[css-d] IE7 Oddness - links aren't visible...
On this page, in Firefox, you'll see two buttons on the top of the navigation menu. A resize and a hide button. They aren't there in IE7 (can't really test earlier browsers, but I suspect the same). The page is at http://www.arcelectricalinc.com/prototest.html , and I'm just... stumped. Any help is appreciated! -Toby __ 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] Centered div jumps in Firefox, not IE
On 29 Mar 2007, at 23:59, James Eaton wrote:
In Firefox a centered div on a page will move left or right,
depending on
whether vertical scroll bars appear in the browser window, while in
IE it
remains in one place. Is there a workaround for this in Firefox?
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test1.php
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test2.php
__
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/
Hi James,
Add:
html {
height: 100%;
margin-bottom: 1px;
}
to your stylesheet.
Greg
__
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] IE7 Oddness - links aren't visible...
Toby Parent wrote: On this page, in Firefox, you'll see two buttons on the top of the navigation menu. A resize and a hide button. They aren't there in IE7 (can't really test earlier browsers, but I suspect the same). The page is at http://www.arcelectricalinc.com/prototest.html , and I'm just... stumped. You should test in every browser you can get hold of, as you have messed up big time across browser-land. Anyway, those buttons will show up in IE/win if you turn those links into block-elements, either by declaring 'display block' or 'float: right' on them. At the moment they are simply not where you want them to be in IE, and you'll have to realign them as block-elements too. 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Chris Ovenden wrote: Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me I know what you mean, but at the end of the day I simply prefer 6-digit hex codes - for the sake of uniformity. There is, in terms of rendering, no ambiguity with shorthand hex, rgb values or 16/256-colour codewords - but I like to operate off a single system of comparable values. Hex is slightly less human-readable than rgb, but makes up for it in always taking up only the same 7 character spaces (yes, I am that bloody-minded). It makes things easier to compare, and I know where to look in my graphics software. As you say, 'black' and 'white' can't really be faulted. In fact I do feel a little stupid writing out #00 and #ff, but at the end of the day it's just a little eccentricity I feel better for humouring. Regards, Barney __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) I do pretty much the same, though in tests and examples, 'red', 'yellow' and other names are convenient. They are a bit problematic in examples, of course. The names 'black' and 'white' are easy to remember, but actually '#000' and '#fff' are faster to type. Less self-explanatory, of course, but CSS isn't really meant to be read by people who don't know the idea of color codes. But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me There is no difference (at least significant difference) in browser support, and the effect is of course exactly the same. There's the _psychological_ factor (as with the color names) that if you use the shortcuts (or names), you might be tempted to use only colors expressible with them. But this is neither a drawback nor a significant benefit with the shortcuts (though it might matter with the color names). If you use the shortcuts _only_, you are limiting yourself to 256 colors, which often isn't very restrictive but doesn't mean actual benefits either. The few devices that work with 256 colors (very old, misconfigured, or new special devices) will map other colors them, of course, instead of not understanding the long notation. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
The more convincing answer for my question (http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/86680) I've got on a WAI list. David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... and I say: It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ - Original Message - From: Chris Ovenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... There is no color name grey in CSS specifications, so the argument is relevant to nonstandard color names only, and they were not under discussion. They are of course to be avoided on the same ground as any other nonstandard constructs (including color codes without # - they too work on some browsers and make the declaration ignored on other, conforming browsers). It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. I don't see how this could be a matter of a slight difference. The name grey is incorrectly recognized as a synonym for gray on some browsers, correctly treated as malformed on some. If there are browsers that accept it and treat it as denoting something _almost_ identitical to gray, then I'd be delighted to hear about such a monstrosity, but this has nothing to with the difference between gray and #808080, which is no difference. By the way, if your contrast is so near to the threshold (as defined by the W3C or some other party) that a _slight_ change makes you cross it, then you were already too near. Crossing the threshold has an extremely small impact in such a situation on real accessibility, even if it may change some technical status by some _measure_ of accessibility. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: The more convincing answer for my question (http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/86680) I've got on a WAI list. David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... and I say: It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ Mauricio, have you seen any evidence? This seems like FUD to me. The 16 (and indeed 156)-colour gamut is ancient and well-established. I can't imagine a team developing a device that would use the standard keywords and then decide on not following the rest of the standard. Apart from screen differences (we have a client who once complained strongly about our excessive use of pink - #b5b7b9 - on their site), I believe that the actual precise rgb values of these keywords are mapped and static. It'd be good to get an example of that not being the case before concluding that the whole system is liable. Regards, Barney __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) on the David answer the point is: If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different (i.e. red (or other color name) is more ou less darken according the browser). