FreePgs.com Forum

FreePgs Related => Support Requests => Topic started by: Evilsprouts on April 21, 2006, 01:55:38 PM



Title: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on April 21, 2006, 01:55:38 PM
Hiya,

Iím redesigning my site and Iím steering away from the tables so purely css for me. I have run into a problem with alignment, I have a logo at the top left of the page then navigation under that on the left going down and I want text next to the navigation in the centre but I cant seem to get it to go there and work in all browsers. Can anyone help me with this please?

___LOGO___

NAV
NAV
NAV                          TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
NAV
NAV

Thanks  :)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on April 22, 2006, 11:47:56 AM
This is the sort of code I use for this kind of design (see www.loc-alpes.com if you want to look at the result) :

XHTML part (body) :

Code:
<div id="header"></div>

<div id="menu">
     <h2>Menu Title</h2>
     <ul>
          <li><a href="link.html">Link</a></li>
          <li><a href="link.html">Link</a></li>
          <li><a href="link.html">Link</a></li>
          <li><a href="link.html">Link</a></li>
     </ul>
</div>

<div id="main">
     <h1>Page Title</h1>
     <p>Page Content</p>
</div>

And the CSS :

Code:
body {
  margin : auto;
  width : 100%;
  /* Add your fonts, font-size, colours, background image, whatever... */
}

#header {
  width : /*Width of your logo */;
  height : /*Height of your logo */;
  background-image : url(path/to/your/logo.jpg);
  background-repeat : no-repeat;
}

#menu {
  width : 200px;
  margin-top : 10px;
  margin-left : 10px;
  float : left;
}

#main {
  margin-left : 220px;
  ...
}

If you need more explanation, just ask, or look at my source codes if it helps...


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on April 23, 2006, 05:24:45 PM
Thats great thanks.  ;D


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on April 23, 2006, 06:03:32 PM
This always works in Opera, FF, IE, and Safari...
Here's how I would align the text:
Code:
.centertext {
† position: absolute;
† height: apx;
† width: bpx;
† top: 50%;
† margin-top: -xpx;
† left:50%;
† margin-left: -ypx;
† visibility: visible;
}
Make x half of a. (dont' remove the negative symbol)
Make y half of b. (dont' remove the negative symbol)
Then...
Code:
<div class="centertext">
TEXT HERE
</div>


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: webzone (archived) on April 23, 2006, 07:23:40 PM
This will cause problems with scrolling if the window is too small.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on April 23, 2006, 07:43:22 PM
CSS is a bad idea. It's okay for casual use but CSS degrades terribly and tables are a wonderful thing that have been a part of HTML for a long time.

I would not suggestr a redesign in this direction.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: brainiac744 on April 23, 2006, 08:15:29 PM
It actually depends sixthcrusifix. W3C recommends that people start using XHTML and CSS to separate content from design. Are tables easier to use? Yes. Are they the best thing? Probably not for the future.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on April 23, 2006, 08:20:13 PM
This will cause problems with scrolling if the window is too small.
I don't know why someone would have their window that small (or know anyone who browses with their window so small) but I'm sure you've been doing this longer than me so I'm probably not smart to debate.

On a lighter note, the website http://www.opera.com/ uses a whole lot of CSS and they have some genius webdesigners.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: GPô on April 23, 2006, 08:31:31 PM
Personally, I would stick with tabled, for right now.
As of right now all browsers can read them, as for css, no. well, yes and no. all browser read it difrently..
Untill CSS is more gloabal, I'm stickin with tables my self :D


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on April 23, 2006, 08:35:15 PM
Personally, I would stick with tabled, for right now.
As of right now all browsers can read them, as for css, no. well, yes and no. all browser read it difrently..
Untill CSS is more gloabal, I'm stickin with tables my self :D
I thought my CSS example would create a bunch of tables (if repeated and altered). I'm new to this. Can you explain what you mean? XHTML tables? The basic HTML tags like this?
Code:
<table>
† † †<tr>
† † † † † <td>
† † † † † † † BLAH BLAH 1
† † † † † </td>
† † †</tr>
† † †<tr>
† † † † † <td>
† † † † † † † BLAH BLAH 2
† † † † † </td>
† † †</tr>
</table>


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on April 24, 2006, 02:27:16 AM
This will cause problems with scrolling if the window is too small.
I don't know why someone would have their window that small (or know anyone who browses with their window so small) but I'm sure you've been doing this longer than me so I'm probably not smart to debate.

On a lighter note, the website http://www.opera.com/ uses a whole lot of CSS and they have some genius webdesigners.

well good for them. I'm just going by experience and what my Image Manipulation teacher, Ian Tepoot, told me. He's a pretty accomplished Graphic Designer who's been doing this for about 10 years, so I go by what he says usually. 


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on April 24, 2006, 02:44:24 PM
Ouch. I must say I stand strongly against using Table layouts, and in favour of the CSS, and this for these main reasons :

1) Weight : this isn't really a big issue unless you've got many (many many) visitors, yet a table-based design means more code, and thus a heavier file, and thus a slower website...

2) Semantic : tables are for showing data. If you want to "divide" your page into different parts, you should use <div>s, which is what it has been made for.

3) Accessibility : CSS (at least 1.0) are now supported by all navigators more or as recent as IE 5... While HTML attributes used on tables may not be supported in the future in the most recent versions of the navigator. Thus, if you don't want to redesign the whole thing in the future, it's best to use CSS from now on...
Besides, you must think about all those who haven't got a "normal" browser, meaning by that the blind people, those with a textual browser, and so on... For those ones, it will all appear far better if you use semantic tags (<div> for separation, <strong> for important content, <h1> for headers...) than if you use tables...

4) A Clearer Code : using XHTML and CSS, you can separate the content and the layout, which means that it's easier to read it and, if you work in a team, it's easier to separate the work : one fills up the content, one makes the design, then you regroup the files and there you are ! Also, you can have one single CSS file linked to hundreds of pages. Want to change your whole design, on all your pages ? Just change a few lines in the CSS and you're done... Which can't be done with simple table layout.

If you doubt how much can be done with the CSS (and accessible to all browsers), I'd advise you to go and visit http://www.csszengarden.com
This website it just amazing and shows how much a design can be transformed, using the same XHTML basis, into completely different layouts...

