| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> man, looking at this makes the situation with IE look so ridiculous http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_css.php
<0> I mean developers are out there screaming for these things
<0> And the CSS support in IE7, which was their chance to fix all the problems they created, is only *marginally* better
<1> yea microsoft needs to go **** some balls
<1> honestly
<0> meanwhile firefox and opera support TONS of stuff
<0> It just proves that it isn't that damn hard to do
<1> they STILL don't have those selectors!?
<1> I thought they would at least listen to that
<0> IE8 needs a ground-up redesign of the rendering engine
<0> yeah, I mean how easy is it to implement a selector?
<0> I mean once you have the basic support for selectors, it's so damn easy
<2> no it doesn't, ie7 was never intended to be any good
<0> doesn't what?
<2> look at office 2003 vs. office xp vs. office 2000 vs. office 97
<2> what is the key difference between all those versions
<0> agreed
<0> then look at ie5, 6, and 7
<0> same bull****
<0> that's a good point
<3> is there a way, when stretching an image
<3> to make sure it continues until the content is finished?
<2> microsoft would rather reuse old garbage code, spiff up the interface, give it a new name, and release it as the latest "standard" that everyone has to adhere to than ever think about making a good product
<3> (***uming the image is used as the background, but stretched, so it's not an actual "background" declaration)
<4> the thing is that people are lazy, so until we get a not-IE browser that comes with windows IE still will be the standard :/
<2> ie7 is silly though, like when I use browsercam and which is the only image that doesn't look right?
<1> I can't DEAL with IE
<5> too bad you have to
<6> bah, just alienate 85% of the people
<3> is there a way when stretching an image to make sure it continues until the content is finished? (***uming the image is used as the background, but since it's stretched, it's not an actual "background" declaration)
<2> unfortunately, part of being a good "web programmer" is having a firm understanding of the various ways in which ie does not render css properly.
<4> or a OS hat would challenge windows in the normal-day-chore, easy to install or pc-comes-with-it...... although i despise MacOSX, one chould be able to choose between that and windows when you buy a computer.. but since it doesn't run :/
<7> bzaks: not quite clear -- is it a background image via css or not?
<3> it couldn't be
<3> I needed to stretch the image, so it has to be an <img> tag
<1> people don't HAVE to adhere to it, they just think they have to
<7> bzaks: ok, so what do you mean with "until the content is finished"?
<1> it's like people who don't realize that there are standards beyond what "program" you are using
<1> people who don't get what file extensions are for
<3> well, for example: if you set the height of the <img> to 100% it goes 100% of the immediately viewable area, however when you have text overflow, it only goes to that original 100% and no further
<3> I take it no?
<7> bzaks: how do make the image a background image, then?
<3> absolute positioning and z-index: 0
<7> ok. i think there's no way because 100% height relates to the original height of the containing element
<3> okay. Damn, we'll figure something else out :)
<3> thanks! :)
<7> no prob
<2> micahf: well, it's worse than that, I mean you get bosses who ask "is that a microsoft product?" I've had bosses who have more faith in microsoft keyboards and mice... if microsoft made whole computers, they would've bought them
<1> haha
<1> hahaha
<2> micahf: luckily things are changing a little bit these days
<1> I bought a microsoft joystick at savers for a dollar yesterday
<1> luckily it's the best quality
<1> cause microsoft certainly observes quality
<1> I'm using it with flightgear, but I should be using microsoft flight simulator, cause that is the best quality
<2> flightgear is a hackers paradise and you get what you pay for
<1> haha
<1> yea I'm probably going to get a virus
<1> from it
<8> is there a way to inline image data directly into css (or html), enlargin the file, but maintaining everything in one file?
<9> rlj: you want to put the actual image file into the markup, instead of link to it?
<7> rlj: i don't quite get it
<9> rlj: aside from SVG, I can't think of a way
<7> html and css don't handle binary data
<8> maybe i dreamt about it, but i think i saw somewhere markup referencing the actual image data directly in the img tag i think. obviously base64 encoded or in some other way to let the binary data travel over http
<8> something like <img encoding_bla="base64" data_bla=".........">
<8> but maybe it was just a dream :)
<8> in this case it would be really nice to contain everything in one file
<8> i can already inline the css, so inlining the very few pictures would make it perfect...
<4> hm.... i'm trying to get a td to be the thinet posible without wrapping the text, white-space: nowrap; is working only for ff right now... IE shows it wrong :/
<4> how do i achieve this ?
