| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> drat, dropped a "
<1> webdragon: Well, many browsers don't know about XHTML yet
<0> well you get the idea
<0> CuriosCat: indeed, which brings up another point about "why use it yet?" :)
<1> but now that's a simple web server change, not a code change
<1> I repeat my counter-question, "why not?"
<0> because the most popular browser cannot yet (still) understand it properly
<2> Because it adds the necessity of dealing with XML and only XML, while offering no benefits.
<0> send it as it's correct content-type: application/xhtml+xml and watch MSIE die so hard it doesn't display ANYTHING
<0> the only reason to use xhtml in the current web environment is if you NEED it for MathML or something similar that cannot be done any other way
<0> and even then your IE clients need to add stuff to the browser as plugins, to parse it properly
<0> 4.01 strict nets you compatibility with more browsers, greater consistency, and ease of development with none of the xhtml headaches
<0> and as long as you validate, strictness is happy
<0> xhtml also causes the validator to FAIL to validate your css if your xhtml is not valid
<0> so you have to fix one before you see the errors in the other
<0> as occaisonally one faulty bit of mental logic is what got you there in the first place (thinkos as opposed to typos) :)
<3> speaking of which... :)
<2> <0> send it as it's correct content-type: application/xhtml+xml and watch MSIE die so hard it doesn't display ANYTHING # actually, it does display something: a "Save as" dialog box. <G>
<3> Aankhen``: hahahahah
<3> Aankhen``: which version? 6 or 7 ?
<2> 6.
<2> Dunno what 7 does.
<4> @http://modified-design.com/new/
<3> functional equivalent, as 7 doesn't have an xml parser either
<5> (modified-desi...) HTML: Valid ( http://tinyurl.com/39dz7u ) CSS: E: 2 ( http://tinyurl.com/yte9gb ) DOCTYPE: HTML 4.01 Strict + url (MIME: text/html, text/html; charset=iso-8859-1)
<2> Well, IIRC, IE 6 uses MSXML, it just doesn't understand application/xhtml+xml.
<4> man, those 2 errors don't seem to exist
<3> now sure you can try browser sniffing and doing xslt transforms on the server-side to send your xhtml AS html 4.01 strict, but why not just design in html to begin with
<2> Because it's not in vogue any longer, of course.
<2> XHTML is so shiny.
<3> zeekstarr: 0 px ? 0 ems ? 0 in ? what's the unit size
<3> border: 87; means nothing until you give it a unit size
<4> thats just it, theres no width on the line it says
<4> div#one {
<4> position : absolute;
<4> thats line 77 and 78
<3> if you use width: 0; then you don't need units because 0 px and 0 em and 0 in are all the same size
<3> possibly it's not seeing the same line numbers you are
<4> damn, no I get to track it down
<4> now*
<3> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmodified-design.com%2Fnew%2F&warning=2&profile=css21&usermedium=all
<3> note that 35 warnings show up when you use this
<4> damn, thanx, didn't know that
<2> zeekstarr: Doesn't your editor have a Find feature?
<2> Dorward: Fun. =)
<4> Aankhe'': yea but that doens't help when I don't know what I'm finding
<6> AnarkiNet: Too much pain while trying to change me design.
<2> I'm pretty sure X-Chat had Tab completion last time I checked.
<2> And Dorward, it's a double "a". :-P
<3> zeekstarr: you don't need to say p#identifier when you have <p id="identifier"> -- #identifier is sufficient in the css to lock it in as id's are unique
<4> WebDragon: k, thanx
<3> zeekstarr: you do know why the warning show up about background color and color, right ?
<4> no
<3> browsers have a user.css that may override yours and if you are not careful you wind up with white text on white background and similar problems, so always specify color and background color together
<4> ok, cool
<3> and use inherit instead of transparent wherever possible. transparent shows up as "no color" to the validator
<4> is div#identifier pointless as well?
<3> yep same issue there
<4> k
<3> #id is always unique, so saying div#id where you have <div id="id"> is redundant
<3> you'll get a little speed boost out of your css processing by avoiding those things
<3> it's more work for the css parsing when you do it like you had it
<4> awesome
<4> thanks, I thought I was totally valid
<3> strange, there IS no '80' in your css file
<4> exactly
<7> anyone else seen an ajax php poll script
<4> if I set the color in body, should I do color : inherit;?