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. In my opinion, if I'm not missing something, the main point is #008083 (or other valid number color) is the same in all browsers and gray (or one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) isn't the same across browsers. Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. Regards, Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ - Original Message - From: Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... There is no color name grey in CSS specifications, so the argument is relevant to nonstandard color names only, and they were not under discussion. They are of course to be avoided on the same ground as any other nonstandard constructs (including color codes without # - they too work on some browsers and make the declaration ignored on other, conforming browsers). It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. I don't see how this could be a matter of a slight difference. The name grey is incorrectly recognized as a synonym for gray on some browsers, correctly treated as malformed on some. If there are browsers that accept it and treat it as denoting something _almost_ identitical to gray, then I'd be delighted to hear about such a monstrosity, but this has nothing to with the difference between gray and #808080, which is no difference. By the way, if your contrast is so near to the threshold (as defined by the W3C or some other party) that a _slight_ change makes you cross it, then you were already too near. Crossing the threshold has an extremely small impact in such a situation on real accessibility, even if it may change some technical status by some _measure_ of accessibility. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Mauricio Samy Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. Mauricio, 'red' is always #ff. f is the largest number expressible in an integer on the hexadecimal scale. 0 is the lowest. #ff000 translates as rgb(255,0,0), which translates as maximum red colouring, no other colouring. There is no ambiguity among browsers, and I would be hard pressed to imagine an ambiguity in the human mind. Even for daltonians, these conceptual figures are undeniable. If you believe this is not followed, please tell us which browsers you have seen - or even heard of - that render 'red' (or any other of the colour keywords) to any other hex value. Regards, Barney PS: 'grey' is a colour, 'gray' is a color. There is no such thing as 'colour' on the internet. All web terminology I've seen uses American English spelling, as opposed to English English. There is no established standard for 'grey' and it is not part of the 256 keywords. __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) I don't think it was a typo but a reference to a typo, i.e. to the effects of a misspelled color name. If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different Please provide some evidence for that claim. Just saying so is no proof, any more than I would prove anything by saying that browsers interpret gray consistently but #808080 incorrectly (which I'm not saying, since that wouldn't be true either). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. I already wrote about the relativeness of the contrast, so I'll only repeat the point in my previous message that dealt with the fact that this has nothing to do with color names. There are no color names for #008083 or #099. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: On 3/30/07, Mauricio Samy Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] Centered div jumps in Firefox, not IE
Greg Salt wrote: In Firefox a centered div on a page will move left or right, depending on whether vertical scroll bars appear in the browser window, while in IE it remains in one place. Is there a workaround for this in Firefox? http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test1.php http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test2.php Hi, Can't see anything wrong with. Are you testing on a local server? If so make sure you clear the cache in FF, then reload and check again The only other thing I would add, is build it in FF first, and check it in IE. FF and Opera are always correct IE never is. Regards DG) - __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 30 Mar 2007, at 12:05:07, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different (i.e. red (or other color name) is more ou less darken according the browser). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. In my opinion, if I'm not missing something, the main point is #008083 (or other valid number color) is the same in all browsers and gray (or one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) isn't the same across browsers. Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. No, the CSS 2.1 spec explicitly states what the hex values for the colour names are: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-color So, for example, teal is defined as being synonymous with #008080, and any browser which rendered it using a different value is by definition broken. Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
* Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ __ 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-d] changing the containing block for width reference
Hi all, I'm suffering from a cold, which often results in me thinking and doing very ridiculous things. So, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something very obvious in regards to CSS for a page I'm working on. I just need to confirm that there is no way to change the containing block that an element refers to for its width, correct? Note that I am *not* referring to a containing block for the sake of positioning (for in that case, it is possible and quite easy to change the containing block). Rather, I'm interested in whether it is possible to give a parent div a min-width, but have its child div not look to the parent div for its width but instead look to the viewport, or body element. I'm pretty sure it is not possible for the child div to skip its parent div and use the viewport as its containing block for calculating its width, but like I said, I'm not really thinking straight right now. :-) Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. 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 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] changing the containing block for width reference
