getting a mouseover on a 'div'

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Fritz, May 14, 2005.

  1. Fritz

    Fritz Guest

    Hi,
    I've started doing html and CSS for the first time and in the
    process of testing what I want, I have this in the html:

    <div id="My_Menu">
    <a href="">First</a><br />
    <a href="">Second</a><br />
    <a href="">Third</a><br />
    </div>

    This in an attached style sheet:

    #My_Menu{
    background-color: #000000;
    padding: 10px;
    font-size: 14px;
    font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
    position: absolute;
    top: 150px;
    left: -60px;
    width: auto;
    height: auto;
    }
    div a {color:#FFFFFF}

    And in a .js page I have a routine that will (if I ever get it worked
    out) push this div in and out from the left side. So, I tried
    "onmouseover()" but in the documentation I have this only works with
    anchors. And I'm not sure how to go about applying it to a div.

    Does anyone have an idea how to wrap this div in something so as to be
    able to use the mouseover to initiate a script?

    I hope it's simple.
    Thanks.
    f.
     
    Fritz, May 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fritz wrote:


    > I've started doing html and CSS for the first time and in the
    > process of testing what I want, I have this in the html:
    >
    > <div id="My_Menu">
    > <a href="">First</a><br />
    > <a href="">Second</a><br />
    > <a href="">Third</a><br />
    > </div>


    A menu is a list of links, why not let the markup reflect that?
    http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/

    > And in a .js page I have a routine that will (if I ever get it worked
    > out) push this div in and out from the left side.


    That sounds very annoying.

    > So, I tried "onmouseover()" but in the documentation I have this only
    > works with anchors. And I'm not sure how to go about applying it to a div.


    Pretty much any element can support an onmouseover handler, <div> and <ul>
    included. Perhaps your documentation is getting confused with the lack of
    support in MSIE for the CSS pseudo-class :hover on non-links?

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, May 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fritz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Fritz wrote:

    > And in a .js page I have a routine that will (if I ever get it worked
    > out) push this div in and out from the left side. So, I tried
    > "onmouseover()" but in the documentation I have this only works with
    > anchors. And I'm not sure how to go about applying it to a div.


    <div id="My_Menu" onmouseover="foo();" onmouseout="bar();">
    ...
    </div>

    or even better:

    <div id="My_Menu">
    ...
    </div>

    and include into the Javascript:

    var mydiv = document.getElementById("My_Menu");
    mydiv.onmouseover = foo;
    mydiv.onmouseout = bar;

    However, I think you'll find this:

    <div id="My_Menu">
    <a href="">First</a><br />
    <a href="">Second</a><br />
    <a href="">Third</a><br />
    </div>

    is better marked up as this:

    <ul id="My_Menu">
    <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    </ul>


    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, May 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    David Dorward wrote:
    > Fritz wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> I've started doing html and CSS for the first time and in the
    >>process of testing what I want, I have this in the html:
    >>
    >><div id="My_Menu">
    >><a href="">First</a><br />
    >><a href="">Second</a><br />
    >><a href="">Third</a><br />
    >></div>

    >
    >
    > A menu is a list of links, why not let the markup reflect that?
    > http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/
    >


    Thank you Mr. Dorward. You are correct. When it is pointed out it makes
    sense.



    >
    >>And in a .js page I have a routine that will (if I ever get it worked
    >>out) push this div in and out from the left side.

    >
    >
    > That sounds very annoying.



    Actually, when I showed a site to the group that our site will
    represent, they loved the idea. Because the list of options on this menu
    will be few, it isn't necessary for it to be spread out across the page
    at the top and bottom. It will merely take up the left 20-30 pixels and
    (I hope) glide up and down so as to always be slightly visible and then
    come out to full size when needed. The site will hose long (again I hope
    scholarly) pages where the scrolling needed to find the top and bottom
    is quite a jump.

    >
    >
    >>So, I tried "onmouseover()" but in the documentation I have this only
    >>works with anchors. And I'm not sure how to go about applying it to a div.

    >
    >
    > Pretty much any element can support an onmouseover handler, <div> and <ul>
    > included. Perhaps your documentation is getting confused with the lack of
    > support in MSIE for the CSS pseudo-class :hover on non-links?
    >


    I really must look at this again. ??

    Thanks for the reply!

