Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

I think it worth mentioning that the * html hack works in IE *Mac* too.


I forgot about this earlier, but that's the reason for the comment hack 
to hide from IE5/Mac.


/*\*/ * html { ... } /**/

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: star hack and IE 7 (was Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements)

[Terrence Wood]

Gunlaug Sørtun:

Nothing wrong with 'conditional comments'
I always weigh it up with the cost of CC code size plus the server trip 
for the file, vs. the code size for inline '* html hacks', usually the 
latter method wins.


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Terrence Wood]

Thierry Koblentz:

the * html hack works in IE *Mac* too.
good point. There's always the tan hack, but probably the better way to 
go is to exploit IE/Macs lack of @media support.


@media screen {
* html...
}

Patrick H. Lauke:
I have an aversion for adding cruft that only works in a specific 
browser family to my HTML, which should be browser agnostic.
Ditto. I've been agreeing with Patrick a lot lately... I'm not a 
stalker, I promise.


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Mar 8, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:


Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I think it worth mentioning that the * html hack works in IE *Mac*  
too.


What about conditional comments?  I don't think that really matters  
much anyway, since IE Mac is officially obsolete (i.e. now  
completely unsupported by Microsoft) and ...


It might be unsupported by MS, but it is still quite well used, in  
the **real** world.

That said, no, IE Mac doesn't support CC.

I think some unwanted hacks applying to it would be the least of  
its problems.


Let it see some of the hacks targeted at IE Win can end in a complete  
disaster (i.e. inaccessible content).
The often used 'Holly Hack' (height:1%) causes big problems in IE  
Mac. That browser incorrectly computes % height as '0' instead of  
'auto' as it should per CSS 2.1 (for in-flow elements when no parent  
element has a height specified).



Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

I think it worth mentioning that the * html hack works in IE *Mac* too.


What about conditional comments?  I don't think that really matters much 
anyway, since IE Mac is officially obsolete (i.e. now completely 
unsupported by Microsoft) and I think some unwanted hacks applying to it 
would be the least of its problems.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Thierry Koblentz]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> * html hacks will continue to work in IE6 forever, just as they do
> today.  We already know this filter has been fixed in IE7 (standards
> mode), and so the following are exactly equivalent:
> 
> 
> * html foo { ... }

I think it worth mentioning that the * html hack works in IE *Mac* too.

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Paul Novitski wrote:
My point was simply that IE's conditional comments -- and ugly they are, 
no argument there -- are more likely to work as intended in a few years 
than hacks like * html.


* html hacks will continue to work in IE6 forever, just as they do 
today.  We already know this filter has been fixed in IE7 (standards 
mode), and so the following are exactly equivalent:



* html foo { ... }

(In the case of IE7 quirks mode, * html will still apply whereas the 
conditional comment would not.  In fact, since IE7 quirks mode will be 
very close to IE6 quirks mode, * html would be better because it would 
be very likely that the patch will still be required.)


So, any argument that stating that conditional comments are more future 
proof is a myth.  In fact, if you're not careful with conditional 
comments, they can be more dangerous.  Consider the following:


* html #content { height: 1%; }



The * html hack will only apply to IE 6 and earlier.  That particular 
conditional comment will apply to all versions of IE since IE5 (when 
conditional comments were first added).


If IE7 fixes the limitation from IE6, I'm sure you would agree that the 
patch should not apply to IE7 and, therefore, the use of a filter which 
does not apply to IE7 is the better option.


The most effective future proofing method we have is to ensure that any 
hacks we do use today do not inadvertently target any future browser. 
It is better for future browsers to receive fully standards compliant 
CSS, then for them to apply patches intended for and only tested in 
current browsers.


If the fate of * html was not yet known then I would agree that 
conditional comments with a version number specified are safer, but 
since we do know that * html is equivalent to [if lte IE 6], both are 
completely safe.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Paul Novitski]

At 05:02 PM 3/7/2006, Ben Buchanan wrote:

Conditional comments are a hack - an ugly, inefficient hack at that.
Planning for the future includes the thought "hey, when IE6 becomes
irrelevant, I'm going to have to edit every single HTML document I've
got to remove this bloat!".


My point was simply that IE's conditional comments -- and ugly they 
are, no argument there -- are more likely to work as intended in a 
few years than hacks like * html.




Or alternatively, some browser will come out which has a bug that
makes it read the stylesheet that was only intended for IE6; only to
render a complete mess as it tries to cope with conflicting CSS.


