johny why wrote:
http://www.javascriptkit.com/dhtmltutors/csshacks3.shtml
when would you ever use characters AFTER !important?
As the "unrecommended hacks" page says: if one wants to make a
property/value work in IE7 and below only.
The proper syntax followed by the improper syntax will then
Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:
David
In order to get benefit and help from the entire membership of the list
*please* reply to the list. Not me.
Sorry. I pressed Control + R for reply and only your email address appeared in the
"To:" field.
No problem.
I validated and fi
I recently used jquery's JScrollPane plug-in[1]. It worked fine across
most browsers. Only Opera had some weird behavior.
I used it 'coz the other team at work was using the IE specific styles
and were not happy with it. I suggested them JscrollPane and
implemented it. Looks fine but in my opinion
> 2009/1/21 Stephen Tang :
> Thank you for reminding me about IE6's :hover limitation. I had
> forgotten about that.
Hi Stephen,
You can add a fix for IE using javascript[1][2].
> Thank you for looking at my code. Your second solution is what I was
> trying to do.
You're welcome.
[1] - http:
David
> In order to get benefit and help from the entire membership of the list
> *please* reply to the list. Not me.
Sorry. I pressed Control + R for reply and only your email address appeared in
the "To:" field.
I validated and fix the few errors. IE7 will give 18 point Verdana and no
matte
~~~
"problem with the !important identifier that wasn't fixed in IE 7 is the
treatment of non-alphanumeric characters after the identifier"
http://www.javascriptkit.com/dhtmltutors/csshacks3.shtml
when would you ever use characters AFTER !important? the proper syntax is:
h1 { height: 35px
Ib Jensen wrote:
Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html
The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6 and older.
Well, then I hope that I somehow can get FF to look like IE in this
situation. Because IE is showing the Footer as I want it to look.
Replace your footer-styles with the following
> Ib Jensen wrote:
>
> Well, then I hope that I somehow can get FF to look like IE
> in this
> situation. Because IE is showing the Footer as I want it to
> look.
A classic problem: due to IE's bugs, it displays the page incorrectly, but as
required. It's only natural to blame the non-IE browsers
At 04:18 PM 1/21/2009 -0600, Del Wegener wrote:
I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so
insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising
company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG
image of the desired page and I was instructed
At 01:32 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote:
I know this whole thing is did to death already...
Actually, I agree, believe it or not -- I don't know what else could
be said, really, about the whole tables vs. CSS layouts thing. I only
popped back in under that subject heading, though, beca
2009/1/21 Gunlaug Sørtun :
> Ib Jensen wrote:
>>
>> Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html
>>
>> The page in FF http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg
>>
>> The page in IE http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg
>>
>> Whats going on here ???
>
> The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ron Koster wrote:
At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote:
> At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for
CSS
Ib Jensen wrote:
Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html
The page in FF http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg
The page in IE http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg
Whats going on here ???
The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6 and older. IE6 doesn't respect declared
dimensions
I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of
this, and it makes me think.
I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who
made a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he
did, and I have some clients that have webs
Ron Koster wrote:
Another page that may give you an example is -
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_04.html
Nicely laid out page, Georg (assuming you're reading this)! As an old
"table layout" guy (for the time being, at least), when I look at
the source code for pages like yours, t
David Laakso wrote:
Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:
I have been doing some inital work since my post and found IE7 is
also ignoring font size and the window size is different. Firefox is
set to my minimum of 800 by 600 and IE 7 is displaying 1024 by 768. I
can only get simular font size b
I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of
this, and it makes me think.
I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who made
a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he did, and I
have some clients that have website
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Kevin Doyle wrote:
It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how
quickly your computer can download the page; however, it's mostly
how quickly you can download a page because the processing load of a
single web page, no matter how complex, is ve
I must have a slow "brain connection", because something about the above just
hit me: how fast a page renders has nothing to do with the speed of your
internet connection, but rather the speed of your computer. You would
*download* the files faster or slower depending on your connection, but the
At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote:
> At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts
Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the
luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections such
At 11:18 PM 1/19/2009 +0100, bruce.som...@web.de wrote:
condiional comments are claptrap of the top order.
Can you explain what you mean by that? As suggested here, I tried it
out (specifically to implement just those IE scrollbar "features")
and it seems to work just fine.
Ron :?
__
Firstly, thanks for your reply, Holly -- and also thanks to Jen, too,
for the tip (in a separate message) on the book to look for
At 11:59 AM 1/19/2009 -0600, Holly Bergevin wrote:
As with most things CSS, you'll need to test the effect you want in
the environment it's going to be placed. Oh, a
Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html
The page in FF
http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg
The page in IE
http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg
Whats going on here ???
--
Regards / Mhv.
Ib K. jensen - http://ikjensen.dk
_
Dear Mustafa,
Thank you for looking at my code. Your second solution is what I was
trying to do. I was trying to make sure that the right image
(btn_right_side_long_on.gif) would "widen" or "narrow" itself as the
length of the text string changed. Obviously, if a text string was so
long that it
Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:
I have been doing some inital work since my post and found IE7 is also ignoring
font size and the window size is different. Firefox is set to my minimum of 800
by 600 and IE 7 is displaying 1024 by 768. I can only get simular font size
between Firefox and IE
A few weeks I was talking to a web design faculty member at a
well-known art school, and was surprised to hear that she didn't know
much about css and when her design broke, she had to ask a web
developer to fix it. To me design/development go hand in hand. How
can one design without knowledge of
Micha? Zielin'ski wrote:
http://zielinski.civ.pl/img/logo.jpg
it`s a bit smaller than it will be on page. All I`d like to get is
change the color of one circle on the left (the most inner one) from
red to black.
If change is going to be as minimal and simple as that on the final
image, I'd us
On 21/01/2009, at 5:42 PM, Michał Zieliński wrote:
Lets say that one banner is 5KB * 4 = 20KB
With sprites it will take more or less 40KB.
It`s a huge difference to achieve such effect, don`t you think?
If you use absolute positioning and a small transparent gif with a
transparent background
28 matches
Mail list logo
