padding-right: 20px;<br>
}<br>
<br>
br {<br>
clear: left;<br>
}<br>
<br>
_
From: Andre Turrettini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 12:14 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Thats certainly good stuff
Sandy Clark wrote:
> I for one, code my pages in the simplest HTML possible now. Much easier
> to maintain than those nested table thingies I did for years. When I am
> satisified that the HTML document says what I want and is understood in
> both visual and aural browsers, then I start playing wi
Jim Davis wrote:
> The main problem with the hybrid layout is that it does not allow full
> separation of presentation and logic.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/200310.html#t200310015
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Thats certainly good stuff in that article.
In the article he says this : "Even if you have the most responsive team members, youre still limited to what they know. Like it or not, many people look at markup from a presentational standpoint, ie. this form element needs to sit below this label,
Good additional reading:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/05/15/tables_oh_th/
>Read him, live by him. Also Eric Meyer, my new God. His new CSS The
>Definitive Guide is a pure eye opener.
>
>However hybrids work, we should still be using semantic markup in them.
>Nesting tables or using d
Read him, live by him. Also Eric Meyer, my new God. His new CSS The
Definitive Guide is a pure eye opener.
However hybrids work, we should still be using semantic markup in them.
Nesting tables or using doesn't help. I've come to CSS
from an interest in creating accessible web sites. From my e
Good readin material for you, Sandy, from Zeldman, a well-known standards advocate:
http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/pdfs/0735712018C_08.pdf
Especially insightful is the part that goes:
A Transitional Book for a Transitional Time
To the kind of standards geek who spends hours each week arguing about
is a semantic structure, it instructs a user agent that this is the end
of a series of thoughts. How it is respresented visually can be
accomplished via CSS. I can indent a . I can make margins or padding
bigger or smaller. Heck, I can even place a paragraph above another one
using CSS. Every u
that CSS offers everything needed in terms of page layout -
>this is clearly the case since you can't make many simple layouts. I think
>that positioning of elements is pretty much the definition of layout
>capabilities - I'm not sure what you mean there.
>
>
>
>Jim D
f elements is pretty much the definition of layout
capabilities - I'm not sure what you mean there.
Jim Davis
_
From: Irvin Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
If you're very familiar
If you're very familiar with CSS, then you'll know that CSS doesn't offer any layout capabilities, beyond the styling and positioning of page elements, like tables and their common counterpart, the tag.
Tables and div's are just containers for other tags. As such, they are the building blocks for
, May 26, 2004 3:30 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
>
> Gah! I took another crack at it again based on your rant. Yup. Didn't
get
> it
> to work. Thought I had it until I changed the amount of content to
force
> the
> container object.
Gah! I took another crack at it again based on your rant. Yup. Didn't get it
to work. Thought I had it until I changed the amount of content to force the
container object.
No surprise, really. But you know how you get on a roll and you're thinking,
"I've got it!," and then you really, really don't
I am well aware of the nature of vertical alignment in CSS1. My comments were meant to suggest this is a deficency and it would be better if it could apply to block level elements as well. For instance, one thing I have a real problem with is DIVs appearing in DIVs, I would like to be able to just
Understood. I think I pointed out you have to use a float, which requires a width be specified.
I could see how this could mess up a layout unless you go to great lengths in testing.
M
Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is simply no simple to do a full-height multi-column layout in
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Jim -
There are plenty of tutorials on multi-column layouts using exclusively CSS,
you just have to look for them. The main thing is you always have to use a
float of one form or another, which means you need to specify the width of
the columns you are
be so
difficult or obtuse.
Jim Davis
_
From: Michael Haggerty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:07 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Jim -
There are plenty of tutorials on multi-column layouts using exclusively CSS,
you just have to loo
e. ;^)
Jim Davis
_
From: Irvin Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:09 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Jim,
it's not CSS that is at fault here.
It's the most visible proponents' fault. Because they have created the
i
That - what Kevin said! That's my point!
It seems like they just weren't very pragmatic. you'd think four years ago
when they were thinking of recommending the spec somebody would have piped
up and said "sounds good. but can you do cnet.com in it?" If the answer was
"sorta. maybe, if you..." the
Davis
_
From: Irvin Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:09 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Jim,
it's not CSS that is at fault here.
It's the most visible proponents' fault. Because they have created the
impression
Uh oh!
- Original Message -
From: "Irvin Gomez"
> It's the most visible proponents' fault. Because they have created the
impression (in people not familiar with the concept of stylesheets) that CSS
is about NOT using tables for layout. And that's just plain wrong.
>
Them's fightin' word
Jim,
it's not CSS that is at fault here.