Exactly.  I believe this is much more likely to occur with * html 
type hacks than conditional comments.




We do know that the * html hack works right now and it's entirely
plausible that it will work just fine when IE7 comes out. It's
entirely plausible that some future browser will have a problem with *
html but it's also likely that IE6 will be a footnote by then so the
hacks can be removed.


I don't think hacks will be removed from most pages.  The amount of 
legacy crap on the web is phenomenal.  Who bothers to clean up a 
three-year-old archive?  That's the thinking that points me toward 
using hacks that will persist.


Just to give myself a little perspective, I should confess that I do 
use the * html hack in my own stylesheets -- in fact it's pretty much 
the only one I do use.  My previous outburst was motivated more by a 
desire to throw a bucket of water on someone's haughtiness than it 
was to start another holy war.


Regards,
Paul  


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Paul Novitski wrote:

Using conditional comments to work around IE's bugs is coding for the 
future.


Personally, I have an aversion for adding cruft that only works in a 
specific browser family to my HTML, which should be browser agnostic. 
Sure, it validates, but it's just proprietary browser code disguised as 
a comment.


As always, the above is the purist in me speaking. The pragmatist on the 
other hand will use it when necessary...


--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Ben Buchanan]

>  I would advise against * html hacks though -
> http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598

Personally I think building/testing/making long-term strategy for a
beta-version browser is not advisable. We will not know what IE7 can
and can't do until it is actually released. Until then we are all just
wasting our time speculating and arguing. The next beta could break
things that work in the current beta.

I certainly don't understand why so many people have been so willing
to accept Microsoft's decree - "stop using that simple hack which can
be removed from your CSS anytime you like; bloat your content with our
proprietary hack, you miserable ingrates!".

Conditional comments are a hack - an ugly, inefficient hack at that.
Planning for the future includes the thought "hey, when IE6 becomes
irrelevant, I'm going to have to edit every single HTML document I've
got to remove this bloat!". Remember, not every site uses a CMS (and
not every CMS has a decent template system).

Or alternatively, some browser will come out which has a bug that
makes it read the stylesheet that was only intended for IE6; only to
render a complete mess as it tries to cope with conflicting CSS.

We do know that the * html hack works right now and it's entirely
plausible that it will work just fine when IE7 comes out. It's
entirely plausible that some future browser will have a problem with *
html but it's also likely that IE6 will be a footnote by then so the
hacks can be removed.

The sky is not falling!

/soapbox ;)

Ben
--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

star hack and IE 7 (was Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements)

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Paul Novitski wrote:
These coincidental clusters of bugs vary from one version of a 
browser to the next which is why so many hacks are version-dependent.

 Like browser-sniffing, relying on them makes for fragile code.  You
 can get away with using them for the time being, but where's the
long view?


No '* html' related problems in IE7 and later versions, since they won't
recognize it.

Quoting from...

-- Wilson points out that the goal is to fix IE, and getting there is a
process. “I want to remove the * html hack to make it useful . . .
because it will then only apply to obsolete browsers.” --

Looks like the '* html' hack will only "get through" to obsolete IE
versions - IE6 and older, which to me makes it an extremely safe hack to
use now and in the future. The fact that '* html' is "valid nonsense"
makes it even better - IMO.

... Why should our code depend on combinations of bugs occurring in 
the same version when we can simply filter for version numbers and 
leave it at that?


Using conditional comments to work around IE's bugs is coding for the
 future.


Nothing wrong with 'conditional comments' - apart from the fact that we
can't get what's inside them through to the validator(s) (unless we
deliver it separately). I tend to think of 'conditional comments' as
'MSIE garbage-cans', and as such they may be very useful at times.

The humble '* html' hack may even be used inside a *single* 'conditional
commented stylesheet', which makes it even more useful since we can keep
the different IE/win versions separate as part of a '"disgraceful"
degradation' strategy - and keep it all well away from the CSS validator
while we're at it. Should work pretty well as long as IE accept
'conditional comments', and I think that "comment-hack" will last for a
very long time.

...but then again - who knows anything substantial about the future...

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

star hack and IE 7 (was Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements)

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Darren West wrote:
I would advise against * html hacks though - 
http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598


The * html hack will not pose a problem as long as IE 7 fixes its other 
bugs and inconsistencies (it will just ignore the * html like other good 
browsers, and - provided all the bugs that cause developers to use * 
html in the first place are addressed - will behave like any other 
modern browser).


