> From: Thierry Koblentz
> Martin J. Lambert wrote:
> > Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute for
> > anchors. You can use the "id" attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
> > section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will w
> From: Paul Noone
>
> When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
>
> I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this.
I
> don't think hiding them is th eoption either.
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute
> From: Ben
>
> After some testing, I think it's best to stick to using for
> blocks of code. won't preserve whitespace, so your code's
> not going to have any indenting unless you use a lot of non-breaking
> spaces which will inflate the size of your file and not to mention
> a real be a pain i
designer wrote:
> I've taken your code and added a menu to the top of it, and it works
> after a fashion. It doesn't work in IE5.5 and I don't know what to do
> with it, esp as I don't fully understand what the IE expression is
> doing.
>
> http://www.treyarnon.fsworld.co.uk/kernow/propertydetail
designer wrote:
> So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed.
>
> OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not,
> it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all.
I've never had a lot of success with that overflow idea either.
The other way to go at i
> Sigurd Magnusson wrote:
>
>> Is there any situation where IE6 renders in standard compliance mode
>> with the preamble?
>>
Juergen Auer responded:
>
> If IE6 finds an Xml-Declaration, he switchs in BackCompat.
>
If my understanding is correct, then this should be phrased somewhat
differen
Bob McClelland wrote:
>> As far as I'm concerned, when you have a great long scrolling list
>> (for example) and you want (need) to keep the nav stuff stationary,
>> frames represent the ONLY way to do it.
Vaska.WSG responded:
>
>
>
It can also be done using Microsoft's proprietary expression
Alan Trick wrote:
> Centering the containiner is meaningless though if it doesn't have a
> fixed width (that's smaller than it's container), and if it does have
> a fixed width, than it ruins the whole point of the thing, to allow
> the boxes to flow depending on the size of the container.
>
> Dav
designer wrote:
>
> http://www.betasite.fsnet.co.uk/comment/scribblings.html
>
On this page, you write:
"Of course you can use javascript to open a new window
(onClick), but that isn't the point, is it?"
I think that's exactly the point, however. My understanding
is that the W3C did not remove
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't understand WHY a
> page requires a doctype declaration (in my case HTML 4.0
> transitional) just to make a font-size style cascade from body
> through to td.
I believe it's simply that quirks mode follows older brows
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>
> On a side note, if a table contains more than 3 columns, then the
> syntax td+td+td will give a background colour to more than one column.
> You'd need to add td+td+td+td to override the previous one.
Or alternatively, change it to td:first-child+td+td
--
Martin
Justin French wrote:
>
> Well, you didn't tell us that the watermark was generated content from
> a JS file, and I didn't look. Even though your source validates, you
> must understand that the (X)HTML that the javascript program writes
> internally doesn't appear in the source that W3C validates
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
>
> > This isn't a simple "brochure-ware" site of static pages.
>
> Why not?
I agree with most of what you wrote, but just wanted to address this one
point. I used to work for CDNOW before it went under, and can tell you why
it isn't a simple site of static pages
13 matches
Mail list logo
