very latest, as long as he
knows what the browsers do with them in both modes. Not so in IE.


This was clear to this author around the time most of the referred
documents were originally written and this author started his research
into the mode-switching matter - or around 2003 to be more precise.
It has become even clearer after following the discussions around
(X)HTML 5 closely for a year or so.

This author has also been studying MSIE's declared and actual
mode-branching strategy as it became relevant for our 'hasLayout'[1]
article with the release of IE7 back in 2006.

IE8' mode-branching and support-switching has of course not gone
unnoticed either, and it doesn't look like MSIE will, or can, stop there
- they've gone too far already. Thus, it looks like this author's
statement will only become more true for each coming IE version.

regards
Georg

[1]http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html
-- 
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in 
> FireFox... http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new.html

> Any ideas?

Sure, the simplest solution is to add...

#Table_01 img {display: block;}

...and all spaces will be gone - not only those in the JB part. Images
are otherwise inline-elements by default, and the font-size dependent
space is reserved for descenders.

regards
Georg
-- 
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?

[Michael Stevens]

Hmmm... A few minor markup errors, none of which have any affect on the
region in question... OK, I'll play along. I fixed the few markup errors and
it still doesn't display properly...

Care to take another guess?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian
Merrow-Smith
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?

Michael it (your html) doesn't validate you shopuld start there.

On 2/2/07, Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in
FireFox...
> http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new.html
>
> but if I take out the XHTML DOCTYPE from the file it works fine?
> http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new2.html
>
> The CSS is common...
> <http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/jbc>
> http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/jbc.
> <http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/jbc.css> css
>
> Surprisingly, IE seems to work although I'm sure it's doing it 
> incorrectly...
>
> The header part is a save from Image Ready. I've tried the tables... 
> CSS & DIVs... XHTML or not XHTML...
>
> Using the Strict XHTML DOCTYPE I can't even see the images when I use 
> the DIV method. Tables kinda works...
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Mike
>
>
> __
> css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by 
> evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>


--
Julian Merrow-Smith
Hameau des Couguieux
84410 Bedoin
FRANCE


T::+33(0)490127940
E::[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Main Site::http://stillives.com
Daily Small Paintings::http://shiftinglight.com
A Painters Journal::http://Permanent-red.com

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?

[Michael Stevens]

Damn, I knew images were inline but I was thinking that that meant that they
would all but up against each other. I forgot that all inline elements leave
room for leading.

Gotta get my definitions figured out...

Thanks,

Mike

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Why is there a space between images in the JB part of the logo in 
> FireFox... http://www.jimbarnettconsulting.com/index_new.html

> Any ideas?

Sure, the simplest solution is to add...

#Table_01 img {display: block;}

...and all spaces will be gone - not only those in the JB part. Images are
otherwise inline-elements by default, and the font-size dependent space is
reserved for descenders.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org --
http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! oh my!

[Kate Shorey - Comcast]

Wow,
Writing CSS for a WOWIII website?  Cool! (Do you play?)

(I am a CSS developer.  I also play WOW and now Guild Wars. )

There is a strict use of code for each unique doctype.  Would you post the 
full doctype to the group?  Also know that IE does not render background 
images the same way that FireFox (Mozilla) does.  Check unitypond.net in 
Mozilla and IE to see the differences.  I used the background image in the 
header.  In one browser you see a boat on a lake, and in the other browser, 
you just see some funky (if you're lucky) text, and a plain background.


As for your text-aligns, there are several things going on here.  I am sure 
one of the experienced people on this list can give you the specifics, but 
let me point to a few places for you to start:


1. You have positioned body and container differently.  This is is where 
your two browsers are going to react differently.  In Mozilla Firefox, the 
page has done exactly as you have instructed and positioned the banner image 
top:0, left:0.  The clever part is in IE when it didn't listen to your 
instruction, but rather listened to your intention and stayed within the 
div.


2. I believe you are missing character encoding or something in the 
html/head tags.  Check the W3C spec for details.


3. Your code is very orderly and impressive - should make it very accessible 
to the pros to help you - good job!


4. If that guild is accepting "noobs" I might check them out.  My Id is 
MyOldNavySweatr and my alternate email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ;-)


Cheers and good luck -  stay motivated on the CSS - there is a ton to learn 
and it can be very rewarding!


Kate
http://urlygrl.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Gooch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! oh my!


Hello all, I'm pretty new to this group, and to CSS in general. I'm a 
quick learner but I'm stuck at a couple of things.


