Posted by dorayme on 11/07/06 02:16

In article <308b1$454fe012$40cba792$8564@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, thanks, I had a look at this. I take it the idea "unsnipped"
> > above is the crucial point of your code. Does not work in IE Mac
> > either... but that is easily provided for. I could not see
> > (across the different browsers) a lot of difference in separator
> > height "improvement" over my footer2 css. It was interesting also
> > to see how different browsers rendered yours in respect to where
> > the text was vis a vis the height of the separators. Sometimes in
> > the middle (most pleasant):
> >
> > text | text
> >
> > And sometimes both text and separators on the floor of a
> > horizontal line:
> >
> > 1
> > text 1 text
> >
> > (you will have to imagine the two 1s joined and as a line)
> >
>
> #footer LI + LI:before { content: " :: "; }
>
> looks pretty cool, or even
>
> #footer LI + LI:before { content: " - "; }

Yes, good idea... no need to be fixated on the "|" and
considering the problems it has generated perhaps "::" is a way
to go. But what am I going to talk about if I go this way? Do you
realise how painful it is for a martian not to be in a state of
fretful indecision? "::" is highly unlikely to generate the least
uncertainty... <g>

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]