Re: [css-d] Site check

Phoebe Taylor wrote: > I have been fiddling with...] > > > I'm a bit OCD when it comes to how things look, but I guess I need to > learn to give up some of that control for the sake of the overall > project. :) > re: You're looking good, and standing tall. If y

Re: [css-d] IE 6 ignores margin on statically positioned div; also, background drop-out.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:09:40 -0800, Weston C wrote: > This one's new to me: I don't recall IE6 messing up margins on a statically > positioned > container before, but this appears to be what I've got: > > http://weston.canncentral.org/web_lab/Arteis/MoboUbiq/ > > The box with the yellow border is t

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

>> Of course, I believe you, but I'm having difficulty tracking down >> where Microsoft say this. Any pointers? > >Not yet, but I'm 100% certain this is the case. Ah, ok. I see the answer in liorean's post. In the white paper / technology overview http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.

Re: [css-d] Site check

Thank you Dave and Peter for the critiques. I have been fiddling with it and took out the height on the #main css, so the text won't shoot out the bottom now. Also, I darkened the text color a little and went with percent on the font rather than an absolute font size according to the suggestions

[css-d] Old friends - IE8 suffers from fuzzy specificity

... as all previous versions of IE have done http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/hacks/fuzzyspecificity (Reported to the Microsoft beta forum) __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki

Re: [css-d] a picture with in a picture

Scott Sauyet wrote: > Jim Davis wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Is it possible to have an image showing a picture frame and have that >>> as part of the css style sheet. >>> >> Here is a way to have the frame in as a bac

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

> Based on the "Versioning and Internet Explorer Modes" whitepaper, > making the assumption that Microsoft just kept the old IE7 Quirks > mode, it seems like we have four modes: IE7 Quirks (versions<7), IE7 > Standards (version=7), IE8 Standards (version <=8) and Best possible > (version=edge),

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

> >>IE8 cannot emulate IE6, only IE5 and 7. > > > WTF? > > So IE=6 is actually the same as IE=5. Genius. Yup. In fact, I argued for the inclusion of IE=6 for consistency's sake. It pointing to IE5 is not perfect, but better than having something really weird happen when you use that value. > Of

[css-d] Lines clipping in Explorer, and width issue

CSS-d, I have two issues in Explorer 7. If you look here, you can see how the page should look in the two Safari examples: http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=411750 Please be forgiving on the style, as I'm still in the process of deciding placement and colour. In any case, in Safar

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > discuss.org] On Behalf Of Alex Robinson > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 4:50 PM > To: Peter-Paul Koch > Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Subject: Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted > behavio

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

> Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > > Ingo Chao wrote: > >> - content="IE=5" or content="IE=6" throws IE8b1 in quirksmode, even if > >> the document has a standards Doctype. > > > > The real IE5 and IE6 have many differences in their support and > > interpretation of CSS in quirks mode. Does IE8 reflec

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

>>IE8 cannot emulate IE6, only IE5 and 7. WTF? So IE=6 is actually the same as IE=5. Genius. Of course, I believe you, but I'm having difficulty tracking down where Microsoft say this. Any pointers? >> 2. Parsing errors not replicated when targeting IE5. > >Which parsing errors exactly? Th

[css-d] Mind the Gap: multi-level menu problem

Hello all, In developing this menu I have encountered a problem with a couple different implementations of the code. Everything look fine in Firefox, Opera, and Safari yet IE (6 and 7) displays a 2-pixel gap underneath the whenever a second-level menu item contains and 3rd level menu. My menu:

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

> http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/cssjunk/ie8/xua > > In a nutshell, IE8's emulation of IE6 and IE5 does not appear to be > off to a flying start. IE8 cannot emulate IE6, only IE5 and 7. > 1. Box model not honoured when targeting IE6 and in standards mode > 2. Parsing errors not replicated when

[css-d] IE 6 ignores margin on statically positioned div; also, background drop-out.