<7> hmm..never heard of that. the only known (to me) way is pointing the src to a url, either the actual file or some script that retrieves it (also from db etc)
<9> rlj: it's really not how the web is supposed to work
<9> ;support white-space
<10> FunkyBob: white-space { IE 6: 50% | IE 7: 50% | Firefox 2: 71.429% | Opera 9: 85.714% } http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_css.php#support-css2propsbasic-whitespace
<9> tranZ: tricky
<4> wtf
<4> gonna read
<9> tranZ: sadly, once again a web designer's dream is crushed by IE
<8> the only reason why i thought it would be nice is because i'm sending an about-me page to a bitter site where it will be linked along with other people (but you can design your own html page) so i thought i would make mine look nice and with a picture without putting strain on the webmaster to make sure links within the page to my own pictures works...
<8> not necessary or anything, but i thought it'd be neat since the page is so small anyway
<4> FunkyBob it says nowrap is supported :/
<9> tranZ: partially
<11> Can anyone recommend a version control system for images? (like subversion)
<4> aaaargggh >:
<9> tranZ: URL?
<9> oh, you're write... it shows Y for nowrap...
<7> rlj: ok, get it but as FunkyBob says, that's not the idea behind html. if you make sure the url of the image is correct and doesn't change, stick with an img tag and your goal is achieved :)
<4> FunkyBob got it ?
<8> but i'll just link them normally instead, i'm sure webmaster won't mind. it was merely a funny detail if it could be done in a supported way
<8> zendak, yeah i know, and i totally agree what i'm trying to do is generally wrong and dumb, but in this one case, it would be neat for management purposes :)
<8> anyway, thanks for the feedback
<12> what's the smallest increment you can reduce letter-spacing by when your font-size is exactly 8pt, literally, in the css ?
<12> can I use letter-spacing: -0.05em; in such a situation ?
<9> tranZ: got what?
<4> the url :/
<7> WebDragon: : sure. remember, in practice now pt and px are the same
<9> no
<4> now ?
<9> oh, right
<4> uy noticed it
<9> is it a big issue for it to be public?
<4> nope, but the less people to know about it, the less chance it will have something erased
<4> i wasted about one hour putting that data in the db
<9> this is why we create test cases
<4> this is why i'm amn idiot sometimes :D
<9> also, there's an error in your css... on #categorias tr.subcategoria_h
<9> to do with background
<4> it's not the actual site, is my private server but anyways the data in it is the real one and took me a lot of time to type it in
<4> what is it ?
<9> morning, b0at
<9> tranZ: the colour... I think you've left off the #
<4> ah the #
<4> missed it
<4> thanks
<9> can I ask your reasons for choosing XHTML over HTML?
<9> b0at: does a blank line before the DOCTYPE make IE go quirky?
<4> i preffer to do everything under xhtml
<9> tranZ: why?
<4> cause that way i don't have to use html
<4> :p
<5> uh oh
<9> erm
<5> Look out tranz, it's the anti-xhtml brigade
<9> JDigital: I figure if you're going to use it (and risk the problems), you should have a good reason
<4> :p
<9> tranZ: given that XHTML is a migration of HTML from SGML to XML... what's the big deal with using HTML?
<5> In the future, we'll all use XHTML!
<9> JDigital: I hope so
<13> tranZ: How are you not using HTML just by prefixing an H?
<13> Er, X.
<4> cause html is like a kid, and xhtml is like an old dude, and old people are easier to control than kids
<13> I see.
<13> Basically, you have no actual reasons to be using XHTML.
<4> nope :D
<9> tranZ: so, really... what you're saying is........... you're talking total crap?
<14> wtf why would ie6 take the last character from <div><ul><li>wtf</li></ul></div> and place it after the div? "f"
<5> haha
<4> yeah
<5> XHTML is fine with a valid 1.0 doctype
<4> i thought you had noticed it sooner
<4> so... anybody has an answer for me ? not a question ? :>
<13> JDigital: Are you sending it as application/xhtml+xml?
<9> tranZ: believe it or not, I've had people give similarly crazy answers, and be totally serious
<5> Aankhen``: I don't. But it's 1.0, so you don't have to.
<13> Right.
<5> I tend to use HTML 4.01 Strict, but my blog is Wordpress and it's more work than it's worth to migrate that from XHTML 1.0
<13> Sum total: all the extra effort of XML, without any of the benefits.
<4> the fact is, i in desperate need for an asnwer for the nowrap issue, my armpits stink and i gotta go to swimm
<9> I really DO hope we're all using XHTML in the future
<9> and hopefuly not too long
Return to
#css
or
Go to some related
logs:
module-assistant too many arguments
speaking duestch
#javascript
php5-mysql MySQL5 debian
#physics
#perl
ufsrestore fc5
ubuntu intstall samba
installing ubuntu on partition past 19 gig
rdt chunk not recognized
|
|