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > Fritz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>And in a .js page I have a routine that will (if I ever get it worked
    >>out) push this div in and out from the left side. So, I tried
    >>"onmouseover()" but in the documentation I have this only works with
    >>anchors. And I'm not sure how to go about applying it to a div.

    >
    >
    > <div id="My_Menu" onmouseover="foo();" onmouseout="bar();">
    > ...
    > </div>



    This is what I tried. Methinks that I had better go look at the
    javascript as the culprit.

    >
    > or even better:
    >
    > <div id="My_Menu">
    > ...
    > </div>
    >
    > and include into the Javascript:
    >
    > var mydiv = document.getElementById("My_Menu");
    > mydiv.onmouseover = foo;
    > mydiv.onmouseout = bar;



    OK, here is something that is new to me. Encapsulating the
    getElementById("ID") into a variable. This makes writing the stuff a lot
    easier. Thanks!
    But shouldn't it be written:
    mydiv.onmouseover=foo(); ?with the ()?

    >
    > However, I think you'll find this:
    >
    > <div id="My_Menu">
    > <a href="">First</a><br />
    > <a href="">Second</a><br />
    > <a href="">Third</a><br />
    > </div>
    >
    > is better marked up as this:
    >
    > <ul id="My_Menu">
    > <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    > </ul>
    >
    >

    Yes. As Mr. Dorward pointed out, having it in a list is much more
    straight forward than using the line breaks.

    BTW, I picked up a book to guide me that is a few years old and the
    question I have is on these comments:
    Quote:
    All empty elements, such as img and hr require either an end tag or must
    include a forward slash immediately before the right angle bracket.
    Unquote:
    I don't understand why an img tag is considered an empty element? And
    I see in examples on the web, this being used in things such as this:
    <script... > </script /> Or maybe it was a link to a style, but why?
    Thanks for all the help.

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    fritz wrote:

    > BTW, I picked up a book to guide me that is a few years old and the
    > question I have is on these comments:


    > Quote:
    > All empty elements, such as img and hr require either an end tag or must
    > include a forward slash immediately before the right angle bracket.


    If you are serving XHTML as HTML then that isn't exactly correct. Empty
    elements must use the forward slash self closing technique (not the sperate
    end tag), and the slash must be preceded by a space.

    <br> - HTML
    <br/> - XHTML
    <br></br> - XHTML
    <br /> - XHTML which may be served with the text/html content type.

    > Unquote:
    > I don't understand why an img tag is considered an empty element?


    It has no content.

    <img> nothing goes here, its empty </img>

    > And I see in examples on the web, this being used in things such as this:
    > <script... > </script />


    That's just plain wrong.

    > Or maybe it was a link to a style, but why?


    <link> nothing goes here </link>

    http://w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ is probably worth a read. You might be better off
    going back to HTML 4.01 though.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, May 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    > However, I think you'll find this:
    >
    > <div id="My_Menu">
    > <a href="">First</a><br />
    > <a href="">Second</a><br />
    > <a href="">Third</a><br />
    > </div>
    >
    > is better marked up as this:
    >
    > <ul id="My_Menu">
    > <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    > </ul>
    >
    >


    This brings up another question. By removing the div tag, will this
    appear on the page? I am using the idea of a div called content just
    below the body tag that holds all the content of the page. I then used a
    separate div for stuff that would be moved off page. So the code below
    would be just as valid, by giving the list a name and then positioning
    it where one wishes. IE:

    <body>
    <div id="margin30">

    ............
    ...........
    </div> <!-- end of all content -->

    <ul id="My_Menu">
    <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    </ul><!-- end of the menu stuff -->

    This way the menu has a 30 pixel free area to move up and down?
    </body>

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Fritz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    fritz wrote:

    > But shouldn't it be written:
    > mydiv.onmouseover=foo(); ?with the ()?


    Nope. If you include the parentheses, the function will be evaluated then
    and there -- when the event assignment is being made, rather than when the
    event actually happens.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./elton_john/dont_let_the_sun_go_down_on_me.ogg
     
    Toby Inkster, May 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    David Dorward wrote:
    >
    > If you are serving XHTML as HTML then that isn't exactly correct. Empty
    > elements must use the forward slash self closing technique (not the sperate
    > end tag), and the slash must be preceded by a space.
    >
    > <br> - HTML
    > <br/> - XHTML
    > <br></br> - XHTML
    > <br /> - XHTML which may be served with the text/html content type.
    >


    So, the key is the dtd? Once one uses the XHTML dtd then one must
    either use an ending tag or the 'self closing' technique of a space and
    forward slash.