As a conclusion, I'd say that, in my opinion, the best thing to do is to follow the most recent recommandations of the World Wide Web Consortium, which are usually announcing what browser will support in the future...


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on April 24, 2006, 03:46:38 PM
This will cause problems with scrolling if the window is too small.
I don't know why someone would have their window that small (or know anyone who browses with their window so small) but I'm sure you've been doing this longer than me so I'm probably not smart to debate.

On a lighter note, the website http://www.opera.com/ uses a whole lot of CSS and they have some genius webdesigners.

well good for them. I'm just going by experience and what my Image Manipulation teacher, Ian Tepoot, told me. He's a pretty accomplished Graphic Designer who's been doing this for about 10 years, so I go by what he says usually.†
I play devil's advocate to expose the facts. The, "Well good for them" was unnecessary. I intended no offense and was not attacking you.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on April 24, 2006, 08:02:17 PM
This will cause problems with scrolling if the window is too small.
I don't know why someone would have their window that small (or know anyone who browses with their window so small) but I'm sure you've been doing this longer than me so I'm probably not smart to debate.

On a lighter note, the website http://www.opera.com/ uses a whole lot of CSS and they have some genius webdesigners.

well good for them. I'm just going by experience and what my Image Manipulation teacher, Ian Tepoot, told me. He's a pretty accomplished Graphic Designer who's been doing this for about 10 years, so I go by what he says usually. 
I play devil's advocate to expose the facts. The, "Well good for them" was unnecessary. I intended no offense and was not attacking you.

I'm not attacking anybody either. It is good for them, good for them, I don't see how that was mean or unnecessary, good for them, I can't say I care one way or the other.

Also to the other guy, you're really nitpicking on tables, and you're REALLY reaching out there on the whole "more code = larger file" thing, the difference is virtually impossible to notice even on modems.

If you're casually creating a website with a normal amount of tables it's much more convenient just to use tables because of the fact that they're not seperated. It's aslo easier to define the table's attributes right then and there as apposed to creating a bunch of ID's when you wanna change one little thing.

I think CSS is great and I use it whenever I see that it is needed however I use it to COMPLEMENT my website, not to buiild it with.

"2) Semantic : tables are for showing data. If you want to "divide" your page into different parts, you should use <div>s, which is what it has been made for."

Yeah that makes sense, I don't think people should go around using tables for every little thing. A common thing I see is people just putting everything in tables and using table rows to devide stuff, here's where I agree with you, because doing that is just silly.

But why does using tables mean you can't use semantic tags? I don't get the debate we're having.

Tables are for ORGANIZING data, and quite frankly a table is a lot easier to handle when you're trying to display results etc. And especially generating a table filled with dynamic content is very easy in PHP using loops where as I can't imagine how you would use CSS for that. Tables are a perfectly valid part of design that have their place just as CSS does and I think you're a fool if you choose to abandon either of them.

You can't just say "don't use tables, use CSS", They're not really even comperable objects, it's like saying "Don't take Tylenol, take Ibuprofin" when the truth is that the two drugs are very different and you should use the one that you need when you need it.




Title: Re: CSS
Post by: GPô on April 24, 2006, 09:31:54 PM
I agree, Its personal Preference. After doing some research I find that tables are only 5% of the loadtime.
They say that by not using tables and using css will make little or NO difference.

As for html and XHTML.
I find... XHTML is, one day, purhaps far or near away, going to take place of html.
Right now HTML is supported more widely than XHTML, XHTML uses more strict codes.
However, I don't see wakein' up tomorrow, or before 2007 and seeing Internet explorer or mozzila not supporting html
as, by doing that it would not support a LOT of websites.

Which is better for your site.. You decide, Look up the facts, Its PERSONAL SELECTION as of right now.

L8r,
Gordon


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on April 25, 2006, 06:05:25 AM
I would also like to point out that what the original person wanted is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to do in tables and very easy to make compatable with different screen resolutions using %s instead of absolute values.

Code:
<div align='left'>
<img src='LOGO.gif'>
</div>
<table align='left' width='30%'>
<tr><td>NAV</tr></td>
<tr><td>NAV</tr></td>
<tr><td>NAV</tr></td>
<tr><td>NAV</tr></td>
</table>
<table>
<tr><td>
<pre>
<h1>PAGE TITLE</h1>
<strong>Important Stuff</strong>

Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah
BLAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
</pre>
</tr></td>
</table>

That's pretty basic but it works. There are about 20 different ways to do that exact same thing I can think about though, it's still a lot shorter than all that CSS one of the posters gave and I think it does what the original poster wanted. It actually did not display properly when I tried <div> or just with nothing.

This all reminds me, I need to work on my site again, it's been so long I can hardly remember how to do this stuff.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on April 25, 2006, 06:12:02 AM
Well the actual reason I wanted to do it in CSS is because not only wanting to learn CSS but Iím making provisions for the future, I could have easily done it with tables but didnít want to. Thanks for all the help btw.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on April 25, 2006, 11:11:07 AM
Quote
Also to the other guy, you're really nitpicking on tables, and you're REALLY reaching out there on the whole "more code = larger file" thing, the difference is virtually impossible to notice even on modems

That's why I said "this isn't really a big issue unless you've got many (many many) visitors" (I like quoting myself ;) ). The weight isn't the reason why I don't use tables, as my websites don't usually get that much visitors...

Quote
If you're casually creating a website with a normal amount of tables it's much more convenient just to use tables because of the fact that they're not seperated. It's aslo easier to define the table's attributes right then and there as apposed to creating a bunch of ID's when you wanna change one little thing.

There I don't get your argument. If you've got but one page on your website, which I doubt, it'll indeed be easier to put everything through attributes. But if you've got many pages, it's far easier to use classes and id's... You just have to put them from the beginning, even if you don't use them immediately.
Then you'll be able to change all pages from your websites by just changing a few lines in the CSS file...

I did a major rework on my website's design a few months ago. I didn't even touch the XHTML or the PHP part ; I just changed the CSS, and it took me about an afternoon to finish it. When I was working with tables, these kind of rework took me at least three or four time that...

Quote
Tables are for ORGANIZING data, and quite frankly a table is a lot easier to handle when you're trying to display results etc. And especially generating a table filled with dynamic content is very easy in PHP using loops where as I can't imagine how you would use CSS for that. Tables are a perfectly valid part of design that have their place just as CSS does and I think you're a fool if you choose to abandon either of them.

