Re: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[John Faulds]

I believe, that when testing, it is best to simulate the native  
conditions under which a browser would be used.


Yeah, good point.


PS: Thanks for your submit button skinning tutorial! Using it right now.


No worries! :)

--
Tyssen Design
Web & print design services
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto

[John Faulds]

You're being afflicted by IE's 3 pixel gap and because you've got images  
in the left and right columns that don't give you much leeway space-wise,  
you may have to float the images. You'll then need to add clear: both to  
whatever follows. So:


#middlelefttext{
float:left;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
margin-left: 298px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}

* html #middlerightimage img { float: right; } /* IE only - better  
included via IE conditional comments */


#bottom-brwn-bar{
clear: both;
height:42px;
font:7pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
color:rgb(117,86,76);
line-height:14pt;
background:url(css-images/bottom-brwn-bar.gif)
}

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:06:35 +1000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Samuel, You snuck out an response as I was trying to organize my  
thoughts and text. I've not had oppourtunity to digest your response  
yet. I started with a tabled page created when the images was sliced up  
and rendered into a html page via image ready. So in essense, I started  
building the css from the top table row by turning it into a div. Why is  
everything set to relative? I don't know.  Why did I build it this way?  
Well, cause I wanted to see if I could do it at allfrom  
image to css. I'm not a expert and have to learn one div at a time.


I will re read your reply and see what I can do as you suggested. Thank  
you too for your response.


Thank you for the help! John,
I think I am making my, thus your confusion worse. I apologize.

index page http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/index.html  
uses main-style.css with fixed heights for the middle area css:  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/main-style.css This  
page renders exactly right in IE 6 and FF 1.5.0.7


gucci.html  http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci.html   
uses the same main-style.css.  This page renders almost right ( except  
for a small space under last image on the right side #middlerightimage  
in IE the whole page falls apart in FF 1.0.5.7 (as I already know and  
stated this css is using set height, which I know is wrong here for this  
page).


gucci2.html http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci2.html  
uses my initial more-style.css  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style.css which  
is almost identicle to the first css, all I've changed is the set height  
to auto; for that middle area . This page is completely off in FF  
1.0.5.7 and  IE 6.


gucci3.html http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci3.html  
uses more-style3.css  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style3.css ,  
with your suggested css changes. This page renders almost perfect in FF  
1.0.5.7 with a small white space to the right of the images. This page  
in IE 6 is dropping the right image div and cutting off the right side  
of the left text div.










- Original Message -
From: "John Faulds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto


IE <= 6 will expand heights to contain content. Other browsers won't. The
reason why everything's getting messed up in FF & Opera is because of the
set heights. Editing your CSS in FF, I made these changes and it looked  
OK:


#middlecontent{
}
#middlelefttext{
float:left;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
margin-left: 300px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}

Even on your index page, you probably don't need to set a height; just
make sure whatever content follows after the image is cleared properly as
the text next to the image is floated. (At default text size, the image  
is

longer than the text anyway, so the the need to clear the following
content won't appear as apparent until the content or text size is
increased and becomes longer than the image.)





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




--
Tyssen Design
Web & print design services
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[Rahul Gonsalves]

John Faulds wrote:
With the public release of IE7 nearly on us I'm just wondering whether 
it's better to download the fix to stop IE7 installing via automatic 
update and continue to use IE7 as a standalone, or let IE7 replace IE6 
and then install a standalone for IE6.


What would be the pros and cons of each method?


I believe, that when testing, it is best to simulate the native 
conditions under which a browser would be used.


To that end, I have IE6 installed on my computer, and have a separate 
virtual machine which has IE7 (and FF2RC3, Swift etc) installed on it as 
a standalone right now, but which I will allow to be automatically 
upgraded at some point in time. I will not be allowing IE7 to be 
installed on my main computer, until most of the bugs have been worked 
out, and a couple of security updates have been applied :-).


Regards,
 - Rahul.

PS: Thanks for your submit button skinning tutorial! Using it right now.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto

[sharron]

Samuel, You snuck out an response as I was 
trying to organize my thoughts and text. I've not had oppourtunity to digest 
your response yet. I started with a tabled page created when the images was 
sliced up and rendered into a html page via image ready. So in essense, I 
started building the css from the top table row by turning it into a div. Why is 
everything set to relative? I don't know.  Why did I build it this way? 
Well, cause I wanted to see if I could do it at allfrom image to 
css. I'm not a expert and have to learn one div at a time.
 
