Re: [css-d] OT? HTML 5 root wrapper element?
Hi J.C., On 25/05/16 00:03, J.C. Berry wrote: > Hi all, I hope this is not OT, but do you know which HTML5 element should > be used for a wrapper element? I've seen a few recommendations. > If you just need a wrapper element for styling, with no additional semantics, use a div element. HTH Ms2ger signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ css-discuss [css-d@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] OT : links not working smartphone - tablet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/07/2014 03:23 PM, Barney Carroll wrote: > IE and Mozilla have now committed to supporting -webkit- prefixed > properties. Do you have a citation for the Mozilla commitment? Last time I checked, we decided against it. Ms2ger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUM/AMAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n23qEH/iol1pJ/ClW41JEiy8W/cjYS mI3XgKmAt52elEh9+2jCxstwvcBYwV2GDHfGE/EB1asFRK739yKMw8Y/yQan9pPN ju9ZfSwGzQipWwSC7Fr/AoIEPyloabx/AezeSacbNFDyFDiOLAuPq3b1tgFmNKEl UNC9igNOw8ltUKff9ozWl0Eiao1NMuDQRS7c4FbL4gGUgMcwaOWUy6XZifd5gH6a hhxK14BoY0pjEjnbiAbZPZ9X9ih2IDhIWNATa0H4zC/YstdSORqvAvltzOt4Y4vv 75VOlDlSVtJC3s8dltaKg7M6KHRlkP4f05FKtj4c3VFBLbIPgzjhg5offUfLH3s= =8f68 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ css-discuss [css-d@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] First-Child
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/26/2014 06:27 PM, Tim Climis wrote: > Two colons are for pseudo elements. One colon is for pseudo > classes. However, I believe that one colon always works because > there wasn't a distinction until CSS3. For the record, this only applies to the pseudo-elements that existed in CSS2.1, i.e. ::before, ::after, ::first-line, and ::first-letter [1]. HTH Ms2ger [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css2/selector.html#pseudo-element-selectors -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUJZo4AAoJEOXgvIL+s8n2KOAH/3MQsDIoYutPNTEHqU2YHcMG kRkdRjam9/GfPZUEt3s3zW3Dor60o74ggrCmTBy0Jfo/4ZVhyYWVnWE7UWSNXN3R I5W0UzOHiuHAPVbESsxMvqdbuVnjPtxapctMKNLuti+eHC+1wJZoZ6k9UexJ1Vgq FHdH6a/+RRJdKhkJy6aSjZO47cXwelxVHq6OlI9LHmakltVlX2qxaHe5++N+ftnv hBjoW4U4KuS1bq9nemdRwKWbjsmPVwbuNecqDIQdrulKQ4LQHhn62XQPzEGakRVY tCDVcwGHQdhOTM7U8YkHtUeL3TbCeezWqf34cYf0gyB6em2tNwyhz+St+nYEoLo= =4qsF -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ css-discuss [css-d@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] Struggling with an OL
Hi Chuck,
On 05/11/2014 03:30 PM, Charles Miller wrote:
Good morning -
My business client donates a website for the Flag Day Parade here in
Appleton, WI, USA. Each year the site lists all the participants.
I’ve normally done that by converting a docx file to an html table.
But with my limited import experience and my limited code skills,
that always resulted in a significant amount of manual editing. And
renumbering when they modify the list. This year I read in my
HTML/CSS books and decided to try an organized list.
It hasn’t gone well. All 105 lines had the same formatting
(identical to my eye) but they displayed differently. Plus the
numbers showed in Dreamweaver but not in any of the browsers I
proofed it in. Safari, Firefox, Opera. The site structure is
inherited, so I don’t fully understand it. I thought perhaps
something was squelching the numbers, or rendering them in white,
etc. So I tried to redefine color etc. in the head of the page. Had
no effect.