    >>And I see in examples on the web, this being used in things such as this:
    >><script... > </script />

    >
    > That's just plain wrong.
    >
    >>Or maybe it was a link to a style, but why?

    >
    > <link> nothing goes here </link>
    >


    So the definition of an "empty element" is: It ain't got no text in it!


    > http://w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ is probably worth a read. You might be better off
    > going back to HTML 4.01 though.
    >


    Well, I guess that I could but the book I have says the following:
    Quote:
    If you take comfort in having your source code successfully pass XHTML
    validation, you can specify the XHTML document type at the top of your
    documents. .........and later....But even if you are not overly
    concerned with following the XHTML recommendation, you should
    nevertheless gravitate toward it's formatting requirements; they will
    become the norm........
    Unquote:

    I have all the time in the world to do this. Well, not that much,
    but I do have time to learn at my own pace and so I thought, why not do
    it right? Having polled the group, all have modern browser versions. I
    am using FF as the model. And as a suggestion from someone else got the
    'Tidy' extension which helps.

    thanks!

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > fritz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>But shouldn't it be written:
    >>mydiv.onmouseover=foo(); ?with the ()?

    >
    >
    > Nope. If you include the parentheses, the function will be evaluated then
    > and there -- when the event assignment is being made, rather than when the
    > event actually happens.
    >


    I guess I don't quite see it. If the event for the function (mouseover)
    is hidden in the javascript page how can it work? I thought that one had
    to have the function called out in the html page...

    div id="menu" onmouseover(), etc.

    You said:
    or even better:
    <div id="My_Menu">
    ...
    </div>
    and include into the Javascript:
    var mydiv = document.getElementById("My_Menu");
    mydiv.onmouseover = foo;
    mydiv.onmouseout = bar;

    Wouldn't the above (var mydiv...etc) have to be enclosed in a function
    on the js page. Then *that* function called?

    Do you mean that document.getElementById("menu").onmouseover=foo;

    sitting in the js page without being in another function is just waiting
    for the mouseover event? If so that simplifies things even more.

    Sorry, I'm a little confused.

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Fritz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:49:07 +0100, David Dorward <>
    wrote:

    >
    >> And I see in examples on the web, this being used in things such as this:
    >> <script... > </script />

    >
    >That's just plain wrong.


    No, it's essential with IE6. If you use <script src="foo" /> then the
    page vanishes, because IE treats the whole eleemnt as the opening tag of
    <script> </script> anyway
     
    Andy Dingley, May 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Fritz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    This:

    <body>

    <!-- A short little menu -->
    <ul id="My_Menu">
    <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    </ul>

    <!-- A huge great block of content -->
    <div id="margin30">

    ............
    ...........
    </div>
    </body>

    is much friendlies to linear devices (like screen readers) and other
    non-CSS contexts.


    If you want to see why this slide-out menu is so annoying, have a play
    with this site:
    http://www.lorientrust.co.uk/realworld/events/eventcontence.htm
     
    Andy Dingley, May 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:49:07 +0100, David Dorward <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>And I see in examples on the web, this being used in things such as this:
    >>><script... > </script />

    >>
    >>That's just plain wrong.

    >
    >
    > No, it's essential with IE6. If you use <script src="foo" /> then the
    > page vanishes, because IE treats the whole eleemnt as the opening tag of
    > <script> </script> anyway
    >



    Here is what I was originally talking about; I just went out and found
    an example page that had this:

    <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/navSimple.css" type="text/css" />

    and also used it on all of his/her meta tags. I assume now because they
    are, in fact, empty elements with no closing tag. The above page was a
    dtd of 4.01 transitional. It also used <br/> which is correct according
    to my book.


    So, you are reinforcing the idea that the this should never be used but
    only in the <br /> and other empty elements and then only when under a
    dtd defined as XHTML?

