[css-d] Firefox 2.x

Curious to know if the vertical menu is functional and usable in Firefox 2.x (no got this end). Thanks. ~d -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ ___

Re: [css-d] EMs vs. PERCENTs

Ignoring later posts and replying inline. On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:52:22 -0400 Came this utterance formulated by Theophan Dort to my mailbox: > > i generally supply a fixed width on > > the wrapper div, in a seperate style sheet which works for 800px > > screens > > How do you serve different CS

Re: [css-d] in IE6, 1st level LI in menu expands width on hover (to width of dropdown) -- can you help stop it?

Bill, thanks for your reply! I'll experiment with the overflow and see what happens. In the meantime, I also received this suggestion: Paul O'B (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/member.php?u=25195) over at SitePoint forums recommended I change the positioning like this: #navmenu li {position:rela

Re: [css-d] in IE6, 1st level LI in menu expands width on hover (to width of dropdown) -- can you help stop it?

Kir Talmage wrote: > I'm using a suckerfish-based nav menu at > http://www.alysonchasestudio.com (doctype is strict) > > In IE6 (but not FF2 or 3, not IE7, not not -- as far as I've tested -- > Safari or Chrome), when I hover over the top-level menu item, it will > expand to accommodate the (wider

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> If IE is the only one you are concerned about use a conditional > comment, no > javascript necessary since only IE parses them. I apologize to the list -- I had intended my previous post to go off- list and didn't realize it wound up going to the list instead. I fear this is off-topic, not

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

If IE is the only one you are concerned about use a conditional comment, no javascript necessary since only IE parses them. Cheryl D Wise April Session Classes http://starttoweb.com: Introduction to CSS Introduction to Expression Web -Original Message- From: Theophan Dort > i genera

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> i generally supply a fixed width on > the wrapper div, in a seperate style sheet which works for 800px > screens How do you serve different CSS to different people? I'm assuming some sort of JavaScript sniffer? I love your Julian of Norwich quote, BTW. Did you ever read her book _Showing

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:28:08 + (GMT) Came this utterance formulated by Bobby Jack to my mailbox: > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, Michael Stevens wrote: > > > So, is it uncommon, or bad practice, to use both in this > > situation? > > > > {height: 7.2em; width: 20%;} > > More and more, I find mys

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:03:15 -0700 Came this utterance formulated by Kenny Leu to my mailbox: > D'oh! > > I should've read that link above before posting... > > To redeem myself: > EM: > - always relative to font size > - fonts affect absolute widths of things set with EM! (e.g. could > cause ho

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

>> >> > > Why limit yourself to one or the other :-) ? Need of the moment > determines structure-- pixel, em, or percent. And I suppose, if push > came to shove, you could go for broke and employ the best advantages of > pixel, em, and percent widths all within the same layout structur

[css-d] in IE6, 1st level LI in menu expands width on hover (to width of dropdown) -- can you help stop it?

Dear all, I'm using a suckerfish-based nav menu at http://www.alysonchasestudio.com (doctype is strict) In IE6 (but not FF2 or 3, not IE7, not not -- as far as I've tested -- Safari or Chrome), when I hover over the top-level menu item, it will expand to accommodate the (wider) widths of the drop

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> Just for clarification, if anyone else is as confused by this > thread as I am. I am glad I was able to confuse. It means the coffee is being consumed at too great an intake level. Rob Emenecker @ Hairy Dog Digital www.hairydogdigital.com Please note: Re

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, Michael Stevens wrote: > So, is it uncommon, or bad practice, to use both in this > situation? > > {height: 7.2em; width: 20%;} More and more, I find myself using the two in various combinations. It gets particularly interesting if you throw pixels into the mix (which *ca

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> So, is it uncommon, or bad practice, to use both in this situation? > {height: 7.2em; width: 20%;} > To give you a menu with six lines (no matter what size type) but still only > occupying 20% of the parent container so it scales with window size. Personally, that's my default way of laying ou

Re: [css-d] text wrapping problem

Bilgehan Maras, wrote: > http://www.film.com.tr/listtest.html > On firefox and safari everything is fine but as usual there is a > problem with IE 6 and IE7. IE wraps the text strangely. Try adding... li a {white-space : nowrap;} Of course: your example doesn't look anything like your screensh

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

-Original Message- From: Climis, Tim [mailto:tcli...@indiana.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:04 AM To: 'Rob Emenecker'; 'David Laakso' Cc: 'css-d' Subject: Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs For box sizing, em is still the font-size. But percent is relative to the container. If you

Re: [css-d] box goes down the bottom of the page

ray wrote: > It seems it is not because the double margin bug of IE6. Because the the > floated boxes have no margin at all. > > Thanks > > http://www.soundbowl.com on IE6. Someone else may provide a better working solution for the center panel float drop than this in IE/6:

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> I didn't send that to the entire list, because the website > that got sent out right before I finished it said pretty much > the same thing, but if it was that helpful, I'll share it > with everyone. Lol. True. But I read your message and responded before checking out the web site link.

