font color not renedered in table

[bbxrider]

i have this css class
..tble1, .tble1 TD, .tble TH
{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:10pt;
colorrange;
}
and invoke it in a table
<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="15" class="tble1">

i get the font style and size ok in the td's, but color is always white

it needs to be done differently?
bob

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:18:15 GMT
bbxrider scribed:

i have this css class
.tble1, .tble1 TD, .tble TH
{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:10pt;
colorrange;
}
and invoke it in a table
<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="15" class="tble1">

i get the font style and size ok in the td's, but color is always white

it needs to be done differently?
bob

Not sure, but I think Verdana only comes in white.

 

[dorayme]

i have this css class
.tble1, .tble1 TD, .tble TH
{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:10pt;
colorrange;
}
and invoke it in a table
<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="15" class="tble1">

i get the font style and size ok in the td's, but color is always white

it needs to be done differently?
bob

Try this instead:

..tble1 {color: orange; background: white;}

or

table.tble1 {color: orange; background: white;}

Your comma separated shorthand constructions are wrong.

 

[richard]

i have this css class
.tble1, .tble1 TD, .tble TH
{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:10pt;
colorrange;
}
and invoke it in a table
<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="15" class="tble1">

i get the font style and size ok in the td's, but color is always white

it needs to be done differently?
bob

It may be that the word "orange" is not recognized by the type of html you
are using. Try using color:#FF00FF or color:RGB(0,0,0)
Only a limited few color names are allowed in transitional.

 

[dorayme]

It may be that the word "orange" is not recognized by the type of html you
are using. Try using color:#FF00FF or color:RGB(0,0,0)
Only a limited few color names are allowed in transitional.

Or perhaps particular browsers? All mine show it even with
doctypes changed to various ones or no doctype? Have heard this
about orange before, come to think of it, in some posts here.

I thought that the comma construction in this case would not work
but was wrong. Sorry.

(just btw, I don't think #fof is orange. #f90 might do)

 

[bbxrider]

thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
if your still interested the page is:
http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
i tried color=black as well as the #......s
i must have some basic 101 problem
bob

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:58:16
GMT bbxrider scribed:

thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
if your still interested the page is:
http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
i tried color=black as well as the #......s
i must have some basic 101 problem
bob

From what I see, the content is within links - which will inherit the link
color.

 

[rf]

thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
if your still interested the page is:
http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html

<sigh> Would it not have been a whole lot quicker to have provided this link
in your original post? Then we wouldn't have had to waste a whole morning
conjecturing what may be wrong.

The text that you want to be orange is in anchor (<a>). elements

You specify .tble1 {color: black;} but you also specify a {color: #fffff}.
Guess which rule is more specific to those anchor elements?

BTW this took me about three seconds to determine with Firebug. Simply point
to the offending text and read off the style pane what style rules apply to
that text and, more to the point, which have been overridden.

I recommend you install Firebug. If you need to ask here again then supply
the URL up front.

Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
if your still interested the page is:
http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
i tried color=black as well as the #......s
i must have some basic 101 problem

#1 Your TABLE is *not* inside the DIV that you styled with color orange.

#2 You have styled your links <A> as white, which they are per your
stylesheet:

a {

color: #fff;

font-weight: bold;

text-decoration: none;

}

 

[Blinky the Shark]

<sigh> Would it not have been a whole lot quicker to have provided this link
in your original post? Then we wouldn't have had to waste a whole morning
conjecturing what may be wrong.

The text that you want to be orange is in anchor (<a>). elements

You specify .tble1 {color: black;} but you also specify a {color: #fffff}.
Guess which rule is more specific to those anchor elements?

BTW this took me about three seconds to determine with Firebug. Simply point
to the offending text and read off the style pane what style rules apply to
that text and, more to the point, which have been overridden.

I recommend you install Firebug. If you need to ask here again then supply
the URL up front.

Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.

I don't pay per use, but with that kind of huge image, I still move on
and another site gets my attention and/or money.

 

[rf]

rf wrote:

I don't pay per use,

Neither do I usually, except when someone lets loose on google maps and uses
up my 3 gig/month :-(

but with that kind of huge image, I still move on
and another site gets my attention and/or money.

Indeed. Even on cable it's easy enough to see the image arriving in slices
and to press the stop/back button. Dial up people have *already* gone
elsewhere

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Neither do I usually, except when someone lets loose on google maps and uses
up my 3 gig/month :-(

I don't do Google Maps.

Indeed. Even on cable it's easy enough to see the image arriving in slices
and to press the stop/back button. Dial up people have *already* gone
elsewhere

Aye.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Bone Ur:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007
22:18:15 GMT bbxrider scribed:


Not sure, but I think Verdana only comes in white.

No, it's because tables are white in November.

Hint: if you have no idea of the problem, still less a solution, just shut
up. If you tried to be funny, well, you weren't.

Seriously, in order of preference,
1) Use valid HTML, and check that it's valid.
2) Use CSS by the book, and check that too.
3) Now re-check: you failed item 1, because lack of DOCTYPE triggers Quirks
Mode.
4) Don't use Verdana.
5) Don't use 10pt or any other size in pt units.
6) Don't use nonstandard color names like orange. If you don't know which
color names are standard, don't use color names.
7) Don't use tables just as a layout tool unless you know what you're doing
(and you don't know now).
8) If problems remain, post a URL and specify the browser(s) you used.
Unless, of course, you just want to waste everyone's time, including yours.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Bone Ur:

From what I see, the content is within links - which will inherit the
link color.