My whole website is completely generated through PHP. All the texts and menus are displayed through loops. And it is as easy to do with <div>s as with tables.
With tables, you'd have done something like :

foreach($texts as $text) {
     echo '<tr>';
     echo '<td>' . $text . '</td>';
     echo '</tr>';
}

or something close. With <div>, you just have to make :

foreach($texts as $text){
     echo '<div class="text">' . $text . '</div>';
}

with the same result...

Also, when you take the XHTML/CSS logic, it's far easier to completely separate all your website's components : Structure, Content, Layout.
Structure is the XHTML.
Content is generated through PHP/MySQL and loaded into the XHTML Structure.
Layout is handled through the CSS whatever the changes made in the content.

Quote
But why does using tables mean you can't use semantic tags? I don't get the debate we're having.

You can use semantic tags into the tables, but the tables themselves aren't semantic when used for layout issues.
Tables are for storing data. For instance (I know, I shouldn't always take my website as an example, but it's the first to come in my mind ;) ) in my website, I use tables to display lists of prices and disponibilities for the location of an appartment.
Tables, thus, have a semantic meaning, which has nothing to do with layout.
If you want to make separations to make the layout easier, you have to use unsemantic (asemantic ?) tags. And "parts of pages" being blocks rather than inline separations, the tag to use is the <div>...

Quote
I find... XHTML is, one day, purhaps far or near away, going to take place of html.
Right now HTML is supported more widely than XHTML, XHTML uses more strict codes.

Uh... All browsers supporting HTML do support XHTML, which is in fact quite the same, except for the fact it allows less "imagination" from the coder's part. What older browers don't support is CSS, yet this is becoming less and less of a problem.
CSS 1.0 is supported in IE 5, FF, Opera and I think even Netscape. CSS 2.0 is mostly supported in IE 6 (except for a few useful things, yet there are ways around), and totally supported in Firefox. I think Opera does support it mostly ; about Netscape I don't know. (I must admit I haven't used Netscape for years, and when I did I knew nothing about HTML, CSS, the W3C and website designing, hence I didn't care whether it did or didn't support anything...)


Anyway, I know there are many coders sticking to tables and old HTML 4, and it'll still be used by most webmasters for years on... However, I don't see the point in voluntarily keeping old standards when it's so easily possible to do otherwise...


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: GPô on April 25, 2006, 12:29:13 PM
Now we got the blood pumping, and belive it or not, I like a good argument.
XHTML is here, however, I'm sticking with HTML, for now.

I do personally recommend you play around with XHTML, and CSS.
You need to learn, however, I'm not saying do a major overhall of your site, for something thats far away.

I also recommend learning javascript, php, and perl. As they are all extremely useful tools.
I personally know php, learning javascript and perl..


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on April 25, 2006, 01:29:34 PM
:)

I think I did enough W3C propaganda for the time being ;)

Anyway, I agree about learning Javascript, PHP and Perl (though I never use the latter ; knowledge is always good !).
Well, till recently I'd have been arguing about the use of Javascript, yet since I discovered the AJAX technology I'm looking over JS with another eye... It gives really incredible possibilities !


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on April 25, 2006, 02:03:05 PM
Quote
There I don't get your argument. If you've got but one page on your website, which I doubt, it'll indeed be easier to put everything through attributes. But if you've got many pages, it's far easier to use classes and id's... You just have to put them from the beginning, even if you don't use them immediately.
Then you'll be able to change all pages from your websites by just changing a few lines in the CSS file...

I did a major rework on my website's design a few months ago. I didn't even touch the XHTML or the PHP part ; I just changed the CSS, and it took me about an afternoon to finish it. When I was working with tables, these kind of rework took me at least three or four time that...

But I'm, saying if you have a poopload of them then you have a poopload of IDs you have to define somewhere faar away from there and that complicates things, besides if you have dreamweaver it's easy to change every single attribute to tables etc. all at once.

Also I dunno why you use the foreach loop but I don't really know what your site does. Either way you still use tables along with CSS.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on April 27, 2006, 10:50:55 AM
True, if you've got Dreamwaver you can change easily anything from a table layout.
But then, if you use Dreamwaver, you don't truly have to bother yourselve with such considerations. For my part, I prefer the good old Notepad++ ;)

As for the foreach loop, it was just an example of one of the multiple possibilities to inject texts loaded through PHP into an (X)HTML file... There are hundredth of possibilities, depending on how is your system designed.
In my website, I've got a sort of CMS system in the background wherein pages and texts can be added and/or modified, which means everything must be loaded from MySQL when the page is loaded. I load everything into tables, and I make my output with a foreach loop...


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: lotsofish on April 27, 2006, 03:47:15 PM
I try to use CSS/DIV's as much as possible... but I am guilty of using tables sometimes when DIV's could be used instead. If I am using tables, I always use classes with them though,  because 1) I can store the styles in a separate file and edit them easily and 2) you can just do so much more with css as far as styling and looking better.

Not sure about CSS? Check out this site: http://csszengarden.com/  The base html file is the same, but you can choose radically different styles by loading different stylesheets.



Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on April 28, 2006, 11:44:44 AM
Right now, I'm working on a non-HTML version of my website and bought a nice template. The entire layout is in tables with the exception of calling an external stylesheet with 2 lines of CSS code. This is for the fonts. I played with it for a while and concluded that fonts are not easy to get working in all 3 browsers just using tables, so as far as the universal table thing... I'm only in 95% agreeance.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 03, 2006, 05:20:16 PM
Please can someone tell me where I have gone wrong, I canít seem to get footer to be the font and size I want?