I will re read your reply and see what I can do as 
you suggested. Thank you too for your response.
 
Thank you for the help! John,
I think I am making my, thus your confusion 
worse. I apologize. 
 
index page http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/index.html uses 
main-style.css with fixed heights for the middle area css: http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/main-style.css This page renders exactly right in IE 6 and FF 
1.5.0.7
 
gucci.html  http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci.html  uses the same main-style.css.  This page renders 
almost right ( except for a small space under last image on the right side 
#middlerightimage in IE the whole page falls apart in FF 1.0.5.7 (as I already 
know and stated this css is using set height, which I know is wrong here for 
this page). 
 
gucci2.html http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci2.html uses my initial more-style.css http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style.css which is almost identicle to the first css, all 
I've changed is the set height to auto; for that middle area . This 
page is completely off in FF 1.0.5.7 and  IE 6.
 
gucci3.html http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci3.html uses more-style3.css http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style3.css , with your suggested css changes. This page renders almost 
perfect in FF 1.0.5.7 with a small white space to the right of the images. This 
page in IE 6 is dropping the right image div and cutting off the right side of 
the left text div.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "John Faulds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:41 
PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] set height versus height set to 
auto
IE <= 6 will expand heights to contain content. Other browsers won't. 
The  reason why everything's getting messed up in FF & Opera is 
because of the  set heights. Editing your CSS in FF, I made these 
changes and it looked 
OK:#middlecontent{}#middlelefttext{float:left;width:298px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font:10pt 
"Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:right;padding:0px 
5px 0px 
5px;background:rgb(255,255,255)}#middlerightimage{margin-left: 
300px;background:rgb(255,255,255)}Even on your index page, you 
probably don't need to set a height; just  make sure whatever content 
follows after the image is cleared properly as  the text next to the 
image is floated. (At default text size, the image is  longer than the 
text anyway, so the the need to clear the following  content won't 
appear as apparent until the content or text size is  increased and 
becomes longer than the image.)

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

RE: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[Samuel Richardson]

 
I'm using the IE6 standalone with IE7 installed, the only problem is that
the standalones don't support cookies and don't support the hack for alpha
PNGs (they don't display at all)

S


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Montoya
Sent: Wednesday, 18 October 2006 1:19 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

On 10/17/06, John Faulds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the public release of IE7 nearly on us I'm just wondering whether
> it's better to download the fix to stop IE7 installing via automatic
> update and continue to use IE7 as a standalone, or let IE7 replace IE6 and
> then install a standalone for IE6.
>
> What would be the pros and cons of each method?

I have a hunch (just a hunch) that the standalone of IE 6 will be more
stable than that of IE 7. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, then
you would probably be better off having IE 6 as a standalone.

-- 
-- 
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[dwain . alford]

Christian Montoya wrote:

On 10/17/06, John Faulds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

With the public release of IE7 nearly on us I'm just wondering whether
it's better to download the fix to stop IE7 installing via automatic
update and continue to use IE7 as a standalone, or let IE7 replace IE6 
and

then install a standalone for IE6.

What would be the pros and cons of each method?


I have a hunch (just a hunch) that the standalone of IE 6 will be more
stable than that of IE 7. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, then
you would probably be better off having IE 6 as a standalone.



i've never had much luck getting a standalone to work.  it seems that it 
either replaces the current version or it does nothing at all.  i'm 
running w2k.  is there something i'm missing?


i guess i really don't have an issue with ie7, except i can't run it.

dwain


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[Christian Montoya]

On 10/17/06, John Faulds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

With the public release of IE7 nearly on us I'm just wondering whether
it's better to download the fix to stop IE7 installing via automatic
update and continue to use IE7 as a standalone, or let IE7 replace IE6 and
then install a standalone for IE6.

What would be the pros and cons of each method?


I have a hunch (just a hunch) that the standalone of IE 6 will be more
stable than that of IE 7. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, then
you would probably be better off having IE 6 as a standalone.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto

[Samuel Richardson]

 
It's not how I would build it, but..

Lose the width : auto;'s, width is already auto so you don't need to define
it again.

The height styles everywhere are indicative or trying to compensate from
something going wrong in the design, instead of setting a height work our
what's causing the content to be pushed down and fix that instead. (There
are legitimate uses of height, but they're few and far between)

Lastly, why is everything position relative?

