Hey J.C,
Please check this out, that may answer your question
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/style/blog/entry/css-equal-columns-height-script/P20/
Regards,
Hakan KIRKAN
IT Manager
@http://miamirealestateinc.com
Tel+1.:954.6637171
Miami, FL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM, J.C. Berry wrote:
> Hel
Thanks, Al, unfortunately this test site is internal only right now. I'll
look at your pages.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Al Sparber wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 1:59 PM, J.C. Berry wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> I would like to extend one column of our site all the way to the bottom of
>> the varying
2012-10-22 20:58, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
What is somewhat odd is that when I use the validator
to confirm that it is indeed valid, and then use the CSS link-
through to validate the CSS, it (a) validates against the CSS 3
specification (why ?),
They decided the default to CSS3 a while ago. Some
On 10/22/2012 1:59 PM, J.C. Berry wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to extend one column of our site all the way to the bottom of
the varying middle column (first column always same length). I had a JS
that someone recommended, but it seems to be crashing IE (using P7EHC
script). Is there a CSS-only
Hello all,
I would like to extend one column of our site all the way to the bottom of
the varying middle column (first column always same length). I had a JS
that someone recommended, but it seems to be crashing IE (using P7EHC
script). Is there a CSS-only way to do this or better script?
--
J.C.
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I don't think the constraints prevent that; class="Set: 1; parts: 2" is
valid HTML 4.01,
Well I'm d@mned : so it does. Thank you for drawing that to my
attention. What is somewhat odd is that when I use the validator
to confirm that it is indeed valid, and then use
2012-10-22 20:31, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>> You are effectively using the 'style' attribute as a carrier for
>> application-specific data, not for making presentational suggestions.
[...]
>> But no better option appeared to present
>> itself; "title" was an option, but there was a distinct risk tha
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
In any browser that conforms to the CSS 2.1 specification, yes. But
browsers are increasingly deviating from CSS 2.1 here, allowing at least
a url(...) value. I think it is an unnecessary risk to rely on a CSS 2.1
principle that was really meant to say just that in CSS
2012-10-22 19:50, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
I use it because (a) it is permitted (i.e., it is in accordance with
the specification and therefore validates, yet has no effect on the
rendered output in any conforming browser),
In any browser that conforms to the CSS 2.1 specification, yes. But
Thank you for your further comments, Philippe : as we are
moving on to philosophy rather than CSS per se, I will
not continue the debate here. However, to address your
closing query :
PS - If one makes an error in a stylesheet (did you wrote E {
content: 'foo'; } instead of E::after {} ?) then
Le 22 oct. 2012 à 18:10, Philip TAYLOR a écrit :
> Thank you for your comments, Philippe, for which I am very grateful.
> I am, however, puzzled by your view that it can be considered a feature
> (albeit an experimental feature) rather than a bug.
>
> If an implementation chooses to ignore the
On 10/22/12 4:10 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
We, and the stakeholders for whom we work, have expectations founded on
solving real-world problems. Some of those problems are more imagined
than others, depending upon the actor who presents them.
The standing and immediate requirements faced by b
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
I am not sure I would consider this a 'bug', rather an experimental
feature. The (now marked as obsolete) css-content module allowed the
content property ( with value: ) to be applied to any
element (as opposed to only generated content pseudo elements):
http://dev
Ahhh, thank you very much. This is the first i've heard the term 'replaced
elements', but after reading the specs on what they are, it makes complete
sense why this is the case.
1. So I didn't necessarily do something 'wrong', other than develop in Chrome
first.
2. I did miss something in the
Le 22 oct. 2012 à 15:50, Frank Taylor a écrit :
> I'm working on an application where the client wants input[type="textbox"] to
> look more like a sliding on/off switch than a typical checkbox. I was able to
> produce the desired effect for -webkit browsers: http://cssdesk.com/jJd87
>
> But
15 matches
Mail list logo
