Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > Why do you think the two interoperable implementations rule means we > need to author mainstream CSS based on guesses about how future > implementations will work? The amount of guesswork can be kept at a minimum by checking up on proposals, experimental implement

Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

Browser's support is still improving. My opinion is: if we are using CSS for professional purposes, we should take into account also obsolete versions. otherwise, we should drop our support to these browsers. see http://transcendingcss.com ^.^ http://www.css-zibaldone.com http://www.css-zibaldo

Re: [css-d] Drop Caps

Ron Koster wrote: > ...will it break in some browser or other? For one thing, for example, > I'm not sure why extra padding is needed (or suggested) on two sides of > the drop cap. Ron, I'm just leading horses to the Kool-Aid...I can't make 'em drink it. -- ___

Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

On 19/1/09 02:10, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > Vendor-specific CSS properties are for the most part safe to use in that > they don't end up disturbing other browsers - although I have seen that > happen too. I can imagine implementations of vendor-specific CSS properties changing between versions (but

Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > Neither using experimental vendor-specific CSS properties or using > unprefixed proposed CSS3 properties (they're not "standardized"!) is > safe. But I'd have thought the former is safer, since vendors try not > to implement two experimental versions and the propos

Re: [css-d] Drop Caps

At 08:09 PM 1/18/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote: >2.5em is the size of the font in relation to the parent element. In >your example, the first letter of every paragraph on the page would >be 2.5 times the height of the font of the paragraph. >80% is the line-height, which does not require a unit, s

Re: [css-d] Drop Caps

Ron Koster wrote: > http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DropCaps > p:first-letter { > font: 2.5em/80% serif; > float: left; > padding: 0.2ex 0 0 0.2ex; > margin: 0; > overflow: visible; > } > and so I'm just wondering if there's a particular reason why... > a) 2.5em/8

Re: [css-d] css3

David Hucklesby wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:22:05 -0500, David Laakso wrote: > >> Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of >> boring reasons): >> >> 1/ border-radius >> 2/ box-shadow >> 3/ text-shadow >> >> Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not remindi

[css-d] Drop Caps

One of the issues that I've been having is with drop caps, and in looking for a solution I found this page... http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DropCaps ...which recommends this code... p:first-letter { font: 2.5em/80% serif; float: left; padding: 0.2ex 0 0 0.2ex;

Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

On 18/1/09 23:32, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > I suggest not using the browser-specific variants for real - only the > standardized ones, and wait till browsers catches up with and stabilizes > on the relevant standards - and us. > > If we use browser-specific extensions outside our sandboxes, we may >

[css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

Ingo Chao wrote: > How about a discussion like: how do we use CSS 3 with an IE6-userbase > of greater than x% in years to come? I suggest we use this method... ...and this... ...and bog tho

Re: [css-d] css3

peter hyde-smith wrote: > > In Chrome 1.0.154.43 on Win Vista SP2, see screen shot here... > > http://www.fatpawdesign.com/laaksoscreenshot.png > > > www.fatpawdesign.com > > Oh, my... "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chel

Re: [css-d] css3

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:22:05 -0500, David Laakso wrote: > Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of > boring reasons): > > 1/ border-radius > 2/ box-shadow > 3/ text-shadow > > Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me... >

Re: [css-d] css3

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > David Laakso wrote: >> Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot >> of boring reasons): >> >> 1/ border-radius 2/ box-shadow > > 1/2 combination: > Safari - OK, > Chrome - FAULTY (looks terrible) > >> 3/ text-shadow > > 2: > Safari - YES, >

Re: [css-d] css3

David Laakso wrote: > Farewell. Time to break-out the coil of rope and take it to the woods... > ~d Hey ... that's *my* line! G -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss

Re: [css-d] css3

David Laakso wrote: > Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot > of boring reasons): > > 1/ border-radius 2/ box-shadow 1/2 combination: Safari - OK, Chrome - FAULTY (looks terrible) > 3/ text-shadow 2: Safari - YES, Chrome - NO. > Known issues: there ar

Re: [css-d] css3

David Laakso wrote: > Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of > boring reasons): > > 1/ border-radius > 2/ box-shadow > 3/ text-shadow > > Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me... > >

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

At 02:38 PM 1/18/2009 -0700, Cyber Cog wrote: >This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity >pulling toward trolling) Sorry, folks -- didn't mean to beat a dead fish, er, horse. :/ I do appreciate/have appreciated this thread, though, and it has been genuinely helpf

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity pulling toward trolling) Time to stop. - CC On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > >one of more important reasons is speed . > > > >CSS pages render abou

Re: [css-d] css3

Bill Brown wrote: > David Laakso wrote: >> >> > > Tested in XP/VirtualBox on Ubuntu Ibex: > Safari and Chrome both appear to recognize your border-radius, > box-shadow and text-shadow settings as they stand now. > > Hope it helps. Would have respon

Re: [css-d] css3

David Laakso wrote: > Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of > boring reasons): > > 1/ border-radius > 2/ box-shadow > 3/ text-shadow > Tested in XP/VirtualBox on Ubuntu Ibex: Safari and Chrome both appear to reco

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

On 19/01/2009, at 5:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> one of more important reasons is speed . >> >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts > > So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top > of my head,

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

Ron Koster wrote: > >> one of more important reasons is speed . >> >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts >> > > So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top > of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- > at least o

Re: [css-d] Gallery padding problems between IE & Mozilla

Karl Bedingfield wrote: > Hi all, > I have thus far successfully coded my css without any hacks apart from this > set where I have to use !important to adjust bottom padding on some > thumbnails. This is my codeL > > http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/ > > Am