To: CSS List Subject: [css-d] changing the containing block for width reference Hi all, I'm suffering from a cold, which often results in me thinking and doing very ridiculous things. So, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something very obvious in regards to CSS for a page I'm working on. I just need to confirm that there is no way to change the containing block that an element refers to for its width, correct? Logic would dictate that is so. But hey what do I know? Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. Best off to bed with a whisky and a good book and leave the web till another day! Ian -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release Date: 29/03/2007 13:36 __ 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] changing the containing block for width reference
On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote: I'm suffering from a cold, which often results in me thinking and doing very ridiculous things. So, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something very obvious in regards to CSS for a page I'm working on. I just need to confirm that there is no way to change the containing block that an element refers to for its width, correct? Note that I am *not* referring to a containing block for the sake of positioning (for in that case, it is possible and quite easy to change the containing block). Rather, I'm interested in whether it is possible to give a parent div a min-width, but have its child div not look to the parent div for its width but instead look to the viewport, or body element. I'm pretty sure it is not possible for the child div to skip its parent div and use the viewport as its containing block for calculating its width, but like I said, I'm not really thinking straight right now. :-) In that case, the width of the child div will always depend on the computed width of the parent, unless the child div is absolute positioned (and the parent is _not_ relative/absolute pos). Unless you are Internet Explorer, then you, Zoe, are probably thinking straight. That browser does all kind of weird things, as you know. Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. Take care of your cold. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.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] Centered div jumps in Firefox, not IE
James Eaton wrote:
In Firefox a centered div on a page will move left or right, depending on
whether vertical scroll bars appear in the browser window, while in IE it
remains in one place. Is there a workaround for this in Firefox?
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test1.php
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test2.php
You have added the appropriate fix for short-page shift. However, the
way you have written it is not valid.
You have:
html {
xheight: 100%;
xmargin-bottom: 1px;
}
It should be:
html {
height: 100%;
margin-bottom: 1px;
}
The page test1.php in not valid markup. You have forgotten to close
#wrapper.
Validate the css [1] and markup [2] frequently while you work. It saves
a lot headaches.
[1]http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
[2]http://validator.w3.org/
Regards,
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 30 Mar 2007, at 14:26:14, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color Ah, there they are :-) -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. I'm well aware of this. But I have to deal with typing 'color', which to my English eyes looks malformed, every day... Don't you think the Finnish flag looks like a malformed St. Georges' cross? ;-) -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ 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] CSS IE6 Dropdown Issues
Ingo, Absolutely brilliant. Not only did it work, but I think I actually understood what was going on. I haven't had a chance to test it, but I bet this would solve my February post regarding a similar problem with submenu flyouts appearing behind the dropdowns in IE7. Many many thanks. I was almost at the point where I was going to start from scratch again. Regards, Steve __ 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-d] IE 6/7 layout issue
URL: http://dontjustsitthere.co.uk/stage/ There is a layout issue in IE6/7 - the container holding the T-shirt content is dropping. I tried using display:inline and position:relative to appease any IE bugs to no avail. Any suggestions? -- http://www.web-buddha.co.uk __ 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] changing the containing block for width reference
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote: Note that I am *not* referring to a containing block for the sake of positioning (for in that case, it is possible and quite easy to change the containing block). Rather, I'm interested in whether it is possible to give a parent div a min-width, but have its child div not look to the parent div for its width but instead look to the viewport, or body element. I'm pretty sure it is not possible for the child div to skip its parent div and use the viewport as its containing block for calculating its width, but like I said, I'm not really thinking straight right now. :-) In that case, the width of the child div will always depend on the computed width of the parent, unless the child div is absolute positioned (and the parent is _not_ relative/absolute pos). Unless you are Internet Explorer, then you, Zoe, are probably thinking straight. That browser does all kind of weird things, as you know. Ah yes, absolute positioning. I had considered that, but it won't do in my particular case since there is something under the block that would need to be absolutely positioned. There may be some tricky way to use it anyway, but the layout effect is not worth it -- nor can I be trusted to come up with any tricky CSS effects today. Thanks for confirming my thoughts. Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. Take care of your cold. Thanks! I'd still be in bed if I hadn't spent the first three days of this week so. Work calls! 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 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-d] (no subject)
Hello,I am trying to insert a background image into URLs that link to pages
outside our intranet and thus when clicked open a new window. The image used is
the common one seen on may sites, the little overlapping windows. This
code:a.newWindow { padding-right: 14px; background:
url(/bcasinfo/images/productionFiles/icons/newWindow.gif) no-repeat right
center;}works fine in FF-whatever regardless, and, most of the time in IE6.