It's a hard one to fix, and I think you've approached the cut up in the
wrong way. Work from the inside out, built up the page as a series of
individual elements then bring them all together. I find it's quicker and
you write much better code then by working from the outside in, or starting
at the top of the page and working down.

Thanks,

Samuel


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 October 2006 12:12 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto

I'm still plugging along learning but I'm once again 
stumped. I've been attempting to take a Photoshop design image that was 
sliced and diced and make it into a tableless web page. I'm trying to get 
this page to look as close to the original design image ( 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-sample-lrg-2.jpg warning image is

214 kb)  as possible. It is not fluid, it is not perfect.

I'm doing this for myself, just using misc. stuff from a acquaintances site.

So this is not an actual commercial site. This is a practice site for my own

sake.

The index page works and acts exactly as I imagined it should in FF and IE.

css is located here: 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/main-style.css
index page is located here: 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/index.html

}
#middlecontent{
width:auto;
height:348px;
position:relative
}
#middlelefttext{
position:relative;
float:left;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
position:relative;
right:0px;
top:0px;
float:right;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:auto;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
However, to further confuse me, this page 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci.html, whose 
more-style.css ( 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style.css ) is an 
exact replica of main-style, except I've changed the fixed heights to auto: 
This was my attempt to make the page expandable in height for that content 
area
}#middlecontent{width:auto;height:auto;position:relative}#middlelefttext{pos
ition:relative;float:left;clear:right;height:auto;width:298px;color:rgb(0,0,
0);font:10pt 
"Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:right;padding:0px 5px 
0px 
5px;background:rgb(255,255,255)}#middlerightimage{position:relative;right:0p
x;top:0px;float:right;clear:right;height:auto;width:auto;background:rgb(255,
255,255)}The 
big challenge is the next page, or the Gucci page. This page works great in 
IE it adds white space under the purse image, However this page completely 
falls apart in FF. I am thinking it is the height in the following portion 
of the main-style.css .  I've used font sizes in pt, I realize that is not a

very good  or accessible practice. I've questions too about link titles, are

they necessary for accessibility? I've not run through any accessibilty 
tests so far. Thanks Sharron 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] IE6 -> IE7

[John Faulds]

With the public release of IE7 nearly on us I'm just wondering whether  
it's better to download the fix to stop IE7 installing via automatic  
update and continue to use IE7 as a standalone, or let IE7 replace IE6 and  
then install a standalone for IE6.


What would be the pros and cons of each method?

--
Tyssen Design
Web & print design services
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] set height versus height set to auto

[John Faulds]

IE <= 6 will expand heights to contain content. Other browsers won't. The  
reason why everything's getting messed up in FF & Opera is because of the  
set heights. Editing your CSS in FF, I made these changes and it looked OK:


#middlecontent{
}
#middlelefttext{
float:left;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
margin-left: 300px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}

Even on your index page, you probably don't need to set a height; just  
make sure whatever content follows after the image is cleared properly as  
the text next to the image is floated. (At default text size, the image is  
longer than the text anyway, so the the need to clear the following  
content won't appear as apparent until the content or text size is  
increased and becomes longer than the image.)




On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:12:03 +1000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm still plugging along learning but I'm once again  
stumped. I've been attempting to take a Photoshop design image that was  
sliced and diced and make it into a tableless web page. I'm trying to  
get this page to look as close to the original design image (  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-sample-lrg-2.jpg warning  
image is 214 kb)  as possible. It is not fluid, it is not perfect.


I'm doing this for myself, just using misc. stuff from a acquaintances  
site. So this is not an actual commercial site. This is a practice site  
for my own sake.


The index page works and acts exactly as I imagined it should in FF and  
IE.


css is located here:  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/main-style.css
index page is located here:  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/index.html


}
#middlecontent{
width:auto;
height:348px;
position:relative
}
#middlelefttext{
position:relative;
float:left;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
position:relative;
right:0px;
top:0px;
float:right;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:auto;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
However, to further confuse me, this page  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci.html, whose  
more-style.css (  
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style.css ) is  
an exact replica of main-style, except I've changed the fixed heights to  
auto: This was my attempt to make the page expandable in height for that  
content area  
}#middlecontent{width:auto;height:auto;position:relative}#middlelefttext{position:relative;float:left;clear:right;height:auto;width:298px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font:10pt  
"Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:right;padding:0px  
5px 0px  
5px;background:rgb(255,255,255)}#middlerightimage{position:relative;right:0px;top:0px;float:right;clear:right;height:auto;width:auto;background:rgb(255,255,255)}The  
big challenge is the next page, or the Gucci page. This page works great  
in IE it adds white space under the purse image, However this page  
completely falls apart in FF. I am thinking it is the height in the  
following portion of the main-style.css .  I've used font sizes in pt, I  
realize that is not a very good  or accessible practice. I've questions  
too about link titles, are they necessary for accessibility? I've not  
run through any accessibilty tests so far. Thanks Sharron  