So I Googled and wound up at:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/725741/how-to-colour-the-list-style-type-auto-generated-numbers
From there I trial-and-errored to this review page:
http://www.lasersaveinc.com/FlagDay-2014/lineup.html
This looks OK with one exception. The list starts with the number one
(as you’d expect), but the parade committee begins their list with
the number 0 (zero). I thought I could use value=“0” within the first
item — but it has no effect given the code I’m employing. I
hoped I could use start=“0” within the opening . But it had no
effect.
Any suggestions? (I wondered if another approach might be some sort
of full reset for ol and li.)
The easiest solution would be to use the browser's built-in numbering
and use something like
# li::marker {
# color: #8B0025;
# }
to style the number. Unfortunately, I know of no browser that supports
this at this point.
A second option would be to wrap the contents of the li elements in
spans, and use
# li {
# color: #8B0025;
# }
# li > span {
# color: black;
# }
, though you might find that unsatisfactory as well.
The solution with the manual counters you found on SO, though, could be
improved by using
# ol li:not(:first-child) {
# counter-increment: list;
# }
# ol li {
# position: relative;
# }
rather than
| ol li {
| list-style-type: decimal;
| counter-increment: list;
| position: relative;
| }
. (The list-style-type is not useful, as you're overriding the list-item
display type on the li elements.) This solution appears to work in
Firefox and Chrome here.
HTH
Ms2ger
__
css-discuss [css-d@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] how hard would it be...
On 04/10/2012 02:46 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Christian Hanvey wrote: How difficult would it be for browser manufacturer's to create their CSS parsers so that they could also accept the international spelling of CSS properties eg color + colourcenter + centregrey + gray It seems to me like it really would not be that difficult - so why is it not this way? It would certainly have saved me some time debugging in my early days!I imagine there is a good reason why not, but wanted to hear if anyone actually knows the reason. Historically, US English has always been the normative language for W3C specifications. Allowing an additional, different spelling in parallel would significantly increase the complexity of writing such specs. Similarly, for browsers, having to implement -and maintain!- such aliasing mechanism wouldn't come cheap. But I agree with you. Colour ftw! After 10+ years I still spell it wrong. (I've always been of the opinion that the W3C specs should have been written en Français) I could not find anything in the spec referring as to why we only use the American spelling rather than International spelling. I don't think it is referenced normatively. Best place to ask is the CSS WG’s www-style mailing list, though. In fact, it has been discussed earlier, in the thread starting at [1], and in particular Tankek Çelik's response at [2]. HTH Ms2ger [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0475.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0518.html __ css-discuss [css-d@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] Is there a way of styling anchor tags within the body?
On 08/14/2011 10:38 PM, Geoff Lane wrote: On Sunday, August 14, 2011, 8:53:58 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: For some time I've been under the impression that you could only use... in the head. The impression is correct as far as HTML specifications are considered. However, browsers generally implement style elements in body, too. --- Thanks for your input. I wonder whether that's true of HTML5, as I used when I passed the markup to the W3C validator and it didn't complain that the
Re: [css-d] s now a legitimate presentational device for layout according to W3C
On 03/16/2011 06:13 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Bobby Jack wrote: It's just a shame that some of the big players ( google, facebook) are so resolute in their old, bad habits, that the W3C now feels under pressure to legitimise those habits. Well, well, there's a surprise : Google use tables for layout, and the editor of the HTML 5 specification works for ... Ian Hickson, BSc Employment History Google Standards Development 2005-present Clearly no connection. Your accusation is unfounded. The editor has gone on the record many times that he strongly disagrees with this decision. See, for example, [1] and [2]. The proposal to keep disallowing layout tables was mainly written by Ian Hickson and Tab Atkins (Google). However, the working group chairs (Sam Ruby, IBM; Paul Cotton, Microsoft and Maciej Stachowiak, Apple) apparently believe the HTML Working Group want layout tables to be allowed. I hope this clarifies matters. Ms2ger [1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110310#l-992 [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10963#c2 [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/NoLayoutTable&action=history __ css-discuss [css-d@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/