However it does not work in IE6 when the sentence text that comprises anchor
wraps to a new line. What happens is the bg image stays on the first line,
usually overlapping the text, even as the padding-right is visible on the line
below. The basic anchor rules have nothing unusual in their styling so I have
not included that code here.Any help would be appreciated.Thanks,R.A. Paterson
_
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+worldmkt=en-USform=QBRE
__
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-d] Unordered Lists in IE7 -- Text-align
http://www.exprescafe.com/order.php http://www.exprescafe.com/css/xpr18.css In IE7, the ul smashes into the left side of the div eliminating the list markers and the indent that it should have. The CSS that causes this is the text-align: left;command that I use in the class .notcenterIn Firefox the ul shows up just fine. You eliminate the .notcenter class from the div containing my ul, and it shows up just fine but centered due to other CSS I am using. What am I missing, or is this a bug that has an easy work around? Or, neither? Thanks! Clarence A Reber III Berson3 Computers __ 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-d] styling a ul
Hi, all- I'm trying to style a sub-navigation list on my pages using DW MX 2004 and have found good information about how to do it by styling the ul element (A List Apart- Taming Lists); but I still have a question (which is probably stupid), but I'm hoping to be enlightened here- Question: if I style the ul element the way I want it to appear for the sub-navigation, won't that make it unusable for other ul instances where I want other styling? How can I style this one instance of a ul and still be able to use the ul element for other purposes with other styling? (Should I create a class to attach to the ul?) Thanks in advance, Karen __ 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] styling a ul
On 30 Mar 2007, at 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Should I create a class to attach to the ul?) The short answer is yes, but a better (longer) answer is you should use an ID, since there's only likely to be one instance of it per page. __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Bryan Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Ovenden wrote: On 3/30/07, Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. I'm well aware of this. But I have to deal with typing 'color', which to my English eyes looks malformed, every day... Don't you think the Finnish flag looks like a malformed St. Georges' cross? ;-) Nope because that one is blue! pedants corner That's what's malformed about it! (heh) -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Nick Fitzsimons wrote: browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color Ah, there they are :-) Yes, _there_, in the _draft_ CSS 3 Color Module (W3C Candidate Recommendation 14 May 2003). It has not progressed to Proposed Recommendation status, and neither has anything else happened to it; it's status is perhaps best described as obscure, but it surely isn't a formal specification! It also says: The Working Group doesn't expect that all implementations of CSS3 will implement all properties or values. Instead, there will probably be a small number of variants of CSS3, so-called profiles. For example, it may be that only the profile for 32-bit color user agents will include all of the proposed color related properties and values. Hence, although the extended repertoire of color names (except those using grey) is well supported by browsers in general, it would be unwise to rely on them. As you can see e.g. by viewing the cited draft on Internet Explorer, IE does _not_ recognize grey (or any name containing grey) as a color name. This is correct behavior according to CSS 1 and CSS 2 _specifications_. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ 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] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Funny, even though I'm on this side of the pond, I've never been able to write that shade as gray - always looked wrong to me... guess that's why I always use the hex values. Though it certainly confuses family when I say, is my #555 and black jacket still at the cleaners? - daniel the colonies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barney Carroll Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:20 AM PS: 'grey' is a colour, 'gray' is a color. There is no such thing as 'colour' on the internet. All web terminology I've seen uses American English spelling, as opposed to English English. There is no established standard for 'grey' and it is not part of the 256 keywords. __ 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] pros and cons of separate css files for IE and non-IE?
