> Without knowing or understanding some basics, I get the
> feeling that I'm building on quicksand, and thinking fondly of tables.
I totally sympathize but you hit the nail on the head... to master any
piece of web technology (or just about anything really) you've got to
get a thorough understand
> I did my first CSS site, and I am ready to go back to
> tables Please look at my site and tell me what I did
> wrong. I feel like such a looser - all that work
> and it the CSS doesn't work. http://www.wminc.biz
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I think we can all sympathi
> it won't give u the registration code if your using a browser
> other than Opera. just in case you tried it like me and all
> you got were blank boxes.
Seems to work with Safari.
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css
> Despite 5 people saying it, this is actually technically
> incorrect, and the difference (although minor) is probably
> worth pointing out.
Indeed and glad you've clarified. But for someone just beginning to
learn CSS, would it help to distill it down to:
But be careful with using shorthand
> background: transparent url(filename).
This is a shorthand method for writing CSS rules. This rule has
multiple values, that are space-separated. The first value sets the
background color to transparent; the second value is the server path or
URL where the browser can find the image.
The same
> I agree with Alan -- it *does* look terrible. The points
> which the bullets are supposed to signify are *much* harder
> to locate with the eye. And the quotation marks sticking out
> into the margin area -- I have *never* seen that in the
> thousands of books, magazines, newspapers, etc. tha
> There is something about some CSS 2 / XHTML compliant
> websites that bothers me, compared to table layed out websites..
>
>
> What it is, is "looks"
Yes, I've heard this before but have you seen all the different layouts
at csszengarden.com? There's definitely a few unique ones in there and
