On 29/07/2011 6:36 PM, Mark Henderson wrote:
Philippe wrote:
In a decent browser, it won't select anything and nothing though...
That hack relies on the fact that the simple little mind of IE 6&7
‘thinks’ there is an element that wraps around the root element
(html). Of course there is none.
That is what I meant. "if you know it is correct" as in 'I know it's there and
why'. I guess I could have been clearer.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2011, at 4:17 AM, "Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)"
wrote:
>
>
>
> Tom Livingston wrote:
>
> > Though I'm rusty on *HTML hacks- havent u
Philippe wrote:
> In a decent browser, it won't select anything and nothing though...
> That hack relies on the fact that the simple little mind of IE 6& 7
> ‘thinks’ there is an element that wraps around the root element
> (html). Of course there is none.
And Alan responded:
> This is not correc
Tom Livingston wrote:
> Though I'm rusty on *HTML hacks- havent used one in years -
> the validator is a tool, not law. If you know that is correct
> and need it for a fix, then it's fine.
With respect, the validator is more likely to know if something
is "correct" than a mere human; I would
On 29/07/2011 12:27 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:45 AM, David Laakso wrote:
There should be a space between the star and html:
* html .whatever {...}
Indeed.
This will not make it valid.
Nope. * html {} is perfectly valid (CSS1, 2, 3, 4, and beyond).
In a decen
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:45 AM, David Laakso wrote:
> There should be a space between the star and html:
>
> * html .whatever {...}
Indeed.
> This will not make it valid.
Nope. * html {} is perfectly valid (CSS1, 2, 3, 4, and beyond).
In a decent browser, it won't select anything and nothing th
Mr. Modo is correct, none of these suggestions will validate but I was just
suggesting an alternate method to achieving the same end. Some people do sleep
better having the offending code outside their main sheet so it does pass the
validator.
Merely my opinion and another possible course to ta
On 29 July 2011 12:21, John wrote:
> Just ran the latest version of my page through CSS validator, and it came up
> with 1 error:
>
> Parse Error *html .livebar{height:100%; /*For IE6 since overflow:auto does
> not trigger hasLayout*/}
I'm pretty sure it should have a space there, as in * html, n
On 7/28/11 8:21 PM, John wrote:
Just ran the latest version of my page through CSS validator, and it
came up with 1 error:
Parse Error *html .livebar{height:100%; /*For IE6 since overflow:auto
does not trigger hasLayout*/}
Do I need to be concerned about this? This is a bit of code which
ma
Though I'm rusty on *HTML hacks- havent used one in years - the validator is a
tool, not law. If you know that is correct and need it for a fix, then it's
fine.
However, I'd recommend another method for teaching IE 6 a lesson, and wrap it
in conditional comments. Either embedded in the head, o
Just ran the latest version of my page through CSS validator, and it
came up with 1 error:
Parse Error *html .livebar{height:100%; /*For IE6 since overflow:auto
does not trigger hasLayout*/}
Do I need to be concerned about this? This is a bit of code which
makes IE6 behave itself, correct
Turns out another set of eyes is sometimes the only thing that will
work... Seems someone put in a comment above the said CSS code and used
HTML instead of CSS comment tags... for some reason I never clicked on
that. Anyway, once the
Judy Benedict wrote:
Does anyone have a clue about why I am getting a parse error on this
page? http://www.addison-homes.com/error.php
It appears to work fine is if I put this on top:
"; ?>
instead of:
This is a php question, not a CSS question. Thus i've marked it as OT.
further php and other
Does anyone have a clue about why I am getting a parse error on this
page? http://www.addison-homes.com/error.php
It appears to work fine is if I put this on top:
"; ?>
instead of:
Here is what the page is supposed to look like:
http://www.addison-homes.com/aboutus.php
However, people are tell
14 matches
Mail list logo