George Ornbo wrote: On 3/28/07, david [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use a common style sheet, with one (or more) second IE-only stylesheets linked into the HTML via conditional comments. No hacks needed. I'd second that. Try and avoid hacks entirely if you can. The box model hack is easy enough to avoid if you code defensively. If you really need to hack use conditional stylesheets. Hacking in the same stylesheet can cause problems in newer browsers, especially IE7. It can cause problems, but not if you do it right. For instance, if you use the star html hack in your main style sheet to feed a rule to IE 6 and lower, and IE 7 doesn't need the different rule, then there is no harm in including it in your style sheet. You're only hacking dead browsers at this point, so you're safe. (I suppose you could argue that they could add back support for star html to IE 8, but even in that extremely unlikely case, you'd have to go back to all your sites anyway to fix other things if the IE team was that foolish, so it wouldn't hurt to have this one extra hack to fix.) If, on the other hand, you need that different rule to be read by IE 7 in addition to IE 6 and lower (which I find is usually the case -- IE 7 needs almost as many hacks as IE 6), then you're probably best off just feeding that rule to all versions of IE via a separate sheet hidden from other browsers through conditional comments. 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 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-d] ADMIN Re: CSS color names values versus accessibility
Let's make sure that this thread stays on topic. Please no more posts about: -- the various spelling of words in the USA versus the UK -- what may or may not be included in CSS 3 -- anything else off-topic It's fine to discuss the accessibility implications of certain CSS rules, but please do not stray into discussing accessibility in and of itself. Keep the connection to practical CSS, or don't post it here. Thanks for your cooperation, Zoe Gillenwater css-d list moderator __ 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] Centered div jumps in Firefox, not IE
- Original Message -
From: Greg Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: [css-d] Centered div jumps in Firefox, not IE
On 29 Mar 2007, at 23:59, James Eaton wrote:
In Firefox a centered div on a page will move left or right,
depending on
whether vertical scroll bars appear in the browser window, while in
IE it
remains in one place. Is there a workaround for this in Firefox?
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test1.php
http://zolx.com/provenpropertymanagement/test2.php
Hi James,
Add:
html {
height: 100%;
margin-bottom: 1px;
}
to your stylesheet.
Greg
Thanks Greg, that seems to work.
Jim
__
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] styling a ul
(Should I create a class to attach to the ul?)
The short answer is yes, but a better (longer) answer is you should
use an ID, since there's only likely to be one instance of it per page.
Thank you, so then it would be (for instance)
ul id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page
li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page/li
/ul
and
.sub-menu-page {
border: none;
margin-left: 0px;
padding-left: 0px;
list-style-type: none;
list-style-position: inside;
list-style-image: none;
} (or whatever styles I want)
and I would attach this class to both ul id=sub-menu-page
class=sub-menu-page and li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page, is this
correct?
thanks again, kd
__
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] styling a ul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Should I create a class to attach to the ul?)
The short answer is yes, but a better (longer) answer is you should
use an ID, since there's only likely to be one instance of it per page.
Thank you, so then it would be (for instance)
ul id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page
li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page/li
/ul
and
.sub-menu-page {
border: none;
margin-left: 0px;
padding-left: 0px;
list-style-type: none;
list-style-position: inside;
list-style-image: none;
} (or whatever styles I want)
and I would attach this class to both ul id=sub-menu-page
class=sub-menu-page and li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page, is this
correct?
thanks again, kd
Well sort of. You are using both a class and an ID. There may be times
when you want to, but in this instance probably not. If there will just
be one of these elements ever, then ID is appropriate.
So if you will only have one submenu ul, ever, then ID is the way to go
for the UL.
But if for example you may have a couple of ul submenus (one for each
category of menu links or something), then you want a class as there can
be more than one use of a class.
Conversely I presume you are using a list because you want to use
multiple li tags in it. So you would not give an id to that li tag as
you will have multiples, So you almost certainly want class and not id
for the li tag.