There has been a lot of disinformation in the thread (and, someone might
add, the original question called it, e.g. by its failure to supply a URL).
It would be pointless to correct it all, but I'll take a bite on this one,
since it was probably an unintentional mistake, and a common one.

Links never inherit colors, in practice. In theory they could, but in
reality, in any browsing situation where different colors are available at
all, the browser's style sheet sets colors for links. Author and user style
sheets may override such settings, but in any case, links have a color (or
colors, different colors for a link in different states) set for them.

And an element never inherits a property value if it has a value assigned
for that property. People just fail to understand what inheritance means.
This is part of the general failure to understand the "C" in "CSS".

So if some text is within a link, it _gets_ a link color. If a link has an
inner element, say <a href="...">...<span>...</span>...</a>, then the
_inner_ element may inherit the link color (and will, unless some style
sheet sets color for it).

 

[bbxrider]

thanks for all the help and apologies for wasting your time, i will check
out firebug
i learned a lot about nesting and overriding for the formatting
will have to figure out the formatting for any web pics
i started with jpg, and had read some that png was better for web, that it
had a smaller file size, etc,
my mistake, after saving the orig jpg that was 85k into png, it ballooned to
the .5mg, i never
checked the file size, so that has been changed back to a more reasonable
85k jpg
and now with further checking finding other web pages with jpg's that have
decent resolution, with only
a 20k file size. when i tried saving my 85k jpg to a lower quality/smaller
size, the resulting file size was
down to 49k but the quality was getting pretty bad. so thats another project
bob

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:15:32
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

Scripsit Bone Ur:


There has been a lot of disinformation in the thread (and, someone
might add, the original question called it, e.g. by its failure to
supply a URL). It would be pointless to correct it all, but I'll take
a bite on this one, since it was probably an unintentional mistake,
and a common one.

Links never inherit colors, in practice. In theory they could, but in
reality, in any browsing situation where different colors are
available at all, the browser's style sheet sets colors for links.
Author and user style sheets may override such settings, but in any
case, links have a color (or colors, different colors for a link in
different states) set for them.

And an element never inherits a property value if it has a value
assigned for that property. People just fail to understand what
inheritance means. This is part of the general failure to understand
the "C" in "CSS".

So if some text is within a link, it _gets_ a link color. If a link
has an inner element, say <a href="...">...<span>...</span>...</a>,
then the _inner_ element may inherit the link color (and will, unless
some style sheet sets color for it).

Well, yes, all that is very precise, but I was using the English word
"inherit" to mean "get", not the css-definition "inherit" to mean
"whatever". I can see how it might be confusing to an expert, but I
believed the meaning to be clearer to the OP as I framed it.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:04:28
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

No, it's because tables are white in November.

Hint: if you have no idea of the problem, still less a solution, just
shut up. If you tried to be funny, well, you weren't.

Was too. You're just in a crabby mood.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Bone Ur:

Well, yes, all that is very precise,

And you apparently failed to understand it, since by Usenet conventions,
lack of comprehensive reading is indicated by the use of comprehensive
quotation.

but I was using the English word
"inherit" to mean "get",

That was foolish. Check your English dictionary, and you will get (not
inherit) some understanding in this matter.

not the css-definition "inherit" to mean
"whatever".

When you use words that are CSS terms in a specifically CSS context, you
should use them in their CSS meanings.

I can see how it might be confusing to an expert,

No, experts immediately see that _you_ are confused, but the vast majority
will be confused by your incorrect explanation.

but I
believed the meaning to be clearer to the OP as I framed it.

If you meant "get", surely "get" would have been clearer than "inherit". The
truth is that you tried to use CSS jargon and failed.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:11:29
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

Scripsit Bone Ur:


And you apparently failed to understand it, since by Usenet
conventions, lack of comprehensive reading is indicated by the use of
comprehensive quotation.

Is there a reference for this "convention" or do you just have an
inherited prejudice for comprehensive quoatation?

That was foolish. Check your English dictionary, and you will get (not
inherit) some understanding in this matter.

It may have been imperfect but was hardly foolish in the realistic sense
of the word. Of course, some could make it _seem_ foolish by blathering
unbecomingly in an adult environment.

When you use words that are CSS terms in a specifically CSS context,
you should use them in their CSS meanings.

Why? If a word has a paramount English meaning, can not that override a
subordinate, more-specific context? I'll agree that using "inherit" as I
did may have been technically (from a css perspective) awkward, but not
prohibitively so.

No, experts immediately see that _you_ are confused, but the vast
majority will be confused by your incorrect explanation.

Well, I'm not confused and my explanation isn't or wasn't incorrect.
However, you make a good case for how easily experts can be confused.

If you meant "get", surely "get" would have been clearer than
"inherit".

True. Especially to one knowing English as a second language (however
well).

The truth is that you tried to use CSS jargon and failed.

That's patently untrue. The truth is that you fail to understand all the
nuances of the more fundamental language used to convey the information.

 

[dorayme]

Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.

Good point.

(btw, with Optus, they slow you down when you run over the limit.
On my ADSL plan, they slow it to less than I get if I use my dial
up connection.)