Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

David Laakso wrote: > Rafael wrote: >> Well, let's try to bring it back in topic. >> >> What I've done is to add some elements with "no-spam" >> legends, hiding them later on with CSS (and using JS to make it an >> actual link). This may not be the best approach, but it's, like >> eve

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Rafael wrote: > > Well, let's try to bring it back in topic. > > What I've done is to add some elements with "no-spam" legends, > hiding them later on with CSS (and using JS to make it an actual link). > This may not be the best approach, but it's, like everything else, just > anothe

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

David Laakso wrote: > Luc wrote: > >> David , just a quick remark: >> >> wouldn't it be better to use another alternative for the e-mail? Just >> to "try" to limit a bit of spam attack... >> > > off-list reply *** > > > I am not sure what a spam attack has to do with the nature and pur

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Good evening David, It was foretold that on 09/03/2008 @ 12:55:21 GMT-0400 (which was 13:55:21 where I live) David Laakso would write: > You did not waste my time. > And I appreciate your comment. > I just do not have time to respond properly to why I do not think > setting text in an image,

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Luc wrote: > > Avoiding spam isn't possible indeed. But as i said "to "try" limit a > bit of spam attack. Maybe using an image with the e-maildress instead > of a clicking link > > Anyway, i'm sorry if i waisted your time David. > > > You did not waste my time. And I appreciate your com

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Tim Offenstein wrote: > Recommend using as opposed to in the interest of > semantic markup. There are plans to deprecate the i and b tags > because they're not semantic, they're presentational. FWIW: and are not deprecated in existing markup languages, and there are no such plans on the tab

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Thanks to all who have taken time to review the layout. The owner of the site and I will consider all of the comments and suggestions presented-- even those having nothing to do with the mission or purpose of this list: the "practical discussion of CSS and its use." ~dL > I'd appreciate any

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

At 10:36 PM -0500 3/8/08, David Laakso wrote: >Thierry Koblentz wrote: >>> >>> >> >> One thing I noticed (and I was surprised by this since you have a link to >> Lynx in the footer) is that the site is difficult to navigate via the >> keyboard. >>

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Luc wrote: > Hello David, > It was foretold that on 08/03/2008 @ 18:58:15 GMT-0500 (which was > 20:58:15 where I live) David Laakso would write: > > > > >> I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions on this 6 page comprehensive >> layout for an industrial site. The marketing target is the

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> >> > > I think the 6th row of the table is missing a last cell. > Also, I think you could do a better use of the summary attribute, maybe by > using something like: This table charts our Distributors and Dealers along >

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

Hello David, It was foretold that on 08/03/2008 @ 18:58:15 GMT-0500 (which was 20:58:15 where I live) David Laakso would write: > I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions on this 6 page comprehensive > layout for an industrial site. The marketing target is the IE browsers. David , just

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Laakso > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 3:58 PM > To: css discuss > Subject: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL > > I'd appreciate any comments a

Re: [css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions on this 6 page comprehensive > layout for an industrial site. The marketing target is the IE browsers. > Mac/IE5.2 gets it right. > > /Known Issue:/ 147.69 second download on a 5

[css-d] :: layout check :: ~dL

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions on this 6 page comprehensive layout for an industrial site. The marketing target is the IE browsers. Mac/IE5.2 gets it right. /Known Issue:/ 147.69 second download on a 56K modem (the images will be optimized in the production version).

[css-d] Layout check, please... (I think I finally have it all working as intended)

Hi, Thanks to everyone who's been helping me with my menu layout. I was making it harder than it needed to be, so I think I finally have the layout I originally intended working across IE 5.01-7 on XPsp2, IE 7 on Vista, Opera 9, Firefox, Netscape 7.1 and KHTML 3.5.5. Can someone make sure that t

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

I just wanted to say thanks for the help and patient explanations. CSS is a very complicated subject and hopefully someday I will be able to help others as you have helped me. =] Rolland __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

Hi Gunlaug, thanks for the explanation. After reading the ALA article on negative margins I think I understand the reason for the LayoutGala #wrapper around #content and why I don't need it. My source order has the #sidenav before the content and it isn't floatedso the css ends up b

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

rollandburn wrote: > http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/LayoutGala24.html > > div#wrapper{float:right;width:100%;margin-left:-200px} > div#content{margin-left:200px} Try to think of it like this: 1: div#wrapper will show up as a 100% wide float-container, but will /only take up space/ equivalent to

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

Hi again and thanks Gunlaug. I don't feel so inept when the solution is something I wouldn't have thought of in a million years...hehe. Both of your suggestions worked perfectly to fix the footer width and gecko 1px line problems. And you are correct, my test page did not validate but it

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >> http://rollandburn.com/index.html Correction (of course) :-) > [...] If you don't need navigation, then you simply change that > margin to zero. Example: body#with-nav #content {margin-left:12em;} body#no-nav #content {margin-left:0;} ...is more like it, I think.

Re: [css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

> http://rollandburn.com/index.html Your test page isn't XHTML 1.0, so you should clean it up first, or change it to HTML 4.01 and mark it up accordingly. Don't know how your original page is, but the same standard-requirements

[css-d] Layout check please- was "Table squirting out of DIV"

sorry if this is posted twice.. Hi again, This began as "[css-d] Table squirting out of DIV" but Zoe helped me fix that so I thought I'd start a new thread for some of my other questions. Below is a url for referencethe original page I'm working on is secured and is

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Rick Flower wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Does this pixel vs other units of measure issue extend beyond use in font specifiers? The above article specifically talks to font issues but doesn't address whether or not it's a general issue beyond

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Thats a feature ;) I just stripped the jpegs way below their acceptable quality during the testing since I have to reload pages often on a slow link. I will surely incorporate your suggestion in the "public" version. Regards and thanks Gurunandan > Gurunandan, > > I think you have a great over

Re: [css-d] Layout check

> Gurunandan, The area with the latest post has a good line height. It looks like the rest of the content could use a bigger line height, because it's a little hard to read. -- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com... montoya.rdpde

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Gurunandan, I think you have a great overall design but something that jumps out right away is the really blurry text in the top right of the banner jpg: "a few walks away". it's still readable but somewhat unprofessional in my opinion. Were you trying to make the image of a small size? I would r

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Gurunandan R. Bhat wrote: http://www.codesutra.net/walk/ Nice, but hard to read... especially in IE/win. The issue is described here: The layout is breaking in IE/win for those visitors who know how to overcome the font-si

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Thanks. Am shifting to font size methods mentioned in your reference. Will resubmit once done. Warm regards and thanks once again Gurunandan Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Gurunandan R. Bhat wrote: http://www.codesutra.net/walk/ Nice, but hard to read... especially in IE/win. The issue is descr

Re: [css-d] Layout check

Gurunandan R. Bhat wrote: http://www.codesutra.net/walk/ Nice, but hard to read... especially in IE/win. The issue is described here: The layout is breaking in IE/win for those visitors who know how to overcome the font-sizing issue. A few adjus

[css-d] Layout check

Hi All, I made my first CSS site recently http://www.codesutra.net/walk/ and would like a critical review that would help me to do things better. Thanks and regards, Gurunandan __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-