First off, whenever I use a !DOCTYPE tag in my pages, they stop rendering 
properly. I've tried both strict and transitonal, to no avail. 
Specifically what goes bad is my background image stops repeating as it 
should, and I get only a portion of the image displayed once at the top of 
the page. The tags I'm using to get the centered repeat are 
background-repeat:repeat-y; bacckground-position:center.   Any ideas?


Second, to get a centered page, I'm using  text-align:center  for the 
body, and  position:relative  for the container module. This renders 
perfectly in IE6, but in Firefox the container module aligns right.


Are these problems related, and what can I do? Thanks in advance for any 
tips you can toss my way.

  Here are the links in question in case you want to review my code:
http://www.legacyofpainguild.com
http://www.legacyofpainguild.com/master.css

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/



__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! oh my!

[Dan Gooch]

I got a couple of other responses basically telling me that my 
text-align:center isn't supposed to work, and that's what was causing 
the problem. I ended up getting it working by going back to margins and 
stacking the columns with float:left. Thanks for the advice! I guess the 
doctype makes a much bigger difference than I thought...


And yes, the guild is recruiting. Check out the forums or message one of 
the officers. ;)


Dan

Kate Shorey - Comcast wrote:


Wow,
Writing CSS for a WOWIII website?  Cool! (Do you play?)

(I am a CSS developer.  I also play WOW and now Guild Wars. )

There is a strict use of code for each unique doctype.  Would you post 
the full doctype to the group?  Also know that IE does not render 
background images the same way that FireFox (Mozilla) does.  Check 
unitypond.net in Mozilla and IE to see the differences.  I used the 
background image in the header.  In one browser you see a boat on a 
lake, and in the other browser, you just see some funky (if you're 
lucky) text, and a plain background.


As for your text-aligns, there are several things going on here.  I am 
sure one of the experienced people on this list can give you the 
specifics, but let me point to a few places for you to start:


1. You have positioned body and container differently.  This is is 
where your two browsers are going to react differently.  In Mozilla 
Firefox, the page has done exactly as you have instructed and 
positioned the banner image top:0, left:0.  The clever part is in IE 
when it didn't listen to your instruction, but rather listened to your 
intention and stayed within the div.


2. I believe you are missing character encoding or something in the 
html/head tags.  Check the W3C spec for details.


3. Your code is very orderly and impressive - should make it very 
accessible to the pros to help you - good job!


4. If that guild is accepting "noobs" I might check them out.  My Id 
is MyOldNavySweatr and my alternate email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ;-)


Cheers and good luck -  stay motivated on the CSS - there is a ton to 
learn and it can be very rewarding!


Kate
http://urlygrl.com


- Original Message - From: "Dan Gooch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! 
oh my!



Hello all, I'm pretty new to this group, and to CSS in general. I'm a 
quick learner but I'm stuck at a couple of things.


First off, whenever I use a !DOCTYPE tag in my pages, they stop 
rendering properly. I've tried both strict and transitonal, to no 
avail. Specifically what goes bad is my background image stops 
repeating as it should, and I get only a portion of the image 
displayed once at the top of the page. The tags I'm using to get the 
centered repeat are background-repeat:repeat-y; 
bacckground-position:center.   Any ideas?


Second, to get a centered page, I'm using  text-align:center  for the 
body, and  position:relative  for the container module. This renders 
perfectly in IE6, but in Firefox the container module aligns right.


Are these problems related, and what can I do? Thanks in advance for 
any tips you can toss my way.

  Here are the links in question in case you want to review my code:
http://www.legacyofpainguild.com
http://www.legacyofpainguild.com/master.css

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/



__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/





__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE STRICT declaration problems with the page appearance in MOZ

[Bob Easton]

shlomi asaf wrote:

> mozila gives me hurd time with pictures in a page the declare imself as
> HTML-STRICT (as seen below)
> http://dogma.co.il/margin.gif
> you can see in that example that moz makes a margin:2px between the
> pictures.
>  IE dosent makes me problems. why is that?

Can you point to a real HTML page? It is nearly impossible to debug a 
problem from a picture. We need to see how the picture was produced.

-- 
Bob Easton
Accessibility Matters: http://access-matters.com

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE STRICT declaration problems with the page appearance in MOZ

[diego nunes]

On 09/11/05, shlomi asaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  IE dosent makes me problems. why is that?

It's the correct way of displaying the image. As it's a inline
element, it shall keep a bottom "margin" to characters that require
more room down, like "j" or "g". You can try to use images as "block",
but it depends on the design you're using. Anyway, there's an
"intermediate" DocType that makes the images behave as
"inline-block's" -- I don't remeber which it is, but it exists,
believe me ;)

--
diego nunes
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/