My css:

Code:
#footer{font: normal 10px Verdana, sans-serif;}

body{
background-color: #000000;
color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-face-color: #000000;
scrollbar-highlight-color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-3dlight-color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-shadow-color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-arrow-color: #FFFFFF;
scrollbar-track-color: #000000;
margin: 0px;
text-align: center;
}
img{border: 0;}
#pageHeade{
margin-top: 0px;
text-align: justify;}
#mainpage{
letter-spacing: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;}
a:link{
font-weight: bold;
color: #FFFFFF;}
a:visited{
font-weight: bold;
color: #FFFFFF;}
a:hover, a:active{color: #FFFFFF;}
#container{
position: relative;
margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
padding: 0 0px 0 0px;
width: 930px !important;
width: 930px;
background: #000000;
color: #FFFFFF;}
#mainpage{
position: absolute;
left: 220px;
top: 150px;
width:620px;
height:365px;
margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
padding: 0 0px 0 0px;
font: normal 12px Verdana, sans-serif;}
#pageHeader{
position: absolute;
left: 90px;
background: url("http://www.evilsprouts.co.uk/new/inc/logo.gif") no-repeat 0px 0px;
margin-left: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
padding: 0 0px 0 0px;
width: 400px;
height: 100px;
float: left;}
#menubar{
position: absolute;
left: 90px;
top: 150px;
width:125px;
height:365px;
margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
padding: 0 0px 0 0px;
letter-spacing: -1px;
font: bold 14px Verdana, sans-serif;}
.housebutton{
margin-bottom: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;}
.housebutton a{
border: solid 1px;
border-color: #FFFFFF;
display: block;
color: #FFFFFF;}
.housebutton a:link{
color: #FFFFFF;
text-decoration: none;}
.housebutton a:visited{
color: #FFFFFF;
text-decoration: none;}
.housebutton a:hover{
color: #000000;
background: #FFFFFF;}
#bottom{
position: absolute;
height: 50px;
width: 770px;
left: 90px;
top: 625px;}
#location{
height: 25px;
width: 570px;
margin-left: 0px;}
#contact{font: bold 19px Verdana, sans-serif;
float: center;}

Thanks :D


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 03, 2006, 10:19:00 PM
True, if you've got Dreamwaver you can change easily anything from a table layout.
But then, if you use Dreamwaver, you don't truly have to bother yourselve with such considerations. For my part, I prefer the good old Notepad++ ;)

As for the foreach loop, it was just an example of one of the multiple possibilities to inject texts loaded through PHP into an (X)HTML file... There are hundredth of possibilities, depending on how is your system designed.
In my website, I've got a sort of CMS system in the background wherein pages and texts can be added and/or modified, which means everything must be loaded from MySQL when the page is loaded. I load everything into tables, and I make my output with a foreach loop...

OH I see, well I just like while better because I dunno foreach just bugs me, not in a technical way I just hate writing foreach LMAO I'm crazy, anyway I don't understand why everyone critizises dreamwearver and praises notepad.

I do write out code rather than use the WYSIWYG editor (Because teh WYSIWYG editor SUCKS) But it's still a lot easier to hand code things in dreamweaver, it's easier to search for things and to fix mistakes and to make sure stuff is compatibale, plus you can upload via FTO right after your done and not switch programs. So to anybody who can afford dreamweaver and codes in notepad just because, I say to you, you're just being silly.

Anyway, I think that what I've been saying over and over (and eventually everyone will get it and be like "othe other would have worked but really as long as your website displays properly in the 3 major Browsers (Firefox, IE and Netscape[and maybe safari too]) then it doesn't matter what you used underneath.

(But as far as people having browser errors and the rare few people with OLD ass browsers CSS degenerates poorly).


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 04, 2006, 12:20:07 AM
Quote from: Evilsprouts
Please can someone tell me where I have gone wrong, I canít seem to get footer to be the font and size I want?
Use 10pt, not 10px (for the font).
I don't know how you are expecting the footer to be a certain size when you haven't specified any size.

Side note:  Sorry guys, I feel unloyal lately... I will start posting more soon. This is a free hosting service and the least I could do is participate in the forums.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 05, 2006, 04:52:32 AM
ok i changed it to 10pt but still the same?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 05, 2006, 12:15:40 PM
ok i changed it to 10pt but still the same?
Could you please post the HTML you are using to call the ID?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 05, 2006, 01:03:04 PM
Ok sorry I think the sun is getting to me the link is www.evilsprouts.co.uk/update :)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: geminigeek on May 05, 2006, 01:30:48 PM
ttry this in ur css
Code:
#bottom p.footer {
font-size: 10px;
}

and make sure it is at the bottom most of your css


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 05, 2006, 01:37:04 PM
ttry this in ur css
Code:
#bottom p.footer {
font-size: 10px;
}

and make sure it is at the bottom most of your css


Fantastic thanks allot  ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 05, 2006, 04:32:51 PM
ttry this in ur css
Code:
#bottom p.footer {
font-size: 10px;
}

and make sure it is at the bottom most of your css


Fantastic thanks allot  ;D ;D ;D
I'm sorry, what was the point of specifying a font family in the first place if that's all you wanted? You also asked about the size of the table.
The CSS that you used in the first place works - Test this out:
Code:
<style type="text/css">
.test {font: normal 10px Verdana, sans-serif;}
</style>
<div class="test">
testing font out
</div>
This means that your font was not the size you wanted it because of the way it was being called (which is why I asked you to post the HTML).
I'm not trying to nitpick but please, help me to help you. Post only the code relevant to your question (HTML and CSS) and don't throw an entire stylesheet at the viewer. You can't expect them to look at your entire source either. I really really don't want to come off being rude and I sincerely intend no offense. These are all things I have done on other forums in the past myself.

Again, I hope I didn't come off rude. Here's what someone said to me when I did that:
Quote
Before even looking what was wrong with the page, I wanted to reply, saying: "Open the file in your favorite text editor, press CTRL+A, press backspace and then press CTRL+S." But I won't say that.

As for the problem...
LOL

Btw, nice website.  ;D Quite funny.

PS... DO NOT specify the font-size in pt. I assumed you had all the ID calls set up properly (and didn't know what document type you had either) and was just playing guess-and-check.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 06, 2006, 04:06:04 AM
Ok thanks, the reason I posted the whole style sheet is because I didnít know if the font wasnít working properly because it mite have been conflicting with something else in the file.

But thanks you were all a great help!!!


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 06, 2006, 04:16:00 AM
Please could you help me with something else??? If you see the footer with the copyright and stuff at the bottom of this page www.evilsprouts.co.uk/update well itís positioned using this:

Code:
#bottom{
position: absolute;
height: 50px;
width: 770px;
left: 90px;
top: 625px;}


But if the content in the page goes past 625px it over laps the footer rather than the footer moving with the content how could I fix this please?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 06, 2006, 02:31:09 PM
Wouldn't you just move them both the same distance downward? You can't position just one table and both tables move. Correct me if I misunderstood your inquiry.