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > This:
    >
    > <body>
    >
    > <!-- A short little menu -->
    > <ul id="My_Menu">
    > <li><a href="">First</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Second</a></li>
    > <li><a href="">Third</a></li>
    > </ul>
    >
    > <!-- A huge great block of content -->
    > <div id="margin30">
    >
    > ...........
    > ..........
    > </div>
    > </body>
    >
    > is much friendlies to linear devices (like screen readers) and other
    > non-CSS contexts.
    >
    >
    > If you want to see why this slide-out menu is so annoying, have a play
    > with this site:
    > http://www.lorientrust.co.uk/realworld/events/eventcontence.htm
    >

    Egads! OK, I can see why something like that could irritate to say the
    least. I can't see the code for that menu but it is obvious that they
    are useing <p>'s instead of <br/>s or more properly as you all point
    out, an unordered list.

    Wow, it takes up almost the whole left side of my 1024x768 screen.
    However that is not what I had in mind. That example there is probably
    one of the most egregious examples! The one I want to use will be
    sooooo..... much smaller and compact. When I get it developed I'll show
    you what I mean. Then if you all say it's intrusive I'll go another way.
    How's that?

    PS: They also forgot the first table row <tr> on the giant table as well
    as type definitions in the <script>s. And put in height parameters
    without values.

    You know, as I look at that static web page the "Lorien Menu" on the
    left sort of appears as a big guillotine waiting to descend.

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #14
  15. Fritz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    fritz wrote:

    > Do you mean that document.getElementById("menu").onmouseover=foo;
    >
    > sitting in the js page without being in another function is just waiting
    > for the mouseover event? If so that simplifies things even more.


    =============== script.js ===============
    function foo () {
    ...
    }
    function bar () {
    ...
    }
    function init () {
    var m = document.getElementById("menu");
    m.onmouseover = foo;
    m.onmouseout = bar;
    }
    window.onload = init;
    =========================================

    =============== page.html ===============
    <script type="text/javascript" src="script.js"></script>
    <ul id="menu">
    ....
    </ul>
    =========================================

    The Javascript file defines a bunch of functions, including one called
    "init". It also has a single line outside of all the functions that says
    after the page has finished loading, call the "init" function.

    This is equivalent to using <body onload="init()">, but it's neater as
    it's all contained within the Javascript file. Much like putting all your
    styling info in a CSS file is neater than using style="..." attributes
    everywhere.

    Then the HTML page just links to the script file and doesn't have to have
    any of these onload, onmousethis, onmousethat attributes cluttering it up.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, May 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Fritz

    fritz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > fritz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Do you mean that document.getElementById("menu").onmouseover=foo;
    >>
    >>sitting in the js page without being in another function is just waiting
    >>for the mouseover event? If so that simplifies things even more.

    >
    >
    > =============== script.js ===============
    > function foo () {
    > ...
    > }
    > function bar () {
    > ...
    > }
    > function init () {
    > var m = document.getElementById("menu");
    > m.onmouseover = foo;
    > m.onmouseout = bar;
    > }
    > window.onload = init;
    > =========================================
    >
    > =============== page.html ===============
    > <script type="text/javascript" src="script.js"></script>
    > <ul id="menu">
    > ...
    > </ul>
    > =========================================
    >
    > The Javascript file defines a bunch of functions, including one called
    > "init". It also has a single line outside of all the functions that says
    > after the page has finished loading, call the "init" function.
    >
    > This is equivalent to using <body onload="init()">, but it's neater as
    > it's all contained within the Javascript file. Much like putting all your
    > styling info in a CSS file is neater than using style="..." attributes
    > everywhere.
    >
    > Then the HTML page just links to the script file and doesn't have to have
    > any of these onload, onmousethis, onmousethat attributes cluttering it up.
    >

    OK! Let me take this to how I now understand it:

    By defining 'window.onload' in the js file, after the html file loads it
    calls the init which defines the id of 'menu' as "m"; and points the
    onmouseover and mouseout events to the appropriate functions.

    So then one could use m as so:
    x = m.style.left;
    while(x < 200){
    x += 1;
    etc.}

    Not having to write out the document.getElementById("foofoo").etc makes
    things much easier.

