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

Dave M G wrote: > http://aimashou.jp/home_page -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [css-d] Hover not working in IE

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 do

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

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

[css-d] Hover not working in IE

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

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

David Laakso wrote: > Rafael wrote: >> Well, let's try to bring it back in topic. >> >> What I've done is to add some 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 >> eve

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Rafael wrote: > > Well, let's try to bring it back in topic. > > What I've done is to add some 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 > anothe

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

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 pur

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

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,

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

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 ove

Re: [css-d] A weird CSS problem in IE7

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 (hopeful

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

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

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Phoebe Taylor

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:49:17 -0400 David Laakso wrote: > Phoebe Taylor wrote: > >> re: > >> > >> > >> > > > > Sure, I'd be up for it. :) > > > > Just let me know what the challenge is... > > > > > > > > > > Phoebe > > > > OK. Some random CSS suggestions. >

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Phoebe Taylor

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

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

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

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Phoebe Taylor

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

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Phoebe Taylor

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 'sho

[css-d] having problems with suckerfish menus

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: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

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. I

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

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,

[css-d] CSS Workflow Question

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

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

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 > http://local.fu2k.org/alex/c

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

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 com

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Phoebe Taylor

Phoebe Taylor wrote: >> re: >> >> >> > > 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

Re: [css-d] A weird CSS problem in IE7

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. > > Phil

Re: [css-d] Site check-- Cynthia Villegas

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 w

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

>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 mo

Re: [css-d] X-UA-Compatible - Discrepancies between targeted behaviour in IE8 resolved

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,

Re: [css-d] A weird CSS problem in IE7

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 in

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Tim Offenstein wrote: > Recommend using as opposed to 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: and are not deprecated in existing markup languages, and there are no such plans on the tab