As far as layering goes, you can add one of these to an ID/class...
Code:
z-index: 1;
Code:
z-index: 2;
Code:
z-index: 3;
and it keeps going up. The higher the number, the closer the layer is to you (in other words, the layer with the highest number will be on top).


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 06, 2006, 04:54:19 PM
Basically when the content area of the page has lots of stuff in it it over laps the footer but what I want is for the footer to always be at the very bottom of all the content. Iím sorry Iím not all that good at explaining things.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 07, 2006, 03:25:26 AM
Well, if the table stretches taller, it's not going to push the footer down automatically. You can make the main content scrollable by adding:
Code:
overflow:auto;
and that will solve your problem (although many people would argue that having a scrollbar is evil)
I think that's your best bet if you don't want to keep repositioning the individual tables through CSS every time you make a change to the content.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 07, 2006, 08:12:38 AM
Ahh cool thanks.

Another problem lol sorry, Iím using the <hr> tag to separate things on the pages and Iím styling this with my css

Code:
hr{
width: 570px;
color: #FFFFFF;
background-color: #FFFFFF;}

www.evilsprouts.co.uk/update

I understand that IE uses the color attribute and FF uses background-color how ever the lines are set at their default colour in FF but they are white as they are supposed to be in IE, any ideas please?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: dest on May 07, 2006, 10:52:54 AM
FF might not allow coloring the hr, for some reason.

Try making a single pixel image, and stretching it.  Use that as an hr.
Or make a div, and color it.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 07, 2006, 06:33:33 PM
I could be wrong but I think the answer is:
HERE (http://www.sovavsiti.cz/css/hr.html)
Sorry, I generally don't send people a link to a tutorial but to be honest, I never heard of the HR element until you posted that. It made me wonder what the HR element was and I did a search. I just thought I'd share the result.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 08, 2006, 05:29:39 AM
I also came across this tutorial but it doesnít work :(


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 08, 2006, 04:31:53 PM
Well, if the table stretches taller, it's not going to push the footer down automatically. You can make the main content scrollable by adding:
Code:
overflow:auto;
and that will solve your problem (although many people would argue that having a scrollbar is evil)
I think that's your best bet if you don't want to keep repositioning the individual tables through CSS every time you make a change to the content.
I figured it out
Code:
height: resize;
with a bit of tweaking to the arrangement of the divs.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 09, 2006, 12:30:32 AM
ttry this in ur css
Code:
#bottom p.footer {
font-size: 10px;
}

and make sure it is at the bottom most of your css


Fantastic thanks allot  ;D ;D ;D

A LOT, 2 words, one L. Sorry but that's a pet peve of mine.

Why should you never use pt?  I never do but what is the reason not to?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: brainiac744 on May 09, 2006, 04:23:25 PM
Why should you never use pt?  I never do but what is the reason not to?

I can't think of a reason not to. PT just stands for points and it's a perfectly valid option to use, just like px, in, cm, mm, or a number of other acceptable units :)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on May 10, 2006, 06:56:10 AM
Quote
So to anybody who can afford dreamweaver and codes in notepad just because, I say to you, you're just being silly.

I could afford Dreamweaver, but I really don't think the advantages are worth the expense. I've been using Notepad++ since I began coding, and with a well-organized code you can change your layout quickly enough, I think.
A friend of mine does use Dreamweaver, and I saw him work on a website... And I wasn't really impressed. So I decided that paying for not being silly wasn't worth the price ;)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 10, 2006, 01:29:46 PM
Quote
So to anybody who can afford dreamweaver and codes in notepad just because, I say to you, you're just being silly.

I could afford Dreamweaver, but I really don't think the advantages are worth the expense. I've been using Notepad++ since I began coding, and with a well-organized code you can change your layout quickly enough, I think.
A friend of mine does use Dreamweaver, and I saw him work on a website... And I wasn't really impressed. So I decided that paying for not being silly wasn't worth the price ;)

Well It's not for everyone just because programs usually aren't. There are still people who maybe would just do better with something simple and short. However dreamweaver really does have a lot of wonderful features. Especialy when you're coding in PHP. The Color Coding alone is almost worth it loll, but if you don't wanna pay for dreamweaver I suggest Crimson Editor, a WONDFERFUL Solution to notepad. It's way better than notepad, it has a few of the coller features of DreamWeaver (Color coding, different language presets, error checking etc.) AND It's FREE!

The FIND/REPLACE Feature in DreamWeaver is unmatched though, it's SO convenient - and the find feature in notepad is SO incnvenient, just bugs teh hell outta me.


Anyway here's what I reccomend:


Hand Coding: Crimson Editor.
Hand Coding + Media Developement and advanced CSS: Dreamweaver.
Stupidity or Extreme Intelegence: Notepad.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on May 10, 2006, 02:31:16 PM
I have a feeling there's something of a confusion here...
I'm talking about the program Notepad++, not the simple notepad of microsoft. Notepad++ does have syntaxic coloration in multiple languages, find/replace facilities, and all the necessary stuff which makes hand-made coding easy...
I don't know about Crimson Editor though ; I'll have a look.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: lotsofish on May 10, 2006, 04:44:56 PM
Sorry, I just feel the need to† ::)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 10, 2006, 11:20:04 PM
I have a feeling there's something of a confusion here...
I'm talking about the program Notepad++, not the simple notepad of microsoft. Notepad++ does have syntaxic coloration in multiple languages, find/replace facilities, and all the necessary stuff which makes hand-made coding easy...
I don't know about Crimson Editor though ; I'll have a look.

ooh, I've neve rheard of Notepad++. I'll have to look that up too. I use crimson editor when I need to check a php file fast because dreamweaver is a big progam that takes a while to load and uses up about 200 MB of RAM while it's running.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: dest on May 11, 2006, 06:08:18 PM
I like Notepad 2 (http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html) better


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 12, 2006, 10:43:25 PM
If only people took the time to get a feel for the Visual Interface (VI) editor on every UNIX/Linux...
You can set up every line of code as a shortcut and design 90% of a page in 2 minutes (completely avoid typos too). There's too many features about it to just rant a big list. There's so much power that 5% would entirely spam this thread because the possibilities are so immensely, astoundingly, abundantly incredulous (lol).
There's nothing like it!
telnet://sdf.lonestar.org
Put this in your browser for a free UNIX shell account if you want one.
VI editor tutorials are easily found on any popular search engine.


ttry this in ur css
Code:
#bottom p.footer {
font-size: 10px;
}

and make sure it is at the bottom most of your css


Fantastic thanks allot  ;D ;D ;D

A LOT, 2 words, one L. Sorry but that's a pet peve of mine.