It's the most visible proponents' fault. Because they have created the impression (in people not familiar with the concept of stylesheets) that CSS is about NOT using tables for layout. And that's just plain wrong.
CSS is about automating presentational ta
www.bluerobot.com
there used to be a site layout there that did exactly what you want
completely with CSS.
I'm pretty sure I downloaded it so I'll have to look.
I'd look right away, but I'm out the door for a meeting...
will
Jim Davis wrote:
> Actually that site doesn't have any examples that
o: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Jim Davis wrote:
> I'm sorry - is this not a good place to rant? I'm pretty sure I've seen
> rants here before. nearly positive in fact. ;^)
It is an excellent place to rant. It is not an efficient place to rant.
I have no idea why, but that struck me as absurdly funny.
Today's analogy: CF-Community is a treadmill. It's a great place to
run, but you don't get very far.
--BenD
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Jim Davis wrote:
> > I'm sorry - is this not a good place to rant? I'm pretty sure I've seen
Werd, bro.
-Kevin
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Davis"
> I love the idea of CSS. I love the idea of separating content from
> presentation. But Christ-on-a-crutch why can't our replacement technology
> elegantly handle the simplest and most common layout ever!
[Todays Threads]
[T
Jim Davis wrote:
> I'm sorry - is this not a good place to rant? I'm pretty sure I've seen
> rants here before. nearly positive in fact. ;^)
It is an excellent place to rant. It is not an efficient place to rant.
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
g the same background color and no
borders then CSS works fine.
Jim Davis
_
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:42 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Here is an example of a single CSS that handles header and footer, plus a
th
://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069
==
- Original Message -
From: Jim Davis
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
I'm sorry - is this not a good place to rant? I'm pretty sure
will not find a way to do this that doesn't involve some
sort of hack. My point is simply that such a common layout should never
need a hack.
Jim Davis
_
From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn
Actually that site doesn't have any examples that show columns with equal
heights - and thus lies the problem.
Just to be clear I'm actually quite good at CSS - been doing it for years
and my designs have been featured in a couple of CSS books (early books to
be sure, but actual-factual books none
Try this one.
http://www.pmob.co.uk/temp/2colfixedtest_4.htm
_
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:01 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
It seems that a main problem is that the height is calculated to the height
of the
Try this one, not mine, but it looks good.
http://www.pmob.co.uk/temp/2columncentred_equalising.htm
_
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
I think we missed the mark here - this
PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Actually, height is always computed in relation to the parent element. If
you use html, body{height: 100%}, then containing elements are always
computed in relation to that. Using html, instead of just body helps Opera.
If you are
At 07:07 PM 5/25/04, you wrote:
>Sorry - just venting.
>
>Every time I get into this it amazes me that CSS made it so damn difficult
>to do one of the most common layouts online: a full-width header, two
>equal-height (despite content) columns (one for navigation and one for
>content), and a full-w
e most of the
layouts online.
This is like somebody coming out with a new, replacement brick that won't
let you build rectangular doors.
Jim Davis
_
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:53 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn
t's got me worked up.
Jim Davis
_
From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Hmm.
How bout this?
Note I haven't tested completely for cross browser, but it works fairly
well.
&q
Jim Davis wrote:
>
> Every time I get into this it amazes me that CSS made it so damn
> difficultto do one of the most common layouts online: a full-width
> header, two equal-height (despite content) columns (one for navigation
> and one for content), and a full-width footer.
Every time I get into
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:45 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
I've spent a lot of time on that site. ;^) That definitely falls into the
"sorta does it" category - but the image used to mimic full columns doesn't
degrade well and is fixed width
account when CSS was being defined.
Jim Davis
_
From: bret [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:28 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
Have you tried some of the samples out there? I found this one that
looks like what you want to do:
http://ne
color: black;<br>
}<br>
#nav ul li a:link:hover,#nav ul li a:visited:hover,<br>
#nav ul li a:link:active,#nav ul li a:visited:active{<br>
color: #99;<br>
}<br>
/*]]>*/<br>
Title
Subtitle
Subnav item 1
Subnav item 2
Have you tried some of the samples out there? I found this one that
looks like what you want to do:
http://nemesis1.f2o.org/articles
FWIW, I feel the same way. I love CSS in theory. Practice is another
story. Time consuming doesn't even begin to explain it. Perhaps fine for
people who get paid
Sorry - just venting.
Every time I get into this it amazes me that CSS made it so damn difficult
to do one of the most common layouts online: a full-width header, two
equal-height (despite content) columns (one for navigation and one for
content), and a full-width footer. In other words, this:
43 matches
Mail list logo