This one's new to me: I don't recall IE6 messing up margins on a statically positioned container before, but this appears to be what I've got: http://weston.canncentral.org/web_lab/Arteis/MoboUbiq/ The box with the yellow border is the one I'm having trouble with. It's styled like so: #photo

Re: [css-d] Site check

Phoebe Taylor wrote > If you guys wouldn't mind, could I get a site check on this? > > http://www.cgraytaylor.net > > It seems to check out okay for me in Firefox, IE 7, and Opera. I had > to lower the font size in the gallery photo descriptions for Opera to > lay out the text correctly which m

Re: [css-d] Site check

> Phoebe Taylor wrote: >> If you guys wouldn't mind, could I get a site check on this? >> >> http://www.cgraytaylor.net >> >> Phoebe >> >> Quick look: quick thoughts... One method of checking the structural integrity of a page is to set minimum font size of 24 or larger; and/or to test a

[css-d] X-UA-Compatible - discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 and actual behaviour

http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/cssjunk/ie8/xua In a nutshell, IE8's emulation of IE6 and IE5 does not appear to be off to a flying start. 1. Box model not honoured when targeting IE6 and in standards mode 2. Parsing errors not replicated when targeting IE5. Can someone confirm that the results sh

Re: [css-d] Site check

Phoebe Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dwayne -- Actually, I'd like to eventually work with some sort of > elastic layout, where it can expand to a certain point. I'm not sure > I'm entirely comfortable with filling up all the browser real estate, > but more would be nice, I agree. Well... a

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > Ingo Chao wrote: >> - content="IE=5" or content="IE=6" throws IE8b1 in quirksmode, even if >> the document has a standards Doctype. > > The real IE5 and IE6 have many differences in their support and > interpretation of CSS in quirks mode. Does IE8 reflect these difference

Re: [css-d] Site check

Mark -- I increased the padding a little. Good tip to start combining the padding. I need to think making things more compact in the coding on future projects. I didn't increase it quite as much as you had. I'm thinking about adding a glossary of terms, especially for the folders, ie - what mak

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

Ingo Chao wrote: > - content="IE=5" or content="IE=6" throws IE8b1 in quirksmode, even > if the document has a standards Doctype. The real IE5 and IE6 have many differences in their support and interpretation of CSS in quirks mode. Does IE8 reflect these differences - as the meta-number suggests?

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but still slightly broken

Alan Gresley wrote: > http://css-class.com/articles/ursidae/bears5ddh-kbaccess.htm Sorry, no use for testing anything, since you've tailored it to only target the anchors - not every element in the page. I'll do deep testing of IE8' element-layer stacking and handling when I get around to downlo

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

>>> http://brassblogs.com/templates/2col.stickyfoot.leftsidebar/ This is pretty close to what I'm looking for. The only thing I see missing is that the main column is supposed to be fluid. I might play around with altering it.<< Actually it's based off a fluid layout. If you remove the #wra

Re: [css-d] Site check

> If you guys wouldn't mind, could I get a site check on this? > > http://www.cgraytaylor.net > > It seems to check out okay for me in Firefox, IE 7, and Opera. I had > to lower the font size in the gallery photo descriptions for Opera to > lay out the text correctly which makes it a touch small

Re: [css-d] a picture with in a picture

Thank-you all for the great collection of ideas. I'm going though them now and will let you know how it turns out. You have expanded my vision of what is possible though css. thank-you chris On 7-Mar-08, at 6:07 AM, T wrote: If you want an ornate frame, for example, where parts of it over

[css-d] Site check

If you guys wouldn't mind, could I get a site check on this? http://www.cgraytaylor.net It seems to check out okay for me in Firefox, IE 7, and Opera. I had to lower the font size in the gallery photo descriptions for Opera to lay out the text correctly which makes it a touch small for my taste

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but still slightly broken

Gunlaug Sørtun<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Alan Gresley wrote: > > I know the fix/bug. As I said previously this is deeper. > > Not deeper than how a rendering engine (all rendering engines) splits up > and treats elements as a set of "layers" which are stacked in a certain > order depending on rules -

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

> So the meta-switch is able to take precedence over the doctype switch in > any case. Definitely! That's by design. Doctype switching will continue to work as usual; you can choose between Quirks (IE5.5) and Standard (IE8). However, any meta switch will ALWAYS overrule any doctype. > Setti

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but ... X-UA-Compatible response header

Setting the X-UA-Compatible response header has some aspects I find remarkable. or ... - content="IE=5" or content="IE=6" throws IE8b1 in quirksmode, even if the document has a standards Doctype. while - content="IE=8" or content="IE=9" ... throws IE8 in Standards-IE8-Mode, even if there

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

* Christian Kirchhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008:03:07:18:11:45+0100] scribed: > Hello, > > A look at your html code shows me that the rows are in separate tables. > For a start try to combine evrything in one single table by dropping the > extra: > > > > > in between the four rows. When I