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--
Tyssen Design
Web & print design services
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] set height versus height set to auto

[sharron]

I'm still plugging along learning but I'm once again 
stumped. I've been attempting to take a Photoshop design image that was 
sliced and diced and make it into a tableless web page. I'm trying to get 
this page to look as close to the original design image ( 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-sample-lrg-2.jpg warning image is 
214 kb)  as possible. It is not fluid, it is not perfect.


I'm doing this for myself, just using misc. stuff from a acquaintances site. 
So this is not an actual commercial site. This is a practice site for my own 
sake.


The index page works and acts exactly as I imagined it should in FF and IE.

css is located here: 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/main-style.css
index page is located here: 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/index.html


}
#middlecontent{
width:auto;
height:348px;
position:relative
}
#middlelefttext{
position:relative;
float:left;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:298px;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font:10pt "Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
text-align:right;
padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
#middlerightimage{
position:relative;
right:0px;
top:0px;
float:right;
clear:right;
height:348px;
width:auto;
background:rgb(255,255,255)
}
However, to further confuse me, this page 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/gucci.html, whose 
more-style.css ( 
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/ut-web/css/more-style.css ) is an 
exact replica of main-style, except I've changed the fixed heights to auto: 
This was my attempt to make the page expandable in height for that content 
area }#middlecontent{width:auto;height:auto;position:relative}#middlelefttext{position:relative;float:left;clear:right;height:auto;width:298px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font:10pt 
"Trebuchet MS",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:right;padding:0px 5px 
0px 
5px;background:rgb(255,255,255)}#middlerightimage{position:relative;right:0px;top:0px;float:right;clear:right;height:auto;width:auto;background:rgb(255,255,255)}The 
big challenge is the next page, or the Gucci page. This page works great in 
IE it adds white space under the purse image, However this page completely 
falls apart in FF. I am thinking it is the height in the following portion 
of the main-style.css .  I've used font sizes in pt, I realize that is not a 
very good  or accessible practice. I've questions too about link titles, are 
they necessary for accessibility? I've not run through any accessibilty 
tests so far. Thanks Sharron 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Re: [css-d] Double space after a period]

[Kevin Futter]

Title: Re: [WSG] Re: [css-d] Double space after a period]



On 17/10/06 7:17 PM, "Kay Smoljak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 10/17/06, Stephen Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Elements of Typographic Style, long regarded as a pretty
definitive text on all things typographic, cautions against such a
thing. To quote: "As a general rule, no more than a single space is
required after a period, colon or any other mark of punctuation." 

I've avoided joining in to this one, but from my understanding, the reason the double space was ever adopted as a practise was because early typewriters didn't leave enough space after a period. Computer typefaces are smarter than that, so the extra space is no longer required for readable text. 


Precisely. All manual typewriters used a fixed-width, monospaced font, which is the source of this problem. It was felt that a second space was needed after full-stops (periods, as you state-side folk insist on calling them – my wife certainly applies a very different definition there), as sentence breaks were not clearly enough defined.

-- 
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/

--
This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential.  You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies.  The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free.  The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not.  The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College.




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

TuteC wrote:
> Excellent work! The first time I´ve seen it I thought it was great,
> but all of you improved it a lot. We never stop learning...

Thanks

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[TuteC]

Excellent work! The first time I´ve seen it I thought it was great,
but all of you improved it a lot. We never stop learning...
Best regards;
Eugenio.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

Graham Cook wrote:
> Graham Cook
> ph: 0419 316 815
> web: www.uaoz.com
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The menu looks great. However, I have a question re accessibility,
> how can keyboard only users navigate the menu? Can you also have the
> drop-down submenus activate on focus as well as on hover.

Yes. The enter key toggles the sub-menus. Give it a try:
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/keyboard_friendly_dropdown_menu/default.asp

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Graham Cook]

Graham Cook
ph: 0419 316 815
web: www.uaoz.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The menu looks great. However, I have a question re accessibility, how can
keyboard only users navigate the menu? Can you also have the drop-down
submenus activate on focus as well as on hover.

