Re: [css-d] search button drop [was Serving "universal ie6 stylesheet" to IE5, IE5.5 and IE Mac]

[Ellen Herzfeld]

On 22 May 2010, at 4:33, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

>>To see the first new page on the test server : 
>> http://ansible.xlii.org/quarante-deux/index5.html
> The search button ('rechercher') drops below the search input field on my 
> side (with minimum font-size set to 12px).
> 
> Philippe
> ---

Philippe,

I didn't think about the minimum font-size setting... Indeed, mine is set to 
10px, so the button was OK.

I had positioned both the navigation bar (nav#sitenav) and the search field 
absolutely, one to the left, the other to the right. I chose this method 
because, with this rewrite of the site, my idea is to avoid extraneous divs as 
much as possible. But the only fix I found was to wrap the navigation bar and 
the search form in a new div, position this div at the top and then float the 
search form to the right. I also had to move the search field down in the html 
(I had wanted it at the top when the page was read unstyled), to get the 
masthead out of the div.

This works fine in all my test browsers. However, now, when the window is 
narrowed, the tabs wrap to a second line. With the previous absolutely 
positioned elements, the search field overlapped the tabs (and hid the ones to 
the right) but the tabs didn't wrap.

You may ask, why let the window get narrow enough to wrap? The only reason is 
that I like fluid layouts... So this one is actually a sort of hybrid, with a 
max and min-width, but a bit fluid nonetheless.

Thanks for pointing out the problem.

Ellen


P.S. The test page has moved : 
http://ansible.xlii.org/quarante-deux/2010/index5.html
__
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] Serving "universal ie6 stylesheet" to IE5, IE5.5 and IE Mac

[Thierry Koblentz]

> > Actually, it is the opposite, there is no reason to leave them in.
> > If you know that some rules will serve no purpose, then why would you
> want
> > to keep them in?
> > http://carsonified.com/blog/design/setting-rather-than-resetting-
> default-sty
> > ling/
> >
> >> The problem is that I assumed (again) that the creators of the
> >> universal ie6 stylesheet had also tested it for "IE lt 6" and any
> >> changes I made would NOT be tested.
> >
> > I don't think the author tested these rules in IE lte 6, because as
> far as I
> > know these rules are *ignored* by IE.
> > Also you'd be removing declarations or rules, not adding anything, so
> I'd
> > say the "testing" part is irrelevant.
> >
> 
> Thierry,
> 
> Your remarks are interesting but they leave me a bit confused. For me,
> there are three possible ways of addressing IE less than 6 (for which I
> have no test machine) :


Hi Ellen,

As Philippe explained, the rules you'd remove are rules that serve no
purpose anyway.
For example, IE does not style "ABBR" unless you create a fictitious element
via JS  (something I doubt you'd bother to do for IE lt 6).
And I agree with Philippe about "CODE", the browser would apply that rule,
but does that styling make sense to you?


--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz




__
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/

[css-d] FW: IE Problem has been killing my social life...

[Jan West]

That was the answer I was looking for.

Thanks David!

Jan

-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Laakso
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 7:35 PM
To: Jan West
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] IE Problem has been killing my social life...

Jan West wrote:
>
> The page is
> www.neptac.org/employment and you can see that the page has a horizontal
> scrollbar showing up in IE7. 
>  
>
> Jan  
>
>  
>   








Checked only on a local file, try:

*:first-child+html #tablefooter {overflow-x: hidden;}

Best,
~d







-- 
desktop
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
mobile
http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/

__
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/


__
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] Serving "universal ie6 stylesheet" to IE5, IE5.5 and IE Mac

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On May 22, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Ellen Herzfeld wrote:

> - use a special, simplified stylesheet that will produce a better user 
> experience than the two previous options. I thought that the "universal ie6 
> stylesheet" could be a good answer.
> 
> Of course, I can, as you suggest, remove any rules that obviously don't apply 
> to my site. But the whole point of using such "prepackaged" stylesheets is to 
> minimize work. Going painstakingly through each rule to see if it applies or 
> not seems a waste of time, especially for a large site. It is also much 
> easier to update if a new version is made available. I don't use frameworks, 
> but I'm sure those who do end up with a whole lot of html and css that is not 
> really relevant to their site. Are they supposed to remove all the cruft? And 
> do they actually do it?
> 
> The question is, aside from the aesthetic aspect of keeping everything clean, 
> is there a compelling practical reason not to use the "universal ie6 
> stylesheet" for IE5 and IE5.5 as is?

I don't see any particular reason not to use it (I've never used it and won't 
use it, as is). Thierry's point was that that stylesheet contains a number of 
rules and declarations that IE 6 and older won't be able to use anyway. Because 
those browsers don't understand them, and he gave some examples:

> blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content : ""; }
> blockquote, q {quotes : "" ""; } 

IE6 and older don't understand :before and :after.

One can add:
> blockquote, q {
> quotes : "" ""; }

same reason, the quotes property is not supported.