IMHO anyway.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Paul Novitski]

At 02:29 PM 3/7/2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Seona Bellamy wrote:

On 07/03/06, Darren West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would advise against * html hacks though -
http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598


I tend to disagree with such nonsense.



With all due respect, Lachlan, your dismissive tone is inappropriate 
for a group of peers working together toward a common goal.  Seona 
said nothing to warrant your unfriendliness, even if you disagree 
with her point intellectually.


As for your intellectual point, surely you know that the reason that 
"* html" is a hack is that it assumes that the presence of one 
weakness of a browser indicates the presence of another totally 
unrelated weakness.  These coincidental clusters of bugs vary from 
one version of a browser to the next which is why so many hacks are 
version-dependent.  Like browser-sniffing, relying on them makes for 
fragile code.  You can get away with using them for the time being, 
but where's the long view?


When one weakness in a browser is eventually fixed but not another, 
the hack will break.  Each time a browser vendor comes out with a new 
version, those of us who've used these hacks will either have to 
scurry around patching our hacky code or leave our old pages broken 
and bleeding in the ditches of the internet.  Your own language 
indicates how convoluted this is:


* html is a completely safe filter to use now that we know IE7 will 
not be supporting it in standards mode.  Therefore, for any 
IE6-and-earlier only hack, it is perfectly safe to use it.  IE 7 
will then receive the same styles as all other browsers.  If it 
turns out that the limitation is still present in IE7, the filter 
will need to be modified to target IE7 as well, but until we know 
for certain whether it is or not, we cannot safely target IE7.


Yah, yah, yah.  Why should our code depend on combinations of bugs 
occurring in the same version when we can simply filter for version 
numbers and leave it at that?


Using conditional comments to work around IE's bugs is coding for the future.

(Now all I need to do is follow my own advice...)

Regards,
Paul

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Seona Bellamy wrote:

On 07/03/06, Darren West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would advise against * html hacks though -
http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598


I tend to disagree with such nonsense.  * html is a completely safe 
filter to use now that we know IE7 will not be supporting it in 
standards mode.  Therefore, for any IE6-and-earlier only hack, it is 
perfectly safe to use it.  IE 7 will then receive the same styles as all 
other browsers.  If it turns out that the limitation is still present in 
IE7, the filter will need to be modified to target IE7 as well, but 
until we know for certain whether it is or not, we cannot safely target IE7.



Put it in a conditional comment instead. Then you can even target IE6
specifically, and everyone's happy. :)


I have already used a conditional comment in this particular site 
because few hacks I had used were still required in IE7b2, but that was 
before I realised that IE7b2 was nothing more than a joke and I probably 
shouldn't have bothered with it.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Seona Bellamy]

On 07/03/06, Darren West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would advise against * html hacks though - http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598
Daz

On 07/03/06, Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't know, but the following addition makes it look pretty ok in my IE6...* html legend {margin: 0 -6px; display: block;}


Put it in a conditional comment instead. Then you can even target IE6 specifically, and everyone's happy. :)


Seona.

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Darren West]

I would advise against * html hacks though - http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598Daz
On 07/03/06, Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:> The following test case demonstrates how I want it to look and my> current solution that works in Firefox.  Both examples in the page> should look roughly identical>
> http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldsetDon't know, but the following addition makes it look pretty ok in my IE6...* html legend {margin: 0 -6px; display: block;}
Georg--http://www.gunlaug.no**The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

The following test case demonstrates how I want it to look and my 
current solution that works in Firefox.  Both examples in the page 
should look roughly identical


http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldset


Don't know, but the following addition makes it look pretty ok in my IE6...

* html legend {margin: 0 -6px; display: block;}

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Nuno Gaspar]

There is another example and a way of do it...It´s in portuguese my native, but if you follow the cod it´s easy, and pretty-- http://www.artideias.com

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Al Kendall wrote:

The attached pic is a screen shoot from IE 6.   Firefox 1.5 was fine


Yes, I know.  I think you misread my e-mail.  I knew it was broken in 
IE6, I'm looking for a way to fix it.  Any ideas?


