Tim Offenstein wrote:
Recommend using strong as opposed to b in the interest of
semantic markup. There are plans to deprecate the i and b tags
because they're not semantic, they're presentational.
FWIW: b and i are not deprecated in existing markup languages, and
there are no such plans on
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:19 AM, Usamah M. Ali wrote:
'm having a weird CSS behavior that is happening only in IE7. It's a
box that having rounded corners on both top-left bottom-left sides.
The problem is that one of the rounded corner images always jumps off
its original place and spans into
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
What about using the ID class selector bug or the last class bug.
http://www.brettschultz.com/ie6_exhibit_a.html
IE8 in IE5 quirks mode is showing the last test Aqua. and first and second
test red.
IE6 will show red, red,
You now have your quirks mode documents with no doctype.
If I put in a quirks mode doctype (HTML 4.01 Transitional, no url)
then IE8 behavior in those two cases changes. It sees the *+html, as
with a standard doctype, like the X-UA IE=8 or 7 overrode the quirks
mode of the document. This is more
Cynthia Villegas wrote:
I happen to be following this post closely, since Phoebe seems to have
all the questions I had.
I validated all my pages, with the validate site, both html css,
fixed many mistakes I have and learned a lot! (the only thing that
didn't pass the validation was the
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't provide much as a context; a url or minimised test case
perhaps ?
A screenshot is hard to debug.
Intuitively, I'd say, give the parent (.searchbox) 'layout' and see if
that helps.
Philippe
---
Phoebe Taylor wrote:
re: http://www.cgraytaylor.net/
Sure, I'd be up for it. :)
Just let me know what the challenge is...
Phoebe
OK. Some random CSS suggestions.
First off, you have done exceptionally well with CSS. Please accept
this, not as criticism of your effort,
Luc wrote:
Avoiding spam isn't possible indeed. But as i said to try limit a
bit of spam attack. Maybe using an image with the e-maildress instead
of a clicking link
Anyway, i'm sorry if i waisted your time David.
You did not waste my time.
And I appreciate your comment.
I
Alex Robinson wrote:
I've added a second quirks mode to both the iframe demos and the hack
filters. As you said, the HTML4 without a URL provokes the expected
quirks behaviour with regard to * html.
http://local.fu2k.org/alex/css/cssjunk/ie8/xua
I'm just curious to know what % of people (A) do their HTML/XHTML first
completely before styling it, versus (B) those who do HTML CSS at once. I
am A/B split about 25% / 75%.
I'm also curious to know what % of people (C) do their layout first in
Photoshop (or receive image filesto be converted
David Hucklesby wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:38:59 -0600, Rafael wrote:
T wrote:
[···]
Use .png for the frame, cos it has excellent transparency support.
Yet another reason not to use it: PNG images don't work in IE6 (and,
although we all
regret this, IE6 is still the
Alan Gresley wrote:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2008/03/ie8-bad#comment-6499
All I want is a stand alone IE8 in super duper standard mode. We now
have to support:
1. The real IE5 (optional) 2. The real IE6 3. The real IE7
and one of the following.
4a. IE8 Standard mode 4b. IE7 Strict
here's the url: http://www.ithinkx.co.uk/itac/
i'm not sure why but th dropdowns appear very erratically in IE. it's fine
in everything else.
sometimes they disappear.
--
Vincent Pollard
http://www.ithinkx.co.uk
__
css-discuss
re: http://www.cgraytaylor.net
The addition of:
html { min-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 1px; }
to the CSS file may help the short page shift.(if it even bothers you,
or your client-- it drives me nuts but I'm a little whacked anyway) [1]
Okay, I like this. I didn't notice the 'short
On 2008/03/09 17:09 (GMT-0500) Phoebe Taylor apparently typed:
In general, using the shorthand in my code has been a good thing, but
seems to be conditional too. Like trying to put bold in the { font:
125% #000 bold } seems to make the text less bold than it is if it is
on a tag line by
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Alan Gresley wrote:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2008/03/ie8-bad#comment-6499
All I want is a stand alone IE8 in super duper standard mode. We now
have to support:
1. The real IE5 (optional) 2. The real IE6 3. The real IE7
and one of the following.
Phoebe Taylor wrote:
re: http://www.cgraytaylor.net/
In general, using the shorthand in my code has been a good thing, but
seems to be conditional too. Like trying to put bold in the { font:
125% #000 bold } seems to make the text less bold than it is if it is
on a tag line
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:49:17 -0400
David Laakso wrote:
Phoebe Taylor wrote:
re: http://www.cgraytaylor.net/
Sure, I'd be up for it. :)
Just let me know what the challenge is...
Phoebe
OK. Some random CSS suggestions.
First off, you have done
Alan Gresley wrote:
http://css-class.com/images/gunlang.png
You wouldn't have used display:table any where perhaps?
Yes, and I wouldn't dream of making changes until IE8 is fixed and
stable. It's the browser that's broken, not the design.
If they are serious about CSS 2.1 support, then it
On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Usamah M. Ali wrote:
About havingLayout, doesn't IE7 need it? I thought hasLayout becomes
redundant in IE7, am I mistaken?
Oh, it definitely needs it, in different ways than IE 6 sometimes, but
'hasLayout' is not dead in IE7.
IE8 will be anther story
On 09/03/2008, at 6:40 AM, Karl Hardisty wrote:
A comparison of usage before and
after is generally a good idea. If a site design changes, and
suddenly a certain type of browser/platform combination drops off
markedly, there's probably a good reason.
However it may also pay to check
Good evening David,
It was foretold that on 09/03/2008 @ 12:55:21 GMT-0400 (which was
13:55:21 where I live) David Laakso would write:
You did not waste my time.
And I appreciate your comment.
I just do not have time to respond properly to why I do not think
setting text in an image,
David Laakso wrote:
Luc wrote:
David , just a quick remark:
wouldn't it be better to use another alternative for the e-mail? Just
to try to limit a bit of spam attack...
off-list reply ***
I am not sure what a spam attack has to do with the nature and purpose
of the
Rafael wrote:
Well, let's try to bring it back in topic.
What I've done is to add some del elements with no-spam legends,
hiding them later on with CSS (and using JS to make it an actual link).
This may not be the best approach, but it's, like everything else, just
another try
David Laakso wrote:
Rafael wrote:
Well, let's try to bring it back in topic.
What I've done is to add some del elements with no-spam
legends, hiding them later on with CSS (and using JS to make it an
actual link). This may not be the best approach, but it's, like
everything
CSS newbie here, in the beginning stages of working on a site for my dad...
I have the navigation div set up so a green dotted border appears on
hover. This works in Firefox, but not in IE7. Both HTML and CSS have
passed validation.
Site posted at: home.comcast.net/~mschaller/dad/index.html
CSS-d,
I realise I didn't include a link to the actual page when I posted my
question:
http://aimashou.jp/home_page
My questions are as follows. I hope someone can help because I really
can't seem to solve these two issues on my own.
If you look here, you can see how the page should look in
Welcome to css-d.
Marcy Schaller wrote:
I have the navigation div set up so a green dotted border appears on
hover. This works in Firefox, but not in IE7. Both HTML and CSS
have passed validation.
Site posted at: home.comcast.net/~mschaller/dad/index.html
A thin dotted border doesn't
28 matches
Mail list logo
