CSS Link styling and Layout Problem

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Tim Gill, Jul 31, 2004.

  1. Tim Gill

    Tim Gill Guest

    Hello all,
    Please take a look at this:
    http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp

    Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
    now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
    and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
    browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
    specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
    is styled.

    Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
    perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
    to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
    outer container be fluid.

    Thanks everyone for the help.

    --
    -Tim Gill
    The The Tim Gill Orchestra & Trio
    http://www.timgillmusic.com/trio

    PS: Yes, I know that the layout is fixed-width.
     
    Tim Gill, Jul 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim Gill

    rf Guest

    Tim Gill wrote
    > Hello all,
    > Please take a look at this:
    > http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp
    >
    > Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked

    right
    > now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
    > and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
    > browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
    > specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular

    link
    > is styled.


    Are you talking about the navigation bar, with it navlinks? Well you don't
    have a visited rule for that. In your style sheet you have

    #navlinks a:link, a:visited

    This means any a:link inside something with ID navelinks plus any a:visited.
    Note, a:visited, not within anything.

    What you mean is

    #navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited

    This happens all through the style sheet. The last rule that includes
    a:visited is the one that applies.

    Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
    its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.


    > Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it

    looks
    > perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
    > to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that

    this
    > outer container be fluid.


    You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the browser
    in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).

    A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
    whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
    more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your mistakes.
    You assume that because it renders that it is correct.

    Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim Gill

    Tim Gill Guest

    "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
    news:8kGOc.24524$...
    (snip)
    > What you mean is
    >
    > #navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited


    Thanks for the help on that!

    (snip)
    > Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
    > its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.


    I realized that comparing what my usual stylesheet looks like compared to
    others' work. I have yet to learn the art of writing a fluid and concise
    stylesheet, as everything I learned was bit-by-bit style from online
    tutorials and individual experimentation. A pointer to any helpful online
    articles or print references would be quite appreciated.

    (snip)
    > You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the

    browser
    > in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).


    Ah, I see [newbie googles "quirks mode"].

    (snip)
    > A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
    > whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
    > more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your

    mistakes.
    > You assume that because it renders that it is correct.


    I will have to figure out how to make what I have done work on those
    platforms. The biggest thing that i have to conquer is the small visual
    layout issues (netscape blows up the main nav menu, etc.).

    (snip)
    > Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.


    Will do.

    > --
    > Cheers
    > Richard.



    -TG
     
    Tim Gill, Jul 31, 2004
    #3
  4. Tim Gill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 31/7/04 5:07 am, Tim Gill wrote:

    > Hello all,
    > Please take a look at this:
    > http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp
    >
    > Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
    > now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
    > and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
    > browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
    > specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
    > is styled.


    You should really ask about this in a css group.

    But try changing "#navlinks a:link, a:visited" to "#navlinks a:link,
    #navlinks a:visited", etc.

    > Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
    > perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
    > to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
    > outer container be fluid.


    Then why is is specified with a fixed width of 605px?
    >> #container {
    >> width: 605px;
    >> ...
    >> }


    Phil

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Jul 31, 2004
    #4
  5. Tim Gill

    rf Guest

    Philip Ronan wrote:

    > You should really ask about this in a css group.


    Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2004
    #5
  6. Tim Gill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 31/7/04 10:41 am, rf wrote:

    > Philip Ronan wrote:
    >
    >> You should really ask about this in a css group.

    >
    > Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.


    I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Jul 31, 2004
    #6
  7. Tim Gill

    Spartanicus Guest

    Philip Ronan <> wrote:

    >>> You should really ask about this in a css group.

    >>
    >> Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

    >
    >I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s


    You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,
    and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
    probably higher than in ciwas also.

    His lordship of kink Brucie only hangs out here for one (when he's not
    being forcibly sedated), and he's reasonably dapper with CSS ;-)

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jul 31, 2004
    #7
  8. Spartanicus <> wrote:

    > You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,


    My experience (after reading both groups for years) is quite different.

    You might get shorter lectures here, though. This typically means that
    you will miss the vital information that something in what you asked for
    was a wrong idea from the beginning, and would learn it (perhaps) after
    years and after some painful experiences only.

    (In this particular case, the lecture might have included an explanation,
    or reference to an explanation that says why setting unvisited, visited,
    and active link colors the same is a _very_ bad idea. Not to mention the
    principle "when setting color, always set background too" - which is
    easily regarded as irrelevant by authors who don't understand
    the "C" in CSS.)

    > and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
    > probably higher than in ciwas also.