Then to style an id you use #elementname versus to style a class you use
.elementname.
You may also be able to simply refer to #sub-menu-page ul li {} to
address the li tag within the submenu li.
http://www.tizag.com/cssT/class.php
http://www.tizag.com/cssT/cssid.php
might be helpful for example.
Don
__
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] changing the containing block for width reference
Ian Young wrote: To: CSS List Subject: [css-d] changing the containing block for width reference Hi all, I'm suffering from a cold, which often results in me thinking and doing very ridiculous things. So, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something very obvious in regards to CSS for a page I'm working on. I just need to confirm that there is no way to change the containing block that an element refers to for its width, correct? Logic would dictate that is so. But hey what do I know? Put it in a different containing block in your HTML (such as body) and use CSS positioning to place it where you want it to be on the page? Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. Best off to bed with a whisky and a good book and leave the web till another day! Have another whiskey and you'll easily get the sleep you need to fight a cold! -- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] authenticity, honesty, community __ 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-d] Auto-Response
Thank you for your email, I will not have access to email until Monday, April 02. If this is urgent please phone me at : 416 907 5911 Thank you Tim Robertson __ 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-d] IE 6/7 issue
Hi list, Here's the page: http://proof.mlinc.com/mlinc.com/06/news/ Hit it in FF/Safari for desired layout for head/paragraph relation. Why won't it work in IE 6/7? Just can't see it. Thanks -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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] (no subject)
r paterso wrote:
Hello,I am trying to insert a background image into URLs that link to
pages outside our intranet and thus when clicked open a new window.
The image used is the common one seen on may sites, the little
overlapping windows. This code:
a.newWindow { padding-right: 14px; background:
url(/bcasinfo/images/productionFiles/icons/newWindow.gif) no-repeat
right center;}
works fine in FF-whatever regardless, and, most of the time in IE6.
However it does not work in IE6 when the sentence text that comprises
anchor wraps to a new line. What happens is the bg image stays on the
first line, usually overlapping the text, even as the padding-right is
visible on the line below.
The basic anchor rules have nothing unusual in their styling so I have
not included that code here.Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,R.A. Paterson
Hi,
I've got this one for you:
css :: external link with icon/image, workaround for IE
http://home.tiscali.nl/developerscorner/css-discuss/test-link-iconENupdate.htm
Success and greetings,
francky
__
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] IE 6/7 layout issue
Dave Goodchild wrote: URL: http://dontjustsitthere.co.uk/stage/ There is a layout issue in IE6/7 - the container holding the T-shirt content is dropping. I tried using display:inline and position:relative to appease any IE bugs to no avail. Any suggestions? Actually, all of your homecontent divisions are happily floating to the top and the t-shirt content winds up underneath. You can see this with a high-res monitor and lots of real estate for the view port to stretch out :-) The images remain lined up on the left. I don't know if this helps you any. I had a similar layout with a fixed width and I'm afraid I'm not sure how to apply it to a fluid layout. francky helped me with it and he applied display: inline to the containing division (I think that would the content div in your case). ...Lori __ 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] IE 6/7 issue
On 3/30/07, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi list, Here's the page: http://proof.mlinc.com/mlinc.com/06/news/ Hit it in FF/Safari for desired layout for head/paragraph relation. Why won't it work in IE 6/7? Just can't see it. Thanks -- Always happens to me. When i enlist the public for help, I figure it out. I guess it's the fear of looking stupid. :-P Thanks if you looked... Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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] IE7 dropdown submenu shows behind menu
This fix by Ingo Chao for a related problem with IE6 also cures this one.
_
skugler at kepcopower.com wrote:
Dropdown navigation on www.kepcopower.com/index-chargers.htm works fine in
Firefox and Mozilla, but in IE6, the dropdowns get covered by (are behind)
the
rightmost link (BATTERY CHARGERS) when the window is small enough to cause it
to
wraparound and be beneath one of the dropdowns. I tried playing with z-index,
but don't really know what I'm doing and it did not help.
CSS is www.kepcopower.com/menu04-pic.css
Any ideas or help would be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
The reason for this problem in IE6, IE7 is that position:relative itself
sets a new stacking context.