Re: [css-d] Gallery padding problems between IE & Mozilla

Karl Bedingfield wrote: > This is my code: > http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/ > Am I doing something wrong? Line 15 is certainly a troublesome piece of code which should be avoided. Can you show us the code in use on a page? That will make it easier for us to see what's wrong. -Adam Ducker

[css-d] css3

Is PC Safari and Chrome rendering (unable to view this end for a lot of boring reasons): 1/ border-radius 2/ box-shadow 3/ text-shadow Known issues: there are many-- thanks for not reminding me... -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampers

[css-d] Gallery padding problems between IE & Mozilla

Hi all, I have thus far successfully coded my css without any hacks apart from this set where I have to use !important to adjust bottom padding on some thumbnails. This is my codeL http://paste-it.net/public/v1ad1e9/ Am I doing something wrong? Many thanks

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

The interests and motivations are different. If I am asked to do a pretty newsletter for Word's rendering engine behind Outlook, I would like to tell them to ask an HTML table guy. It took me a few years to learn CSS, but I won't spend time with learning tables. Some don't like CSS because of the

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

"My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you have to implement 'behind the scenes'" Let me just say that I have made perfectly functioning CSS sites without any hacks or fixes wh

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords (Ron Koster)

At 11:44 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, bj wrote: >I suspect you are just complacent and don't wish to make the effort to learn. >What are you waiting for? Thanks for your comments, BJ -- in response, please see my previous posts. In the meantime, back to this never-ending learning stuff for me (about CSS

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords (Ron Koster)

Hey Ron, You said: >I'm curious: why is this approach "frowned upon"? Please >don't get me >wrong, because I do fully understand that the *goal* of CSS is >for >the purpose of layout, etc., and tables were never really meant >for >that, but at the same time I can *easily* create a site using >ta

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >one of more important reasons is speed . > >CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net --

[css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ron Koster wrote: - > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:06:01 -0500 > From: Ron Koster > Subject: [css-d] The CSS Overlords > To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flow

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

At 04:58 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > > Hmm... I haven't got a clue what you're talking about -- never heard > > of "conditionally commented" style sheets before. > > Oh! Thank you! I was going to just go search it out myself

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

Ron Koster wrote: > [...] there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem > and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I > *wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS. Sure, but we handle/serve such non-CSS solutions on other lists/forums, since [CSS-D] is main

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 09:38 AM 1/18/2009 -0600, m...@winternet.com wrote: >I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most "perfect" >web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working >with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything >I've ever seen. Don't your cl

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 04:53 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >If we all fell back to layout tables and minimal use of CSS, there would >be very little incentive for growth. >Layout tables will stay at 1998 level for a long time - probably for as >long as HTML is in regular use. Thus, they're stable enough b

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

Ron Koster wrote: > Hmm... I haven't got a clue what you're talking about -- never heard > of "conditionally commented" style sheets before. -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ c

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

Ron Koster wrote: > > But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and > fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next > decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the > meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with > somet

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

At 04:00 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >If "total validity" matters and you want to keep the proprietary styles, >Conditionally Commented stylesheets for IE only stuff is an option. >This approach doesn't make the styles valid, but for most "hidden" is >good enough. Besides: the stuff w

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

Ron Koster wrote: > I've got the CSS for one of my sites validating with no errors, > except for the styling of the scrollbars (for IE only, of course), > i.e. "scrollbar-track-color", "scrollbar-face-color", etc. -- > this/these alone are causing the CSS file to not validate. In > searching t

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 08:55 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Adam Ducker wrote: >So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you >need a zillion "fixes" and "hacks" to make it work? I haven't had to do >that kind of development in years. Well, that's what I meant -- *I* don't need all sorts of fixes/hack

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

Ron Koster wrote: > And I can create a site with tables, and -- assuming that I'm happy > with my design -- I *don't* have to subsequently look at, analyze and > improve on the code, having to come up with all sorts of hacks and > fixes to make it work right (and always worrying, still, if I di

[css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

I know this topic has come up here before (because I've searched the list archives), but I couldn't find what any ultimate recommendation is over what to do. I've got the CSS for one of my sites validating with no errors, except for the styling of the scrollbars (for IE only, of course), i.e.

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

As a guy who grokked HTML in the days of table-based layouts, I loved, and still love, tables -- especially for tabular data or simple columns. As a guy who these days writes a ton of dynamic apps for delivery to multiple clients, I have love for CSS. And yes, CSS pwns font styling, no question. C

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 08:31 PM 1/18/2009 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: >Christian means: move that sidebar (right column in your code) to the >left of the page, without modifying your html code. That is very easy >to do with a (decently) stylesheet. Ah, okay. Well, sure, I see what you mean, and how that would

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Ron Koster wrote: > What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know > what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it > off with ease (if you can explain what you mean better). Christian means: move that sidebar (right colum

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 10:51 AM 1/18/2009 +, Christian Heilmann wrote: >Cool, then show the sidebar on the left. Doesn't require a hack with CSS :) What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it off with ease (if you can

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

> Seriously? Messy/disastrous coding practices aside (which can apply > to CSS layouts just as much as table layouts), but do you mean you > can make sense of your code, above, but you can't make sense of this > code, below? > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords

At 10:24 PM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote: >Part of it is a generational gap between younger web designers and >older. I never knew that table based designs were ever ok. The books >always talk about table based layouts as if the Civil War were still >raging, and the victory of the good North (C