Finally getting it down right again

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Sep 19, 2006.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    With a little fine tweaking and pruning, I finally got my page to render as
    I want in firefox.
    Main problem being I had quotes and equal signs where they had no business
    being.
    So FF was showing the page as it read it.
    Running it through the validator, I was rewarded with a zero error page.

    For the moment I have one set of tables purely for testing purposes which I
    should remove later.
    And of course, a seperate CSS page.

    Then the next thing to work on is to get rid of the white space surrounding
    the globe so it blends in more with the background.

    www.1-small-world.com/index2.html
     
    richard, Sep 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "richard" <> wrote:

    > Main problem being I had quotes and equal signs where they had no business
    > being.


    > www.1-small-world.com/index2.html


    arial black in your css should have quotes around. "Arial Black"

    I think.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > "richard" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Main problem being I had quotes and equal signs where they had no
    >> business
    >> being.

    >
    >> www.1-small-world.com/index2.html

    >
    > arial black in your css should have quotes around. "Arial Black"
    >
    > I think.


    Never did it that way before. As fonts are seperated by commas, and many
    have two or more words for a name, it doesn't become a problem without the
    quotes.
    Whereas font-family:arial,black; would indicate two different fonts.

    I think, therefor I am, I think.
     
    richard, Sep 19, 2006
    #3
  4. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    richard wrote:

    > Never did it that way before. As fonts are seperated by commas, and many
    > have two or more words for a name, it doesn't become a problem without the
    > quotes.


    You're still not getting the "standards" thing though.

    Yes, unquoted font names work. It's still bad practice to not quote
    them though, because the standard says they should be:
    "Font names containing any such characters or whitespace should be
    quoted:"
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop

    _If_ you quote them and it doesn't work, that's a browser problem. If
    you don't quote them and it doesn't work, then that's your problem.
    Take any sufficiently complex piece of work and you'll run into this
    issue. Maybe not for font-family, maybe not today, but sooner or later
    you get bitten by this stuff. It's the difference between IE and a web
    browser. Start working around mis-use of the standards and before long
    the whole thing is in pieces.

    Incidentally, font family names for the generics nust _not_ be quoted,
    and font family names for fonts with the same name as the generics must
    be quoted. Quoting one of these names may stop it being recognised
    correctly as a generic.
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 19, 2006
    #4
  5. richard

    richard Guest

    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > richard wrote:
    >
    >> Never did it that way before. As fonts are seperated by commas, and many
    >> have two or more words for a name, it doesn't become a problem without
    >> the
    >> quotes.

    >
    > You're still not getting the "standards" thing though.
    >
    > Yes, unquoted font names work. It's still bad practice to not quote
    > them though, because the standard says they should be:
    > "Font names containing any such characters or whitespace should be
    > quoted:"
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop
    >
    > _If_ you quote them and it doesn't work, that's a browser problem. If
    > you don't quote them and it doesn't work, then that's your problem.
    > Take any sufficiently complex piece of work and you'll run into this
    > issue. Maybe not for font-family, maybe not today, but sooner or later
    > you get bitten by this stuff. It's the difference between IE and a web
    > browser. Start working around mis-use of the standards and before long
    > the whole thing is in pieces.
    >
    > Incidentally, font family names for the generics nust _not_ be quoted,
    > and font family names for fonts with the same name as the generics must
    > be quoted. Quoting one of these names may stop it being recognised
    > correctly as a generic.
    >


    Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?
     
    richard, Sep 19, 2006
    #5
  6. richard wrote:
    >
    > "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Never did it that way before. As fonts are seperated by commas, and many
    >>> have two or more words for a name, it doesn't become a problem
    >>> without the
    >>> quotes.

    >>
    >> You're still not getting the "standards" thing though.
    >>
    >> Yes, unquoted font names work. It's still bad practice to not quote
    >> them though, because the standard says they should be:
    >> "Font names containing any such characters or whitespace should be
    >> quoted:"
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop
    >>
    >> _If_ you quote them and it doesn't work, that's a browser problem. If
    >> you don't quote them and it doesn't work, then that's your problem.
    >> Take any sufficiently complex piece of work and you'll run into this
    >> issue. Maybe not for font-family, maybe not today, but sooner or later
    >> you get bitten by this stuff. It's the difference between IE and a web
    >> browser. Start working around mis-use of the standards and before long
    >> the whole thing is in pieces.
    >>
    >> Incidentally, font family names for the generics nust _not_ be quoted,
    >> and font family names for fonts with the same name as the generics must
    >> be quoted. Quoting one of these names may stop it being recognised
    >> correctly as a generic.
    >>

    >
    > Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?
    >


    Either, just as long as they are matched pairs!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 19, 2006
    #6
  7. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Andy Dingley, Sep 19, 2006
    #7
  8. On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, richard wrote:

    [excessive quotage snipped]

    > Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?


    I suppose you wouldn't consider consulting the specification?

    Usenet works best when it's exchanging interesting ideas and lore.
    It's not a good place to get authoritative answers to factual
    questions about specifications. Those who know the right answers are
    unlikely to bother to do your homework for you, while those who don't
    know the specification are IME more than likely to come up with a
    convincing-looking answer that is plain wrong.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 19, 2006
    #8
  9. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "richard" <> wrote:

    > Never did it that way before. As fonts are seperated by commas, and many
    > have two or more words for a name, it doesn't become a problem without the
    > quotes.
    > Whereas font-family:arial,black; would indicate two different fonts.
    >
    > I think, therefor I am, I think.


    Fatal mistake mate, I have seen people disappear by
    mispronouncing or misquoting or mispelling Descartes' dictum.
    Gee... I hope you are ok.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 19, 2006
    #9
  10. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    >
    > richard wrote:
    > > Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?

    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#strings
    >
    > If it's knowable about CSS, it's in there.


    I dunno... this is the idea that the bible is the literal truth.
    There are other strands in this church. But AD still has a good
    point. I won't describe it further as I wish to conserve my
    energies to ripping apart the more dangerous fundamentalisms in
    other churches.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 19, 2006
    #10
  11. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, richard wrote:
    >
    > [excessive quotage snipped]
    >
    > > Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?

    >
    > I suppose you wouldn't consider consulting the specification?
    >
    > Usenet works best when it's exchanging interesting ideas and lore.
    > It's not a good place to get authoritative answers to factual
    > questions about specifications. Those who know the right answers are
    > unlikely to bother to do your homework for you, while those who don't
    > know the specification are IME more than likely to come up with a
    > convincing-looking answer that is plain wrong.


    Oooeee, this sounds a bit strict... but I am relieved you have
    finally come back and at least said something. What is it with
    some of you regulars that you just abandon alt.html for long
    periods of time?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 19, 2006
    #11
  12. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > > I think, therefor I am, I think.

    >
    > Fatal mistake mate, I have seen people disappear by
    > mispronouncing or misquoting or mispelling Descartes' dictum.



    It's the Usenet Motto: "Incognito, ergo dumb"
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 19, 2006
    #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. amit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    414
  2. che
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    527
  3. Craig Phillips
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    381
    Lauri Raittila
    Oct 15, 2003
  4. David Lozzi

    Try...Catch...Finally not firing finally?

    David Lozzi, Apr 23, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    827
    Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    May 11, 2007
  5. Richard

    finally working right!

    Richard, Dec 19, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    103
    Randy Webb
    Dec 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page