Re: [css-d] doctype
Thierry Koblentz wrote: As a side note, one advantage of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML allows authors to use an ID on html (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
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
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 html (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
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 class=is-ie-6
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
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
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 html 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
#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
#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
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: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/ html4/strict.dtd html head meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=UTF-8 /head 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
Norman Fournier wrote: Try using XHTML, which is cleaner markup, with this doctype: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=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
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
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
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 A l l c o n t e n t copy; 2 0 1 0 W C H ... 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 copy; 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
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 html (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
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%2Fcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=Inlinegroup=0user-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: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html 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, http://cfajohnson.com 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
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. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd html head titleWorcester Community Housing | Rewards/title I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / 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%2Fcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=Inlinegroup=0user-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: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html 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, http://cfajohnson.com 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
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. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd html head titleWorcester Community Housing | Rewards/title I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / 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%2Fcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=Inlinegroup=0user-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: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html 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, http://cfajohnson.com 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: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=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
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. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd This is HTML html head titleWorcester Community Housing | Rewards/title I left the gap because that is where I have tried to put this line: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / 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 problem
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 br elements separating the a-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 on page question.
2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html 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 http://dorward.me.ukhttp://blog.dorward.me.uk __ 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 wrote: 2008/10/16 Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Only IE (and the validator) needs a doctype... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html 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 on page question.
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 http://dorward.me.ukhttp://blog.dorward.me.uk __ 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.
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... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html ...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/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/
Re: [css-d] DOCTYPE/FireFox problem? Why does this happen?
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?
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 and CSS
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 and CSS
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 http://dorward.me.ukhttp://blog.dorward.me.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
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] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#recommendations [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/loosedtd.html [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#dt-doctype [5] http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Liberty%21_Equality%21_Validity%21 -- 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
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. http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ 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
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
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
Try this article: http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=E2F258C46D285FEE On 1/17/06, Uwe Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip -- 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 STRICT declaration problems with the page appearance in MOZ
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/
Re: [css-d] !DOCTYPE, position:relative, and rendering problems! oh my!
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: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org 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!
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: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org 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/