Regards

Graham Cook
ph: 0419 316 815
web: www.uaoz.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

Kepler Gelotte wrote:
>> I'm fine with people using this solution to develop web sites
>> they're paid for. What I don't want to see is people "packaging" the
>> menu to resell it or to include it in commercial web templates. Is
>> there a license that would match this idea?

> You may want to use the GNU public license:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> or the even less restrictive GNU lesser public license:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

I don't think these fit the bill.
Anybody could package the menu with a web template and sell the whole thing,
isn't?

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Double space after a period

[Chris Williams]

This horse is long since dead, and I
apologize for continuing this rather silly typographic conversation, but several
people have said this (“computer typefaces are smarter than a typewriter”).

 

Simply put, computer typefaces are not
magic, and they do not somehow magically deduce their context and decide that
this period . is in the middle of a sentence, this one “is inside a
quote.”  And this one follows a title for Mr. Brown.  And so
on.  A typeface (font) is a typeface by character.  Periods (and
question marks and exclamation marks) have no additional space after them, or
they wouldn’t work inside a quote (like “this one.”) 
You have to add a space.  Or spaces.

 

Justifier code (code that justifies text
both left and right) *is* smart,
and it adds space first at the ends of sentences, then around commas and
semi-colons, then between words, etc.  But that’s not the font, and
that’s not what happens in non-justified text.

 

What remains is the question about whether
this is good design/style.  I prefer it, and think it reads better with a
larger space after the conclusion of a sentence.  Your mileage may vary.

 









From:
listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kay Smoljak
Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: [css-d]
Double space after a period]



 





Computer typefaces are smarter than that, so the extra space is no
longer required for readable text. 












***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Anders Nawroth]

Hello!

Kepler Gelotte skrev:
What I don't want to see is people "packaging" the menu to resell it

or

to include it in commercial web templates.



You may want to use the GNU public license:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

or the even less restrictive GNU lesser public license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html



The LGPL would allow packaging and reselling of the menu.


/Anders


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Kepler Gelotte]

> I'm fine with people using this solution to develop web sites they're paid
> for. What I don't want to see is people "packaging" the menu to resell it
or
> to include it in commercial web templates. Is there a license that would
> match this idea?

You may want to use the GNU public license:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

or the even less restrictive GNU lesser public license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:21 AM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
>> I followed all suggestions made after I published the first demo
>> and came up
>> with this...
>> Demo:
>> http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/keyboard_friendly_dropdown_menu/
>> Article:
>> http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/Pure_CSS_Dropdown_Menus.asp
>> Is that good enough now? :)
>
> It's not bad :-).

Thanks ;)

> Nit pick: you may want to use some a:focus magic to highlight the
> links in the toplevel menu for keyboard users.

I do that already, but I agree it's very subtle (the text goes form gray to
black).
The reason I didn't go with a background change (as I do in the sub-menus)
is that I thought some people would click on a top level item and then
wonder why it stays "highlighted" while they are hovering over other
elements...
But I agree with you that some authors would prefer to have a background
color swap, so I've added two coments to the stylesheet so people can easily
go this route if they want to.

> Oh, and it works nicely with Camino 1.0, 1.1a1 and Camino trunk
> builds (hardly surprising, same rendering engine as Fx 1.5, Fx 2.0RC
> and Gecko 1.9 trunk respectively). Camino 0.8.2 is _really_ old.
> Nit pick: in your browser support list, under Mac, you mention
> 'Firefox 2.5.0'. There is no beast like that. Firefox 1.5.x or
> Firefox 2.0 rc ?

Thanks, it was supposed to say versions 1.0 and 1.5. - not 2.5 (I guess I
did some Maths on this one) ;)

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

Chris Taylor wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt said:

>>> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
>
>> Ah, crap!  IANAL, but doesn't that non-commercial mark mean we
>> technically can't use this on any site we develop for our clients
>> because we're getting paid?!  I sure that's not your intention,
>> can't you use a more appropriate licence like the CC
>> attribution-only, modified BSD or, better yet, public domain?  I
>> recommend public domain, with a little note requesting (but

>> not requiring) attribution.

> Agreed, when I first saw this I thought I'd found a replacement for
> the old trusty Suckerfish. The non-commercial requirement ties our
> hands to using this on many of the sites we'd like to. Thierry, will
> you reconsider this choice of licence?

Hi Chris,
See my reply to Lachlan, I have no problem with people using it on sites
they build for clients.