Why should you never use pt?  I never do but what is the reason not to?

Why should you never use pt?  I never do but what is the reason not to?

I can't think of a reason not to. PT just stands for points and it's a perfectly valid option to use, just like px, in, cm, mm, or a number of other acceptable units :)

W3c says, "Do not specify the font-size in pt, or other absolute length units. They render inconsistently across platforms and can't be resized by the User Agent (e.g browser)."
Good Usage of CSS's font properties (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 13, 2006, 07:27:11 AM
I like Notepad 2 (http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html) better

I LOVE what notepad 2 does to my parenthesis and brackets!! Thanks for the link!


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 13, 2006, 11:12:20 AM
UltraEdit (http://www.ultraedit) is not free but along the lines of Notepad++, Notepad 2, Crimson Editor... no competition. It's the one these others copied off of.

Forgive my extremely lazy screenshot (I'm nutorious for this) but look... you can expand and collapse functions and such. Imagine how quick you can rip through your JS, PHP, Perl...
(http://hypnoticvibe.com/images/ssultra.jpg)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: neosquared on May 13, 2006, 09:36:08 PM
...as long as your website displays properly in the 3 major Browsers (Firefox, IE and Netscape[and maybe safari too])...
*ahem*† I'm afraid I just can't let that slip past.
First, allow me to point you in the direction of some statistics (http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox42_microsoft_internet_explorer_has_slightly_increased.html).
Now, for my favorite part, the smug-apple-fanboy-bliss.† :D
As you may notice, internationally, Safari ha 2.02%, and Netscape has a (pitiful) 0.15%.† Ouch.
Also worthy of note is that the Netherlands is the only place where Netscape hasn't lost ground since january.† Double ouch.

As you may also notice, internationally, as well as in all the places they list, the top three browsers ar IE, Firefox, and Safari, in that order, with Netscape coming in at #5 every single time.

I dare say that that puts Netscape clearly out of the big 5, and Safari in.† :)

Just my two cents.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 15, 2006, 04:11:07 PM
I dare say that that puts Netscape clearly out of the big 5, and Safari in.  :)

Just my two cents.
Netscape is out. You got my 2 cents as well. (whoever keeps getting two cents is going to get some serious cash one day, can I be the receiver?) ;)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on May 18, 2006, 12:56:32 AM
...as long as your website displays properly in the 3 major Browsers (Firefox, IE and Netscape[and maybe safari too])...
*ahem*  I'm afraid I just can't let that slip past.
First, allow me to point you in the direction of some statistics (http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox42_microsoft_internet_explorer_has_slightly_increased.html).
Now, for my favorite part, the smug-apple-fanboy-bliss.  :D
As you may notice, internationally, Safari ha 2.02%, and Netscape has a (pitiful) 0.15%.  Ouch.
Also worthy of note is that the Netherlands is the only place where Netscape hasn't lost ground since january.  Double ouch.

As you may also notice, internationally, as well as in all the places they list, the top three browsers ar IE, Firefox, and Safari, in that order, with Netscape coming in at #5 every single time.

I dare say that that puts Netscape clearly out of the big 5, and Safari in.  :)

Just my two cents.

Well really the only reason I included eitehr was because I liked the number 3. The only 2 important browsers to even give a rip about are IE and Firefox.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 28, 2006, 08:00:11 AM
Another basic css question:

Basically I have 3 columns and how ever many rows and I want to border them and make it look like each word is in a cell

________________________
      |         |          |
Data| Data1| Data 2|
________________________
      |         |          |
Data| Data1| Data 2|
________________________
      |         |          |
Data| Data1| Data 2|
________________________
Etc

Bust Iím really struggling please help me???

Thanks


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: GPô on May 28, 2006, 09:05:18 PM
Whats your prob? That the links are still bold?
In each <A tag add class="footer"

that would be a easy fix, but unless i know your exact prob I cant help you.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 29, 2006, 12:56:43 PM
Whats your prob? That the links are still bold?
In each <A tag add class="footer"

that would be a easy fix, but unless i know your exact prob I cant help you.
Links?????? My question has nothing to do with links lol.

Basically I want to create a css table.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on May 31, 2006, 09:19:46 AM
Well, if you want to put data into a table, nothing goes against using the <table> tags...
Using <div>'s and CSS layout doesn't forbid to use tables when they are needed ;)

Else you could use the float attribute and get some good result, but it'd be much difficulty for something which could be solved much more easily...


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on May 31, 2006, 03:25:01 PM
@Evil sprouts...
Guide is right.
I think I know exactly what you are asking for. You just want a simple grid. Use the regular table elements:
Code:
<table border="1">

<tr>
  <td>blah1</td>
  <td>blah4</td>
  <td>blah7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>blah2</td>
  <td>blah5</td>
  <td>blah8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td>blah3</td>
  <td>blah6</td>
  <td>blah9</td>
</tr>

</table>
The results will be:
-------------------------------------
|   blah1   |   blah2   |   blah3   |
--------------------------------------
|   blah4   |   blah5   |   blah6   |
--------------------------------------
|   blah7   |   blah8   |   blah9   |
--------------------------------------

    And this is the absolute wrong way to think of your options:
  • HTML
  • CSS

You can make whatever in HTML and then use CSS to style it. That is the whole point of CSS. You can set your stylesheet up like this:
Code:
table {
  CSS DECLARATIONS
}

You could add to the first code example:
Code:
<table border="1" style="CSS DECLARATIONS">

You could put the table inside of a DIV if you really wanted to:
Code:
.CSS CLASS NAME {
  CSS DECLARATIONS
}
<div class="CSS CLASS">
  <table border...
</div>

There's more approaches but my point is that you can use HTML tables and still set up CSS (like you said you wanted). If my table is not enough and you want all of the table elements/parameters, click here (http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp).