    In a way I guess one could say generally that dynamic html is using the
    getElementById statement to do just about anything?

    f.
     
    fritz, May 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Fritz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    fritz wrote:

    > By defining 'window.onload' in the js file, after the html file loads it
    > calls the init which defines the id of 'menu' as "m"; and points the
    > onmouseover and mouseout events to the appropriate functions.
    >
    > So then one could use m as so:
    > x = m.style.left;
    > while(x < 200){
    > x += 1;
    > etc.}


    Probably not. You'd have to redefine "m" in each function. This is because
    of variable scoping -- "m" only has a meaning in the function where it is
    originally declared. Of course you can get around this by initially
    declaring "m" outside of all the functions.

    e.g.
    =============== script.js ===============
    var m; //declare "m"
    function foo () {
    // "m" has meaning here
    }
    function bar () {
    // "m" has meaning here
    }
    function init () {
    // "m" has meaning here
    m = document.getElementById("menu");
    m.onmouseover = foo;
    m.onmouseout = bar;
    }
    window.onload = init;
    =========================================

    Google for "variable scope" to find out more about the concept of scoping,
    or for "variable scope javascript" to find out how the concept applies to
    Javascript.

    > In a way I guess one could say generally that dynamic html is using the
    > getElementById statement to do just about anything?


    getElementById is a useful method, but getElementsByTagName is also very
    handy.

    For example, I use this function to grab the page heading from the H1
    element at the top of the page, and do something fancy with it:

    function doCoolTitle() {
    var t = document.getElementsByTagName("H1").item(0).innerHTML;
    var u = "http://tobyinkster.co.uk/IMG.cgi?text=" + escape(t);
    var i = new Image();
    i.src = u;
    i.alt = t;
    i.style.position = 'fixed';
    i.style.bottom = '1px';
    i.style.left = '1px';
    document.body.appendChild(i);
    }

    "IMG.cgi" is a Perl script that creates an image. :)

    e.g. http://tobyinkster.co.uk/

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, May 15, 2005
    #17
  18. Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    >>> <script... > </script />


    >>That's just plain wrong.


    > No, it's essential with IE6. If you use <script src="foo" /> then the
    > page vanishes, because IE treats the whole eleemnt as the opening tag of
    > <script> </script> anyway


    Yes, but the example of code I said was wrong had an extra slash at the end
    too - which should not be there.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, May 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    fritz wrote:

    >> <br> - HTML
    >> <br/> - XHTML
    >> <br></br> - XHTML
    >> <br /> - XHTML which may be served with the text/html content type.


    > So, the key is the dtd? Once one uses the XHTML dtd then one must
    > either use an ending tag or the 'self closing' technique of a space and
    > forward slash.


    ish. I'm not quite sure about how much the DTD has to say about it being an
    XML DTD rather then an SGML DTD.

    > Well, I guess that I could but the book I have says the following:
    > Quote:
    > If you take comfort in having your source code successfully pass XHTML
    > validation, you can specify the XHTML document type at the top of your
    > documents. .........and later....But even if you are not overly
    > concerned with following the XHTML recommendation, you should
    > nevertheless gravitate toward it's formatting requirements; they will
    > become the norm........


    Possibly, but not for a long time, and in the meantime there aren't many
    browsers which actively support XHTML, and there are some which have
    problems when they interpret XHTML under HTML rules. (And yes, given my
    personal website, I am being a tad hypocritical here. I do plan to convert
    it at some stage).

    > I have all the time in the world to do this. Well, not that much,
    > but I do have time to learn at my own pace and so I thought, why not do
    > it right?


    There is nothing wrong with using HTML 4.01 :)


    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, May 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Fritz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Re: Empty elements in XHTML (was Re: getting a mouseover on a 'div')

    On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:08:59 -0700, fritz <> wrote:

    >Here is what I was originally talking about; I just went out and found
    >an example page that had this:
    >
    ><link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/navSimple.css" type="text/css" />


    <link> <meta> <br> & <hr> are all EMPTY elements. They are defined by
    the DTD to not have content. Never. So for these, the best "Appendix C
    XHTML" approach is to use the <br /> form.

    <script> is not an EMPTY element. If you use an external script then the
    element may be empty in that one instance, but it's definition still
    isn't empty. So for that case you can use <script ... ></script> and
    because of the IE issue, you pretty much have to.

    If you've got access to the CIW course material, there's some complete
    garbage in there about
    <title/>My Page's Title

    which is worth reading for a laugh, if nothing else.
     
    Andy Dingley, May 15, 2005
    #20
    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. K Viltersten

    <div ... /> and <div ...></div>

    K Viltersten, Mar 30, 2009, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    787
  2. Dwayne Madsen

    Q: Div A inside Div B is larger than Div B

    Dwayne Madsen, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    217
    David Dorward
    Jun 1, 2005
  3. mscir
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    342
    Martin Honnen
    Jun 26, 2005
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    185
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    226
Loading...

Share This Page