(It shouldn't, without having a z-index.)
so your
#menu li {position:relative}
arrests all stacking operations of its child elements. These play only
in the sandbox of that li. No matter what z-index they get, they cannot
escape out of this stacking context of their parent li.
Any li following in the source is nearer to the viewer.
Battery Chargers is nearer than Products
If Products is hovered and the drop down drops down: Battery
Chargers still is nearer to the viewer.
A fix is to reset position to static, and let it become relative only on
hover:
!--[if IE]
style type=text/css media=screen
#menu ul li { position:static; }
#menu ul li.onhover, #menu ul li:hover { position:relative; }
/style
![endif]--
With this fix, the stacking context is only performed when it's really
needed.
Ingo
Reply Separator
Subject:Re[2]: [css-d] IE7 dropdown submenu shows behind menu
Author: Steve Kugler
Date: 2/12/2007 5:38 PM
Haven't had much time to do more experimenting, but adding width:auto didn't
work in Firefox, Opera and Netscape. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Steve
Reply Separator
Subject:Re: [css-d] IE7 dropdown submenu shows behind menu
Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gunlaug_S=F8rtun?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2/10/2007 6:04 PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
URL: http://www.kepcopower.com/a-test2.htm
Ideally, it would be nice if the submenus consistently opened
adjacent to the menus without covering them for all browsers, but I
had no luck trying to get that to work in Firefox, Opera, etc. so I
would settle for the submenu opening on top of the menu.
I would *not* settle for that!
Try adding...
#menu ul ul {width: auto;}
...and see if that doesn't solve your problem. It does for me in Opera,
Firefox and Safari - placing the sub-menu adjacent to its parent.
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] Unordered Lists in IE7 -- Text-align
Clarence A. Reber III wrote: http://www.exprescafe.com/order.php http://www.exprescafe.com/css/xpr18.css In IE7, the ul smashes into the left side of the div eliminating the list markers and the indent that it should have. The CSS that causes this is the text-align: left;command that I use in the class .notcenterIn Firefox the ul shows up just fine. You eliminate the .notcenter class from the div containing my ul, and it shows up just fine but centered due to other CSS I am using. What am I missing, or is this a bug that has an easy work around? Or, neither? Thanks! Hi Clarence, I hope: neither! ;-) IE6 is doing the same, - and has got the same invalid html: html-validator tells... http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.exprescafe.com%2Forder.phpcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=Inliness=1verbose=1 Some li.../li's don't have an embedding ul/ul and that kind of things - and error handling by different browsers is pretty unpredictable. So I hope after correcting the html also IE will show the right thing. And if not: you always can come back! Greetings, francky __ 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] styling a ul
http://www.tizag.com/cssT/class.php http://www.tizag.com/cssT/cssid.php might be helpful for example. Thanks for these links! They clarify this topic. I can see I need to take the tutorials there and will do so. Thanks again. Karen __ 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-d] css and DW MX 2004 Styles Panel
I'm trying to apply what I am learning from this list (which is a lot!), but having to use Dreamweaver MX 2004. I can't seem to find how to create the list selector rules suing their CSS styles panel in Deamweaver MX 2004. I'm wondering; would you advise me to code my style sheet *by hand* and steer clear of Dreamweaver MX 2004? (I just purchased DW 8 for home, but haven't gotten into it yet and can't access my work website from home anyway). I don't want to waste a lot of time trying to work with an inferior tool and so would appreciate your tips on this. Thanks, Karen __ 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] css and DW MX 2004 Styles Panel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to apply what I am learning from this list (which is a lot!), but having to use Dreamweaver MX 2004. I can't seem to find how to create the list selector rules suing their CSS styles panel in Deamweaver MX 2004. I'm wondering; would you advise me to code my style sheet *by hand* and steer clear of Dreamweaver MX 2004? (I just purchased DW 8 for home, but haven't gotten into it yet and can't access my work website from home anyway). I don't want to waste a lot of time trying to work with an inferior tool and so would appreciate your tips on this. Thanks, Karen Definitely. I just struggled with trying to get Dreamweaver 8 to cooperate. You can open the style sheet like any other page and edit it in Dreamweaver, but it won't help you much. I was fortunate in that I had GoLive to use which has a really nice CSS editor, but Adobe hasn't ported it to Dreamweaver yet. There are some nice text editors out there that have various plug-ins and syntax highlighting for style sheets. I use Textpad on Windows, but I'm sure there are lots of others that offer similar features. If you're using a Mac, then TextMate or BBedit are a couple of options. Lori __ 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] styling a ul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Should I create a class to attach to the ul?)