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Al Kendall]

Lachlan,    The attached pic is a screen shoot from IE 6.   Firefox 1.5 was fine...CheersAlOn 3/7/06, Lachlan Hunt <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:>> 
http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldset>> On OS X 10.4.5> Firefox 1.5, Camino - latest nightly trunk build, iCab 3.0, Safari 2.03> and WebKit nightly build, Opera 9 tp2,  all look the same.
> and so does Konqueror/KDE 3.5 running on top of OS X .Great!  But I still need a solution to fix it in IE6.> IE 5.2 Mac has a small 1px  white border around the legend, barely> visible given your light background-color. There is also some
> white-space under the legend (padding on fieldset, you won't get rid of> it).That's acceptable, IE/Mac is obsolete now anyway, so as long as the pageis readable, I'm not concerned.--
Lachlan Hunthttp://lachy.id.au/**The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
-- Cheers!Al Kendall


Untitled-2.png
Description: PNG image

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldset


On OS X 10.4.5
Firefox 1.5, Camino - latest nightly trunk build, iCab 3.0, Safari 2.03 
and WebKit nightly build, Opera 9 tp2,  all look the same.

and so does Konqueror/KDE 3.5 running on top of OS X .


Great!  But I still need a solution to fix it in IE6.

IE 5.2 Mac has a small 1px  white border around the legend, barely 
visible given your light background-color. There is also some 
white-space under the legend (padding on fieldset, you won't get rid of 
it).


That's acceptable, IE/Mac is obsolete now anyway, so as long as the page 
is readable, I'm not concerned.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Mar 7, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

  I'm looking for a way to style a legend element with a background  
that spans the whole width of the page.  I originally used a  
regular heading (h3) because I knew the design would have  
difficulty with fieldset/legend, but the after the accessibility  
review it was requested that we use fieldset/legend anyway and I  
need to get the design as close as possible.


By default, legends are only as wide as they need to be to fit the  
text and there seems to be little one can do about this in current  
browsers.  I came up with one solution using a thick top border on  
the fieldset behind the legend element which works in Firefox, but  
it doesn't quite work in IE because it leaves a small white gap  
between the legend and fieldset border.  I currently don't have  
access to any other browsers for testing, but I'd like it to work  
fairly well in at least all major browsers.


The following test case demonstrates how I want it to look and my  
current solution that works in Firefox.  Both examples in the page  
should look roughly identical


http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldset


On OS X 10.4.5
Firefox 1.5, Camino - latest nightly trunk build, iCab 3.0, Safari  
2.03 and WebKit nightly build, Opera 9 tp2,  all look the same.

and so does Konqueror/KDE 3.5 running on top of OS X .

IE 5.2 Mac has a small 1px  white border around the legend, barely  
visible given your light background-color. There is also some white- 
space under the legend (padding on fieldset, you won't get rid of it).


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:12 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements
> 
> Hi,
>I'm looking for a way to style a legend element with a 
> background that spans the whole width of the page.  I 
> originally used a regular heading (h3) because I knew the 
> design would have difficulty with fieldset/legend, but the 
> after the accessibility review it was requested that we use 
> fieldset/legend anyway and I need to get the design as close 
> as possible.

I never managed to get legends to look anywhere close to what I wanted them
to in all browsers. They are just being interpreted so differently, I ended
up working around it: I am now using a div and a legend both containing the
same content. Something like this:

Your Details

Your Details


In the css I hide the legend from the general public and format the
.fieldsetTitle the way I want it. I know this is a nasty way of doing it and
I end up doubling information, but that's the only way I ever found. Legends
just cannot be formatted properly.



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Styling Fieldset and Legend Elements

[Lachlan Hunt]

Hi,
  I'm looking for a way to style a legend element with a background 
that spans the whole width of the page.  I originally used a regular 
heading (h3) because I knew the design would have difficulty with 
fieldset/legend, but the after the accessibility review it was requested 
that we use fieldset/legend anyway and I need to get the design as close 
as possible.


By default, legends are only as wide as they need to be to fit the text 
and there seems to be little one can do about this in current browsers. 
 I came up with one solution using a thick top border on the fieldset 
behind the legend element which works in Firefox, but it doesn't quite 
work in IE because it leaves a small white gap between the legend and 
fieldset border.  I currently don't have access to any other browsers 
for testing, but I'd like it to work fairly well in at least all major 
browsers.


The following test case demonstrates how I want it to look and my 
current solution that works in Firefox.  Both examples in the page 
should look roughly identical


http://lachy.id.au/dev/2006/03/fieldset

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**