|
|
Posted by Joe Butler on 09/23/07 17:50
I guess the html comments were left in the css file from when the styles
were used inline and it was apparently a way of not breaking browsers that
didn't understand css. I'll remove them if they are not correct. Just
checked: the Firefox developer's toolbar thing shows a nice green tick for
the CSS validation, but when you click the tick, the actual validation is
showing the results you warned about. I presume this is some sort of bug in
the toolbar.
OK. The Z errors are just a quick way of commenting out a style. I didn't
notice the errors when I validated. Not sure why. I'd use a dash or other
symbol, but IE ignores the dash and uses the style. The clear:top is just
cos I am an idiot.
So, the </p> is more of a programmer thing. Find it easier to not use them
as the paragraph end is implicit in the hand-coded html file. If it were a
cms, then I would agree. Since xhtml requires them, I should get used to
it, though.
I've tested on IE6, IE7, FF1, FF2 (all Windows versions) and not noticed
breaks collapsing, but point taken. Although, my feeling is that anyone
using the least common browsers has to expect certain issues - it is a
choice they have made and must accept that thing are not always going to
work for them.
The div thing you pointed out, is probably the cleaner way to do what I
want. Encapsulate the paragraphs in a single div.
mycontent p { [styles] }
<div class="mycontent">
<p> ... </p>
<p> ... </p>
<p> ... </p>
</div>
The page was 'designed' to accomodate the original wide banner graphic. It
should fit in a maximised 1024 wide screen, but agreed, it's a problem for
800 wide screens. I'll think about it, but am not sure at the moment how
keen the customer is on keeping the site banner - it was mentioned in
passing by them that they didn't want to lose it.
The tables is 'transitional'. I've been removing them and replacing with
divs. Although, the all-encompasing wrapping table was to stop the
right-hand column from repositioning underneath the left and middle columns
when the viewport was narrow. It was a quick fix. I'm sure I can achieve
the same with divs, but wanted to get the site live as soon as possible for
them.
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:9gxJi.588916$p47.231671@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Joe Butler wrote:
>
>> OK, thanks for that.
>>
>> This is the testing area so far...
>> http://www.hertfordshire-it-support.co.uk/test-lfl/
>>
>> Any comments welcome on what I've done so far.
>
> You have HTML comment marks in your CSS file. (<!-- and -->)
>
>> I always used to close off paragraphs, but noticed that the w3
>> validator is showing valid markup even when they are left open and
>> then saw something that implied only xhtml required <p> to close, so
>> I assumed it was ok.
>
> There are some CSS errors:
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hertfordshire-it-support.co.uk%2Ftest-lfl%2F>
>
>> I'm doing these pages by hand, and closing off paras is just another
>> detail that is nice not to deal with.
>
> ..or: using them indicates to the coder "this paragraph is over." Kind
> of like adding an "End Function" line in programming code.
>
>> I hadn't realised about the transitional/strict thing. I'll look into
>> it.
>
> Ok. Transitional is for 'transitioning' legacy pages.
>
>> The thing about the <br> tag is it seems cleaner in the overal code
>> structure - i.e. not needing to repeat <p class="mycontent"> at each
>> visual para linebreak. But I guess, if that's the right way to do
>> things, then I'll modify the html.
>
> If you were to use multiple <br>'s, some browsers collapse them to one.
>
> .mycontent p { [styles] }
>
> <div class="mycontent">
> <p> ... </p>
> <p> ... </p>
> <p> ... </p>
> </div>
>
> Your test page doesn't fit in my browser window, and presents a
> horizontal scrollbar. That's annoying. <g>
>
> What is the reason for the tables? Google up: CSS 3 column template
> and this: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|