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

Hello, A look at your html code shows me that the rows are in separate tables. For a start try to combine evrything in one single table by dropping the extra: in between the four rows. Otherwise: Try setting width: 180px; for .Image, and set the cellpadding attribute of the table tags to 0

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

* Scott Sauyet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008:03:07:08:59:00-0500] scribed: > Mike Schleif wrote: > > Go here: > > > > Enter this string: > > {A8D5CDDA-972F-4D33-A7E8-B5342AAE1350} > > and submit. > > The server is throwing errors when I try this. Do yo

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

David Laakso wrote: > Scott Sauyet wrote: >> I'm looking for a two-column layout. The left (#nav) column should be >> fixed width and the right (#main) one fluid. I'd like to have a footer >> that sticks to the bottom of the viewport or the bottom of the document, >> whichever is lower. And I

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wanted to re-send because I thought this might help someone else > looking for the same thing - otherwise I wouldn't bother. I just did > this *exact* layout for a client the day before yesterday. You can get > the "vanilla" version here: > > http://brassblogs.com

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

Wow. Sorry Scott - you'll be getting this twice! I keep forgetting when I hit "reply" to this list, it only replies to the original person - not the whole list. I wanted to re-send because I thought this might help someone else looking for the same thing - otherwise I wouldn't bother. I just

[css-d] Targeting IE8 (was: IE8 is better but still slightly broken)

I'm curious as to why you're targeting various IEs with hacks when conditional comments let you do the same thing? Especially if the hacks are used to import external sheets in the first place, it seems to me it's easier to just use CCs to load browser-specific fix-up sheets in the first place. M

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

Scott Sauyet wrote: > I'm looking for a two-column layout. The left (#nav) column should be > fixed width and the right (#main) one fluid. I'd like to have a footer > that sticks to the bottom of the viewport or the bottom of the document, > whichever is lower. And I'd like the main content t

Re: [css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

Scott Sauyet schrieb: > Okay, I swear I've done this a thousand times, and seen it ten thousand, > but I've having problems with a straightforward layout problem. I'm > wondering if anyone has a similar layout laying around... > > I'm looking for a two-column layout. The left (#nav) column shou

[css-d] Two-column layout with sticky footer.

Okay, I swear I've done this a thousand times, and seen it ten thousand, but I've having problems with a straightforward layout problem. I'm wondering if anyone has a similar layout laying around... I'm looking for a two-column layout. The left (#nav) column should be fixed width and the righ

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

Mike Schleif wrote: > Go here: > > Enter this string: > {A8D5CDDA-972F-4D33-A7E8-B5342AAE1350} > and submit. The server is throwing errors when I try this. Do you have a spot to post just a static copy of the page in question? -- Scott ___

Re: [css-d] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for

I agree with everything your saying David. I was simply having one of those crap-tacular days and was trying to inject some witty sarcasm into the thread. It wasn't meant as a 'poo poo, why do you worry about that old text browser?' comment. The exact opposite is true, we should worry about it f

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

* Christian Kirchhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008:03:07:10:51:12+0100] scribed: > Maybe a dumb question, but is the text in column (2) defined to be left > aligned? > > Other than that, I cannot think of a reason - if all table rows are in > one table and not in separate ones - why that should hap

Re: [css-d] a picture with in a picture

Jim Davis wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is it possible to have an image showing a picture frame and have that >> as part of the css style sheet. > > Here is a way to have the frame in as a background in the css and adding the > image in the

Re: [css-d] td widths change with img ???

Maybe a dumb question, but is the text in column (2) defined to be left aligned? Other than that, I cannot think of a reason - if all table rows are in one table and not in separate ones - why that should happen. Could you provide a link to an exemplary page showing your problem? Does it happen

Re: [css-d] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for

Rob Emenecker wrote: >> And remember this about logs: If you design a site that >> doesn't work in browser X, after awhile, you won't have >> anyone using browser X visit your site *because your site >> doesn't work.* Then you'll pat yourselves on the back >> and say, "See - no one uses browser

Re: [css-d] Odd, broken design

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Scott Sauyet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Francis wrote: > > Can anybody figure out why the quote on this page overlaps the footer > near > > the bottom right-hand side? > > http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2008/12017945171.html > > > > It's obviously not meant to

Re: [css-d] IE8 is better but still slightly broken

Alan Gresley wrote: > Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >> If a browser can't stack various layers of one element together in >> the right order on top of all layers of another element, without >> explicitly being "told" to group and stack element layers by using >> a nonsensical property/value for the cas