<3> zeekstarr: I can't see what the validator's puking on
<4> me neither man
<3> http://tinyurl.com/38egsb [jigsaw.w3.org]
<3> whatever you did, it's fixed now
<3> now go deal with the warnings
<4> doing that now
<4> hey do you recommend ordering the htmldog book?
<3> zeekstarr: yeah you can do color: inherit or background: inherit
<4> been trying to get an opinion from someone who's read it
<3> mostly I use htmlhelp.com for quick reference, and then ask the bot for details like so
<4> don't feel like spending 40 bucks for nothing
<3> ;css text-transformation
<3> ;html address
<8> WebDragon: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-ADDRESS
<3> ]css font-family
<5> css font-family: http://w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font-family
<3> there we go
<3> ]html address
<5> html address: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-ADDRESS
<3> ok :)
<3> zofbot knows what time it is
<3> heh
<3> zeekstarr: with the wealth of online materials plus #css and #web for ***istance I can't justify purchase of a book on css or html when the target moves so often
<4> good point
<3> now perl/php/mysql/python/ruby .. yeah those I could see buying books for
<3> new revision goes in my library and old one goes to the public library
<4> in #header it's wanting me to do something about the background color, but I don't wnat a background color, what should I put to make the validator happy
<3> reason is, I figure if I got enough use out of it to justify getting a revision, then a useful book like that shouldn't go to waste
<3> lemme look at your css
<3> using p for header instead of <h[1-6]> is IMHO silly :)
<3> use h's for headers and style them to suit your needs
<3> second point.. on the colors...
<3> hold a min
<4> well, the #header is for the text at the top of the page
<9> oh man 0.o, got 6 spam comments >_*
<9> "****ing jenna jameson"
<9> maaan.
<3> Zoffix: scroll back to see my comment about the bot picking the wrong aspect of the css validator
<3> zeekstarr: tough call there, since your bg is on the body
<3> zeekstarr: use background: transparent and ignore the warning BUT
<3> you have the background set without a color too
<9> WebDragon, what about it?
<3> background : url('images/binary.png');
<4> I added color
<3> use background : white url('images/binary.png') repeat;
<4> background : url('images/binary.png') #fff;
<4> k thanx
<3> put the image after the color for those browsers that would see that as one supersedes the other
<4> oh ok
<3> don't know of any offhand but it would be logical
<3> Zoffix: it was validating the css with "normal" and the 35 warnings weren't showing up
<9> so?
<3> validate with "all" so that the warnings show too, and have your bot report E: 2 W: 35
<3> well so, otherwise users think their css is fine, while there's still 35 warnings which can affect usability
<3> particularly when it comes to color/bgcolor issues!
<3> see my point?
<9> WebDragon, So far I haven't seen that being useful, only confuses n00bs, ""ooh, can someone help me get rid of the warnings"?
<9> WebDragon, no I don't
<3> color/bgcolor is what they see the most and is the easiest to explain
<3> without both, people who set their browsers user.css can override, and you may wind up with white on white or black on black, and then they cannot see the text. always set both
<9> And most of the time that warning can be ignored.
<3> at which point the user becomes enlightened and goes off to do so
<3> not always, which is the important thing
<10> hi
<10> may i have some idea ?
<9> WebDragon, I am talking about the bot, not the validator.
<10> i am looking for graphical idea for a website
<3> when fixing layout problems sure, ignore it, but when it comes to usability issues, you can get ****ed if you ignore it and your text disappears
<10> http://rapsys.eu/meid/1/title/Accueil
<10> (it's valid css&xhtml)
<10> any suggestion are welcome
<3> IMNERHO it reduces the usefulness of the bot
<10> reduce font size, etc...
<10> !valid http://rapsys.eu/
<3> glossing over usability issues can get you "proper ****ed" when it comes to UK accessibility guidelines
Return to
#css
or
Go to some related
logs:
gnome-panel-screenshot fc5
#kernel
#qemu
fglrx problem buildpkg basename
suse xmms-mp4
#perl
today.getYear() error firefox
nice = 1 in my.cnf
unxutils portability
celerex dirigible
|
|