The short answer is yes, but a better (longer) answer is you should
use an ID, since there's only likely to be one instance of it per page.
Thank you, so then it would be (for instance)
ul id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page
li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page/li
/ul
and
.sub-menu-page {
border: none;
margin-left: 0px;
padding-left: 0px;
list-style-type: none;
list-style-position: inside;
list-style-image: none;
} (or whatever styles I want)
and I would attach this class to both ul id=sub-menu-page
class=sub-menu-page and li id=sub-menu-page class=sub-menu-page, is this
correct?
No, you only need the ID on the UL. Then you change your class
.sub-menu-page to this:
#sub-menu-page ul { style stuff here }
This targets only that UL tag with that ID, I think.
--
David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
authenticity, honesty, community
__
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] styling a ul
On 3/31/07, david [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Should I create a class to attach to the ul?)
The short answer is yes, but a better (longer) answer is you should
use an ID, since there's only likely to be one instance of it per page.
No, you only need the ID on the UL. Then you change your class
.sub-menu-page to this:
#sub-menu-page ul { style stuff here }
Define
#submenupage {margins,padding,bckgn color, font etc }
ul#submenupage {define style for ul}
ul#submenupage li {define style for li}
ul#submenupage li a:link, ul#submenupage li a:hover {define style for link
and hover etc}
ul#submenupage li a:hover {define style for hover}
Kisan Bhat
__
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-d] CSS borders
Hi Folks, I hate to ask such a seemingly simple question but I've spent a few hours trying to make this work and have run out of ideas. I'm trying to create table borders inside and out 1px thick, like the following: http://stinkyrat.com/css_borders.html The above is a graphic done in Photoshop, but I'd like to recreate this in CSS. If anyone could help, I'd be much obliged. Thanks in advance, Doug Santa Cruz, CA __ 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] CSS borders
On Mar 31, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Doug Niven wrote:
I hate to ask such a seemingly simple question but I've spent a few
hours
trying to make this work and have run out of ideas.
I'm trying to create table borders inside and out 1px thick, like the
following:
http://stinkyrat.com/css_borders.html
The above is a graphic done in Photoshop, but I'd like to recreate
this in
CSS.
table {border-collapse:collapse; border: 1px solid lime;}
th, td {border:1px solid lime;}
adjust to colour value to taste.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.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] CSS borders
Doug Niven wrote:
Hi Folks,
I hate to ask such a seemingly simple question but I've spent a few hours
trying to make this work and have run out of ideas.
I'm trying to create table borders inside and out 1px thick, like the
following:
http://stinkyrat.com/css_borders.html
The above is a graphic done in Photoshop, but I'd like to recreate this in
CSS.
If anyone could help, I'd be much obliged.
Thanks in advance,
Doug
Santa Cruz, CA
If you're just looking for the table styles, you have to apply the
border styles to the table and the table cells. You also have to set
border collapse on. If you want the double border look, remove the
border-collapse style.
table {
border: solid 1px #C0C0C0; /* That's silver for the colour -
substitute with your preference */
border-collapse: collapse;
}
td {
border: solid 1px #C0C0C0;
padding: 3px;
}
I stuck in some padding of 3px as an example. If that's not what you're
after, let us know...
Lori
__
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-d] broken son of sucker fish menu
Ok so I managed to break it ... seems to work in ff just fine, but has a sticky problem in ie7. If you hover slowly right over the left/right divider, it will sometimes hang so that the hover pop-up doesn't disappear. http://ownersconnect.com/dev/index5.html I am obviously doing something wrong as this works: http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/example/ Any help appreciated. Don __ 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/
