Finally getting it down right again

[richard]

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

 

[dorayme]

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.

 

[richard]

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.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

 

[richard]

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?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Ok. So would that be single or double quotes?

Either, just as long as they are matched pairs!

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

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.

 

[dorayme]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Andy Dingley]

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

It's the Usenet Motto: "Incognito, ergo dumb"