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

On 3/19/09 10:31 AM, "David Laakso" wrote: > > Why limit yourself to one or the other :-) ? Need of the moment > determines structure-- pixel, em, or percent. And I suppose, if push > came to shove, you could go for broke and employ the best advantages of > pixel, em, and percent widths all w

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> I think Tim's concise explanation helped with that understanding. I didn't send that to the entire list, because the website that got sent out right before I finished it said pretty much the same thing, but if it was that helpful, I'll share it with everyone. Rules of thumb: "em" is like a

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

D'oh! I should've read that link above before posting... To redeem myself: EM: - always relative to font size - fonts affect absolute widths of things set with EM! (e.g. could cause horizontal scroll) - however, relative widths are not affected. e.g. if a particular sentence fits all on one line,

[css-d] text wrapping problem

Hi, I have a problem with text wrapping in list elements. I uploaded a test page at http://www.film.com.tr/listtest.html . On firefox and safari everything is fine but as usual there is a problem with IE 6 and IE7. IE wraps the text strangely. A picture is thousand words, i put actual implementati

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

Hi all! I'm a long-time stalker of this thread, first-time poster. :) I'm very curious about this question as well...it was always my understanding that, analogously, em --> decimal & percent --> percent. Is there a subtlety that I'm missing? Kenny On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:31 AM, David La

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> Why limit yourself to one or the other :-) ? LOL. I'm not. I just want a solid understanding of how EM vs. PERCENT is them, so that if I am using one, the other, or a mixture, I don't lose my mind when results are not what I expect. I think Tim's concise explanation helped with that understand

Re: [css-d] box goes down the bottom of the page

It seems it is not because the double margin bug of IE6. Because the the floated boxes have no margin at all. Thanks On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Laakso wrote: > ray wrote: > >> Thank for your reply. But why this page look good on FF and IE7? >> >> >> >> >>> http://www.soundbowl.com on

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

Rob Emenecker wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking for a few good web locations that explain and clarify the > differences between EMs and PERCENTS, and recommendations for using one or > the other. I do not want the W3C specification, I know where that is. I am > looking for practical information i

Re: [css-d] Image Slices

Alright take a look the page breaks in IE6 and FireFox but not in IE7 in otherwords if you view the page in IE7, that is how it should look when you view in FireFox or IE6 you'll see it breaks. http://www.thecreativesheep.ca/site/imagepage4.html On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM "Holly Bergevin"

Re: [css-d] unremovable margin?

> Hello all, > > thanks much in advance for your help. > > could you please take a look at this trial html file: > > http://www.giuseppecraparottacv.co.uk/doubts/press.html > > As you can see the images are separated by a bottom / right margin. > > - Is it related to the fact that images are *inlin

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> Rob, do you mean: > > a) For font sizing > b) For layout > c) In general (i.e. including both the above) > > There are a few quite considerable differences if you're > talking anything more than basic syntax. More for (a), but also (b). I understand the basic principles behind them both, howe

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

> Hi all, > > I am looking for a few good web locations that explain and clarify the > differences between EMs and PERCENTS, and recommendations for using one or > the other. I do not want the W3C specification, I know where that is. I am > looking for practical information in the real world applic

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, Rob Emenecker wrote: > I am looking for a few good web locations that explain and > clarify the > differences between EMs and PERCENTS Rob, do you mean: a) For font sizing b) For layout c) In general (i.e. including both the above) There are a few quite considerable diffe

Re: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

Hi Rob, What about http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_units.asp ? HTH, Cor - Original Message - From: "Rob Emenecker" To: "'css-d'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:49 PM Subject: [css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs > Hi all, > > I am looking for a few good web locations that explain and cla

Re: [css-d] box goes down the bottom of the page

ray wrote: > Thank for your reply. But why this page look good on FF and IE7? > > > >>> http://www.soundbowl.com on IE6. Because compliant browsers, and to a lessor extent, IE/7 support more of the CSS 2.1 specifications[1]. IE/6 is hopelessly stuck in the dark ages. This list is filled dai

[css-d] [OT] EMs vs. PERCENTs

Hi all, I am looking for a few good web locations that explain and clarify the differences between EMs and PERCENTS, and recommendations for using one or the other. I do not want the W3C specification, I know where that is. I am looking for practical information in the real world application of o

Re: [css-d] unremovable margin?

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, David Hucklesby wrote: > > What you're seeing is the whitespace between those > > image elements in your markup. You could try removing it, > > ... and to eliminate the gaps underneath, try > >img { vertical-align: bottom; } > > Cordially, > David Except for IE, this

Re: [css-d] box goes down the bottom of the page

Thank for your reply. But why this page look good on FF and IE7? On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM, David Laakso wrote: > ray wrote: > >> Hi, All >> >> Please check http://www.soundbowl.com on IE6. You'll found that the main >> content goes down the bottom of the page. It's OK on IE7 and FF. I foun