I see some odd things, like
> code { 
> display : block; }

I often use  in an inline context. A preceding rule also affects the code 
element .

Removing the couple of things he pointed out would make the stylesheet smaller, 
saving you a bit of bandwidth (and would make that stylesheet saner, in my 
book).

And he goes on suggesting to read his article
http://carsonified.com/blog/design/setting-rather-than-resetting-default-styling/
where-in he (strongly) suggest to use that kind of stylesheets as a starting 
point for your own.

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] Serving "universal ie6 stylesheet" to IE5, IE5.5 and IE Mac

[Ellen Herzfeld]

On 22 May 2010, at 2:42, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>>> Bravo for trying to support as many browsers as possible, and for*not*
>>> considering the "universal ie6" styles sheet for IE6.
>>> And when using it for IE5, you may want to remove/ignore some of therules
>>> in there: the CSS expression, all the elements that you know wouldnot be
>>> part of your documents, or rules you do not think are necessary.
>>> For example this rule:
>>> h1 img, h2 img, h3 img, h4 img, h5 img, h6 img { margin : 0; }
>>> that follows this one:
>>> img { margin : 0; }
>>> 
>>> Or rules like these:
>>> blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content :""; }
>>> blockquote, q {quotes : "" ""; }
>>> abbr { border-bottom : 1px dotted #666; }
>>> 
>> 
>> I assumed that any rules having no target in my documents would be
>> ignored so there was no reason not to leave them there. Am I wrong?
> 
> Actually, it is the opposite, there is no reason to leave them in.
> If you know that some rules will serve no purpose, then why would you want
> to keep them in?
> http://carsonified.com/blog/design/setting-rather-than-resetting-default-sty
> ling/
> 
>> The problem is that I assumed (again) that the creators of the
>> universal ie6 stylesheet had also tested it for "IE lt 6" and any
>> changes I made would NOT be tested.
> 
> I don't think the author tested these rules in IE lte 6, because as far as I
> know these rules are *ignored* by IE.
> Also you'd be removing declarations or rules, not adding anything, so I'd
> say the "testing" part is irrelevant.
> 

Thierry,

Your remarks are interesting but they leave me a bit confused. For me, there 
are three possible ways of addressing IE less than 6 (for which I have no test 
machine) :

- don't do anything special and don't care what the page will look like. It may 
be complete chaos, unreadable, but that is not my problem;

- remove all styling and the page appears with the browser's default styles. 
This was what I was planning to do before I came across the "universal ie6 
stylesheet";

- use a special, simplified stylesheet that will produce a better user 
experience than the two previous options. I thought that the "universal ie6 
stylesheet" could be a good answer.

Of course, I can, as you suggest, remove any rules that obviously don't apply 
to my site. But the whole point of using such "prepackaged" stylesheets is to 
minimize work. Going painstakingly through each rule to see if it applies or 
not seems a waste of time, especially for a large site. It is also much easier 
to update if a new version is made available. I don't use frameworks, but I'm 
sure those who do end up with a whole lot of html and css that is not really 
relevant to their site. Are they supposed to remove all the cruft? And do they 
actually do it?

The question is, aside from the aesthetic aspect of keeping everything clean, 
is there a compelling practical reason not to use the "universal ie6 
stylesheet" for IE5 and IE5.5 as is?

As for the irrelevance of testing when you *remove* things, as opposed to 
*adding* things, I don't agree. I have come across many instances of situations 
where removing something has an effect on the overall result. So, if you say 
that the authors of the "universal ie6 stylesheet" have not tested it at all in 
IE5 and IE5.5 (something that I may ask them about) then I think the best 
solution for me is to serve an unstyled page to these browsers.

What do you (and others) think?

Ellen


__
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] Serving "universal ie6 stylesheet" to IE5, IE5.5 and IE Mac

[Joergen W. Lang]

Am 21.05.10 16:07, schrieb Eric A. Meyer:
> At 3:54 PM +0200 5/21/10, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
>
>> Ignore it. IE5.x/Mac is dead.
>
>  So, some would say, is IE5.0/Win, and yet just last year I had a
> client whose user traffic was 14% IE5.0/Win.  That translated to
> approximately one million users per month.  Based on what I know of
> their business, I would guess that in the meantime that percentage
> has not much dropped, and the raw number may well have gone up.
>  My point being that we cannot know Ellen's (or anyone's besides
> our own) users' needs and browsers, and rather than dismiss her
> attempts to serve them, it's better to help her figure out how to do
> so.
>  Ellen, I second the recommendation for Phillipe's IE5/Mac page at
> .  I've seen none better.

My apologies for being too terse. Let me rephrase:

If you can - ignore it. IE5.x/Mac is as dead as Grunge Rock - yet some 
people still listen to it. ;)

I did by no means intend to discourage Ellen (or anyone) from finding a 
working solution to her problem.

Joergen
__
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/