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Thierry Koblentz]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> It seems quite good, though I think there's a way you can improve it
> for screen readers.  If you set focus to the opened dropdown menu
> when the user presses enter, the screen reader will begin reading it
> out.

> http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php

For screen-reader users I'm using the "title" attribute to let them know
that the link they are on toggles a sub-menu. I know that not all of these
users will have access to this element, but I wanted to care for sighted
keyboard users too. If I give focus to the first link in the sub-menu, then
these users won't be able to "peek" at the sub-menus and move on to the next
top level item; they'll have to "back paddle".
I don't know... It's tough to please *all* users..

>>> i see you have copyrighted the process; will you have a problem with
>>> sharing your find with us?

>> I don't have any problem sharing [1], so feel free to use it for your
>> nephew's site.
>>
>> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

> Ah, crap!  IANAL, but doesn't that non-commercial mark mean we
> technically can't use this on any site we develop for our clients
> because we're getting paid?!  I sure that's not your intention, can't
> you use a more appropriate licence like the CC attribution-only,
> modified BSD or, better yet, public domain?  I recommend public
> domain, with a little note requesting (but not requiring) attribution.

I'm fine with people using this solution to develop web sites they're paid
for. What I don't want to see is people "packaging" the menu to resell it or
to include it in commercial web templates. Is there a license that would
match this idea?

Thanks for your feedback.

---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Re: [css-d] Double space after a period]

[Kay Smoljak]

On 10/17/06, Stephen Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Elements of Typographic Style, long regarded as a prettydefinitive text on all things typographic, cautions against such athing. To quote: "As a general rule, no more than a single space isrequired after a period, colon or any other mark of punctuation."
I've avoided joining in to this one, but from my understanding, the reason the double space was ever adopted as a practise was because early typewriters didn't leave enough space after a period. Computer typefaces are smarter than that, so the extra space is no longer required for readable text.
-- Kay Smoljakkay.zombiecoder.comcleverstarfish.com

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Re: [css-d] Double space after a period]

[Stephen Lewis]

Chris Williams wrote:
PS -- it is very correct, it is NOT something for old English  
teachers.

The Chicago manual, the latest Strunk and White editions, and many
others, still use it.  Just because a random entry in Wikipedia  
and the

AP don't do it, doesn't mean it's not right.


It may be a bit misleading to suggest that it's only some "random  
article in Wikipedia" suggesting that double-spacing after a full- 
stop is incorrect.


The Elements of Typographic Style, long regarded as a pretty  
definitive text on all things typographic, cautions against such a  
thing. To quote: "As a general rule, no more than a single space is  
required after a period, colon or any other mark of punctuation."


The Elements of Typographic Style for the Web  does a good job of  
applying these principles to our little world - here's the entry that  
deals with this particular topic: http://webtypography.net/ 
Rhythm_and_Proportion/Horizontal_Motion/2.1.4/


It also includes suggestions on how to include a larger space, should  
you still feel the need to do so.


Regards
Stephen

--
Stephen Lewis
Manifest New Media
W: http://www.meetmanifest.com/
--






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] different spacing across browser & in

[Kepler Gelotte]

> The list item in  are floated to the left, do I not need to
> clear them?

> PS: I've removed it and it doesn't make a difference. 



Hello Taco,

I see the width of your page is 680px; Each list item is given a width of
170px;

(from lth.css:)
#lth LI {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FLOAT: left; PADDING-BOTTOM:
0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 170px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #99 1px
solid; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0093dd
}

170px * 4 = 680px

Which means you are just touching the right side of the container 
causing IE to wrap. If you reduce the size to 169px, the problem goes away.

Regards,
Kepler Gelotte
www.neighborwebmaster.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Pure CSS dropdown Menu, take II

[Chris Taylor]

Lachlan Hunt said:

>> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

> Ah, crap!  IANAL, but doesn't that non-commercial mark mean we
technically 
> can't use this on any site we develop for our clients because we're
getting 
> paid?!  I sure that's not your intention, can't you use a more
appropriate 
> licence like the CC attribution-only, modified BSD or, better yet,
public 
> domain?  I recommend public domain, with a little note requesting (but

> not requiring) attribution.

Agreed, when I first saw this I thought I'd found a replacement for the
old trusty Suckerfish. The non-commercial requirement ties our hands to
using this on many of the sites we'd like to. Thierry, will you
reconsider this choice of licence?

Chris


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***