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on May 31, 2006, 04:42:58 PM
Yeah thanks both of you ill use tables instead of pure css, I didnít want to have to use tables but it makes more sense to.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 01, 2006, 03:53:27 AM
I didnít want to have to use tables but it makes more sense to.
It really makes no sense not to use regular table tags for this. A programmer should keep his/her code as cleanly written and easily readable/understandable as possible.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 03, 2006, 10:47:31 PM
Yeah thanks both of you ill use tables instead of pure css, I didnít want to have to use tables but it makes more sense to.

earlier you said you wanted to make a CSS table.. well that's just silly. Why make a CSS table when you can use a normal Table? Always use teh appropraite tools my perspective teacher says. You can use a trangle for a straight edge but sometimes it just doesn't measure up.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Evilsprouts on June 04, 2006, 08:02:31 AM
Yeah thanks both of you ill use tables instead of pure css, I didnít want to have to use tables but it makes more sense to.

earlier you said you wanted to make a CSS table.. well that's just silly. Why make a CSS table when you can use a normal Table? Always use teh appropraite tools my perspective teacher says. You can use a trangle for a straight edge but sometimes it just doesn't measure up.

Actually it is not silly, it called keeping your code clean and flowing. It is my goal to make a site where table tags and other conventional  tags are replaced with css.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: brainiac744 on June 04, 2006, 12:53:17 PM
Tables are still valid tags if you're using them for tabular data... That is their purpose. Using them for layout is an improper use, but using them for ordinary tabular data is proper usage. I don't see the problem. I think everybody just has decided to hate the table tag, whether it is a valid hatred or not.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 04, 2006, 06:14:26 PM
Tables are still valid tags if you're using them for tabular data... That is their purpose. Using them for layout is an improper use, but using them for ordinary tabular data is proper usage. I don't see the problem. I think everybody just has decided to hate the table tag, whether it is a valid hatred or not.

The only nice thing about tables in layouts is that if you can make it loook like you want it isnt incredibly hard. With CSS you have to define a bunch of stuff, it seems a bit complicated.

A lot of porn sites still use table layouts because of the simplicity, they can pop out site after site really quick and they'll work in almost any browser than can view gifs.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 04, 2006, 10:40:29 PM
A lot of porn sites still use table layouts...
Oy!
Get your mind out of the gutter.
j/k


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 05, 2006, 01:46:13 AM
A lot of porn sites still use table layouts...
Oy!
Get your mind out of the gutter.
j/k

LMAO I'm not some type of porn addict. I actually go around looking at all types of porn sites to see which ones offer the best and least ad-filled services, gay straight midgets or mutants I've seen it and I've never been impressed.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Ben on June 05, 2006, 11:31:43 AM
Keep the conversation appropriate. Gotta remember topics like that are against the terms of FreePgs, and anything against the rules may be eaten alive by the trash can..


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: Guide on June 06, 2006, 12:05:08 PM
Quote
Actually it is not silly, it called keeping your code clean and flowing. It is my goal to make a site where table tags and other conventional  tags are replaced with css.

Beware : though a code with nothing but <div>'s, <span>'s and CSS classes will be W3C valid, it goes against its recommandations, which include using semantic tags.

Moreover, <span> or <div> aren't recognized as important tags by the search engines robots, which means your site won't be as well indexed as it would have been if semantically correct.
For instance, the following code :
Code:
<div class="title">My Title</div>
<div class="paragraph">Some text, with maybe something <span class="important">important</span> in it</div>
will be completely XHTML valid. However, it'd have been far better to have written :
Code:
<h1>My Title</h1>
<p>Some text, with maybe something <strong>important</strong> in it</p>
which is both valid and semantically accurate.

Thus, for data, never fear to use tables : they are valid, and they follow W3C recommandations... (And they are far easier to put in place)

The issue of <table> used as layout has been discussed earlier in this thread, without anyone being able to convince the others of their point of view ;)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 07, 2006, 02:24:36 AM
Interesting coincidence. I just learned what the word semantic (which your strongly emphasized) meant yesterday and the people said the exact same thing.
The issue of <table> used as layout has been discussed earlier in this thread, without anyone being able to convince the others of their point of view ;)
Alright, I'm going to challenge that now. How are you supposed to create resizable tables to fit monitor resolutions without any CSS? In fact, resize this window. Forums in particular use the auto value in CSS. How do you intend on achieving that through just HTML/XHTML? This page (http://hypnoticvibe.com/music.html) is a project gone wrong but look at the monochrome hovers and growing buttons on hover. Have you seen hover spans? They're ones where you put your mouse over it and an object appears detached from the link. How do you intend on achieving that through just HTML/XHTML? You can images change on hover. You can make image backgrounds change on hover. You can use images to get a flash-like effect by using animated GIFs on hover. You can specify which text on the page has certain hovers and others not to.
You can also use JS for some of this but why?


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 09, 2006, 02:02:08 PM
Interesting coincidence. I just learned what the word semantic (which your strongly emphasized) meant yesterday and the people said the exact same thing.
The issue of <table> used as layout has been discussed earlier in this thread, without anyone being able to convince the others of their point of view ;)
Alright, I'm going to challenge that now. How are you supposed to create resizable tables to fit monitor resolutions without any CSS? In fact, resize this window. Forums in particular use the auto value in CSS. How do you intend on achieving that through just HTML/XHTML? This page (http://hypnoticvibe.com/music.html) is a project gone wrong but look at the monochrome hovers and growing buttons on hover. Have you seen hover spans? They're ones where you put your mouse over it and an object appears detached from the link. How do you intend on achieving that through just HTML/XHTML? You can images change on hover. You can make image backgrounds change on hover. You can use images to get a flash-like effect by using animated GIFs on hover. You can specify which text on the page has certain hovers and others not to.
You can also use JS for some of this but why?

Well actually that's a bad argument. You can easily resize tables for any sized resolution by using a percentage value in the width or height attribute and the javascript for those things is partially integrated into HTML so it doesn't require a script tag. But you are right.

With CSS you gain this:

ē Faster load time *on a layout with tons of images and lots of blocks*
ē More compatable with unique and unusual browser types.
ē Designs are more scaleable and ultimately give you more possibilities for appearance.
ē Search Engines will better go through your site.
ē Define a particular image rollover once and then call on it with a simple span or div.
ē Cleaner and easier to tell the content from the coding.
ē W3c Says you should, and since their director CREATED the World Wide Web, I think he knows what he's talking about.
ē Using tables really isn't so much of a horrible crime if everything else in in order however I used to find my self adjusting TDs and widths for hours trying to get images to match etc. when it took only a few seconds to correctly define the attributes in CSS.
If you have an ntegrated table layout and, as is often stated, you want to change teh way your tables look, you have to change EVERY one of them.