    You are trolling, are you not?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 31, 2004
    #8
  9. Tim Gill

    rf Guest

    Philip Ronan wrote:
    > On 31/7/04 10:41 am, rf wrote:
    >
    > > Philip Ronan wrote:
    > >
    > >> You should really ask about this in a css group.

    > >
    > > Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

    >
    > I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s


    I don't.

    ciw* are theoretical. That's why there are so many of them, one for HTML,
    one for CSS, one for javascript and be damned anybody who posts something
    off-topic. They get real anal about it.

    Here we accept everything and can freely talk about how the CSS may interact
    with the HTML and be influenced by javascript.

    Crikey, we even talk about server side stuff and whether javascript is
    better for floaty out menus than PSP. Would you get that over in a ciw*
    group?

    If you did not notice a suitable answer was given by me to the OP several
    hours ago, at least 4 hours prior to your chirping in. Do you find that
    answer lacking in any way? Do you think that somebody over at ciwas could
    have given a better answer?

    <find/> You have only been here for a month. Stick around and see what
    happens. Read the FAQ (if you can find it) where it clearly says "almost
    anything web related goes".

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2004
    #9
  10. Tim Gill

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    >> and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
    >> probably higher than in ciwas also.

    >
    >You are trolling, are you not?


    Au contraire, not on balance of course, but amongst the best most
    definitely.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jul 31, 2004
    #10
  11. Tim Gill

    rf Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:> Spartanicus <> wrote:
    >
    > > You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,

    >
    > My experience (after reading both groups for years) is quite different.
    >
    > You might get shorter lectures here, though. This typically means that
    > you will miss the vital information that something in what you asked for
    > was a wrong idea from the beginning, and would learn it (perhaps) after
    > years and after some painful experiences only.
    >
    > (In this particular case, the lecture might have included an explanation,
    > or reference to an explanation that says why setting unvisited, visited,
    > and active link colors the same is a _very_ bad idea.


    I pondered including that in my response to the OP but chose not to.

    Why?

    I have lost count of the number of times I have provided a very detailed
    answer, pointing out all the other things that I see wrong with the site
    apart from the original problem, only to never hear from the OP again. Why
    should I waste my time so? I don't, any more.

    Only when the OP responds to my post (as this one has, with a request for
    "further information") am I prepared to expand on the issues, knowing I have
    an audience who is a) listenening and b) not rejecting out of hand what I
    say.

    If *you* feel the OP needs a lecture on styling links and background colours
    at this point in them then go right ahead :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2004
    #11
  12. Tim Gill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 31/7/04 12:10 pm, rf wrote:

    > Philip Ronan wrote:
    >> On 31/7/04 10:41 am, rf wrote:
    >>
    >>> Philip Ronan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> You should really ask about this in a css group.
    >>>
    >>> Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

    >>
    >> I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

    >
    > I don't.
    >
    > ciw* are theoretical. That's why there are so many of them, one for HTML,
    > one for CSS, one for javascript and be damned anybody who posts something
    > off-topic. They get real anal about it.
    >
    > Here we accept everything and can freely talk about how the CSS may interact
    > with the HTML and be influenced by javascript.
    >
    > Crikey, we even talk about server side stuff and whether javascript is
    > better for floaty out menus than PSP. Would you get that over in a ciw*
    > group?


    No of course not. But at least the answers provided there tend to be correct
    more often. For example, last week you incorrectly asserted that web pages
    with SSI and PHP includes are indistinguishable from ordinary HTML pages
    (they usually aren't), and that a separate HTTP connection is needed to
    deliver each individual resource from a server (not so in the case of a
    persistent connection). You also told someone that it's impossible to put
    anything in a web page to prevent IE from caching the contents of individual
    form fields (autocomplete="off" usually does the trick).

    > If you did not notice a suitable answer was given by me to the OP several
    > hours ago, at least 4 hours prior to your chirping in. Do you find that
    > answer lacking in any way? Do you think that somebody over at ciwas could
    > have given a better answer?


    Sorry sorry sorry. My mistake. Your answer was perfect. I just didn't notice
    it.

    > <find/> You have only been here for a month. Stick around and see what
    > happens. Read the FAQ (if you can find it) where it clearly says "almost
    > anything web related goes".


    Yessir.

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Aug 2, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    780
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. Guybrush Threepwood

    Table-based layout to CSS layout

    Guybrush Threepwood, Jun 6, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,050
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    642
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. Habib

    Css-Layout vs Table-Layout

    Habib, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,054
    Wÿrm
    Jun 20, 2006
  5. kriton

    Styling CSS - newbie question

    kriton, Apr 23, 2005, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    73
    kriton
    Apr 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page