"But screw you I still wanna use tables"

Okay fine. If you must use tables, DON'T Give them any atributes, give them a class and define their atributes with CSS. You can still do at lot of things to tables just by giving them a class and using CSS although it's really intended for data that would be in a table, like prices.  I still use tables in some occations, like in a price chart that I did. It would be stupid to use anything but tables for a chart that has a price list or a list of users and passwords etc. For that kind of data tables are more reliable where as you coudl screw up the whole table if you type something wrong making it with CSS, there are only three table related tags and it's hard to get wrong.

I saw the light, I converted and you should too!

(PS: You may notice that my main page still uses a table. This is because I'm lazy and the way I have it google catches it nicely so I dun wanna change it)


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 09, 2006, 11:53:16 PM
Quote from: sixthcrusifix
CSS, there are only three table related tags and it's hard to get wrong.
3 tables tags? Who taught you that?
<table>
<caption>
<thead>
<tbody>
<tfoot>
<td>
<tr>
<th>
<col>
<colgroup>
"W3c is great guide but it's not the Bible."
That is a what a friend currently hired as a webdesigner told me. I do agree with their (w3c) point of course but they have made mistakes in the past and history repeats itself.
And wait, do you mean to tell me that because someone invented the world wide web they are more intelligent than every other human being on Earth?
And most importantly, my "bad argument" (which contains valid points) was about 5% of my concerns.
I never said that's every reason that exists. I simply named a few.
Honestly, this debate is a bit ridiculous. Let's look at the most qualified/successful software companies, famous websites, browser creators, OS creators, and computer manufacturers:
  • microsoft.com
  • msn.com
  • apple.com
  • redhat.com
  • mozilla.com
  • opera.com
  • w3c.org
  • phpbb.com
  • mysql.com
  • dell.com
  • gateway.com
  • compaq.com
  • google.com
  • yahoo.com
  • aol.com
  • ask.com
  • altavista.com
  • ebay.com
  • wikipedia.org
  • pgp.com
  • adobe.com
  • autodesk.com
  • quark.com
  • mcafee.com
  • symantec.com
  • bittorrent.com
  • bitcomet.com
  • cnet.com
  • download.com
  • photobucket.com
  • blogger.com
  • orkut.com

There's a very good reason why they all use CSS and not just tables.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 10, 2006, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: sixthcrusifix
CSS, there are only three table related tags and it's hard to get wrong.
3 tables tags? Who taught you that?
<table>
<caption>
<thead>
<tbody>
<tfoot>
<td>
<tr>
<th>
<col>
<colgroup>
"W3c is great guide but it's not the Bible."
That is a what a friend currently hired as a webdesigner told me. I do agree with their (w3c) point of course but they have made mistakes in the past and history repeats itself.
And wait, do you mean to tell me that because someone invented the world wide web they are more intelligent than every other human being on Earth?
And most importantly, my "bad argument" (which contains valid points) was about 5% of my concerns.
I never said that's every reason that exists. I simply named a few.
Honestly, this debate is a bit ridiculous. Let's look at the most qualified/successful software companies, famous websites, browser creators, OS creators, and computer manufacturers:
  • microsoft.com
  • msn.com
  • apple.com
  • redhat.com
  • mozilla.com
  • opera.com
  • w3c.org
  • phpbb.com
  • mysql.com
  • dell.com
  • gateway.com
  • compaq.com
  • google.com
  • yahoo.com
  • aol.com
  • ask.com
  • altavista.com
  • ebay.com
  • wikipedia.org
  • pgp.com
  • adobe.com
  • autodesk.com
  • quark.com
  • mcafee.com
  • symantec.com
  • bittorrent.com
  • bitcomet.com
  • cnet.com
  • download.com
  • photobucket.com
  • blogger.com
  • orkut.com

There's a very good reason why they all use CSS and not just tables.

1. Oh I didn't know there were that many.

2. "W3c is great guide but it's not the Bible."

Actually, the director of the W3C is the person who CREATED the World Wide Web and HTML Markup so, in all technical-ness it IS actually the bible. However I find that I rarely agree with the bible anyway.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 11, 2006, 01:30:15 AM
Quote from: sixthcrusifix
Actually, the director of the W3C is the person who CREATED the World Wide Web and HTML Markup so, in all technical-ness it IS actually the bible. However I find that I rarely agree with the bible anyway.
On the frequency of technicality, HTML is based off of SGML. SGML was invented by Charles Goldfarb in 1974. The internet is simply a wide area network. Tim Berners-Lee (w3c's director) did not invent SGML or the first computer network.
So technically the analogy would not place Tim as God, thus w3c's guide would not be the Bible.
...but the point was symbolic, not literal. The point was that w3c' literature is not perfect and just because they claim something doesn't mean it has to be the wisest option.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: sixthcrusifix on June 11, 2006, 06:58:58 PM
Quote from: sixthcrusifix
Actually, the director of the W3C is the person who CREATED the World Wide Web and HTML Markup so, in all technical-ness it IS actually the bible. However I find that I rarely agree with the bible anyway.
On the frequency of technicality, HTML is based off of SGML. SGML was invented by Charles Goldfarb in 1974. The internet is simply a wide area network. Tim Berners-Lee (w3c's director) did not invent SGML or the first computer network.
So technically the analogy would not place Tim as God, thus w3c's guide would not be the Bible.
...but the point was symbolic, not literal. The point was that w3c' literature is not perfect and just because they claim something doesn't mean it has to be the wisest option.

OH well still, he did create the WWW which is like the world and HTML is like the massiah So he's still God but Charles Goldfarb is Jesus and W3c is the old testiment.

in your previous post you acted like I disagreed with you. I DON'T; however, I just did not think you gave convincing examples of why tables are bad.


Title: Re: CSS
Post by: hypnoticvibe on June 12, 2006, 10:39:27 PM
OH well still, he did create the WWW which is like the world and HTML is like the massiah So he's still God but Charles Goldfarb is Jesus and W3c is the old testiment.
Wait a minute, did you just incorporate Jesus into our w3c debate?  :P
I'm not going to pick that apart and post points because it will get way off-topic and wind up as apostles being XHTML tags, Moses being PHP, and Satan being frames. I'll just say I agree to disagree.
Oh, I didn't think you were against CSS either.