help needed to understand a previous thread

Discussion in 'HTML' started by David Graham, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. David Graham

    David Graham Guest

    Hi
    I have been trying to understand a thread Re: Help needed with css layout
    problems posted 21/03/006

    http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/HCS/masthead.htm

    I removed the empty div using FF developer toolbar (great thing that
    toolbar) and to my surprise the logo on the left disappeared as did the blue
    coloured background of the parent masthead div and the 1px white line of the
    child div. I solved the problem of why the logo goes - it's white letters,
    therefore not seen without the blue backgound, and the white line goes
    because it's the background colour of the empty div I've just removed.

    #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0}

    The clear:both is obviously doing a lot of work here but why does it's
    presence mean the blue background of the parent masthead div gets displayed
    and not without it?

    Is the greater specificity the reason why this white background does not get
    over ruled by the blue background of the parent masthead div or it simply
    due to the stacking order i.e. the child div is more infront than the parent
    div?

    Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's

    thanks for any help
    David
     
    David Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 09/04/2006 11:10, David Graham wrote:

    [snip]

    > http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/HCS/masthead.htm


    [snip]

    > #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0}

    ^^^
    The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash, by the
    way. I know: it's Spartanicus' code.

    > The clear:both is obviously doing a lot of work here but why does
    > it's presence mean the blue background of the parent masthead div
    > gets displayed and not without it?


    Much of the content of that masthead is floated, and floats are taken
    out of the flow. The result is that they don't take up any vertical
    space, as far as the containing div element is concerned, so it
    collapses. Specifying the both value for the clear property forces the
    inner div element below the floats, stretching the container in the
    process.

    > Is the greater specificity the reason why this white background does
    > not get over ruled by the blue background of the parent masthead div
    > or it simply due to the stacking order i.e. the child div is more
    > infront than the parent div?


    The latter.

    > Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's


    I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's". I think Spartanicus
    qualifies as one himself. ;-)

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Apr 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Graham

    Spartanicus Guest

    Michael Winter <> wrote:

    >> http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/HCS/masthead.htm

    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >> #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0}

    > ^^^
    >The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash, by the
    >way.


    It should not, it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Apr 9, 2006
    #3
  4. On 09/04/2006 14:53, Spartanicus wrote:

    > Michael Winter <> wrote:


    [snip]

    >>> #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0}

    >> ^^^
    >> The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash,
    >> by the way.

    >
    > It should not,


    OK, fair enough. I thought you were trying to set both font size and
    line height to zero, but made a typo. But, looking at it again, it would
    also be missing a font family (which is required, of course).

    > it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.

    ^^^^
    You mean you can't remember? :p

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Apr 9, 2006
    #4
  5. David Graham

    Spartanicus Guest

    Michael Winter <> wrote:

    >> it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.

    > ^^^^
    >You mean you can't remember? :p


    http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A77FC-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Apr 9, 2006
    #5
  6. David Graham

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Michael Winter wrote:
    > David Graham wrote:
    >
    >> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's

    >
    > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".


    Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Apr 9, 2006
    #6
  7. David Graham

    David Graham Guest

    "Spartanicus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Michael Winter <> wrote:
    >
    > >> it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.

    > > ^^^^
    > >You mean you can't remember? :p

    >
    >

    http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A77FC-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04
    FC2C2BF}
    >
    > --
    > Spartanicus


    Thanks to Michael and Spartanicus - I'm sure you both qualify for guru
    status. I'm not sure what Spartanicus is trying to hack with the font thing,
    I've come across many different types of hacks but not this one - any
    explanation please about what IE does not do without this hack?
    thanks again
    David
     
    David Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #7
  8. On 09/04/2006 17:45, Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Michael Winter wrote:


    [snip]

    >> I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".

    >
    > Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious
    > error?!


    I blame copy-and-paste. :)

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Apr 9, 2006
    #8
  9. David Graham

    David Graham Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > Michael Winter wrote:
    > > David Graham wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's

    > >
    > > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".

    >
    > Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
    >
    > --
    > Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    > Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    >

    For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
    bye
    David
     
    David Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #9
  10. David Graham

    Jim Moe Guest

    David Graham wrote:
    >> >
    >> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".

    >>
    >> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
    >>

    > For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
    >

    It should be "gurus" not "guru's".
    It's an extension of the "it's" vs "its" controversy.

    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
     
    Jim Moe, Apr 9, 2006
    #10
  11. David Graham wrote:

    > Thanks to Michael and Spartanicus - I'm sure you both qualify for guru
    > status.


    I'm all in favor of "guru" status. It avoids the use of the
    repeated totally wrong "guru's" in that context, in which there is no
    reason for an apostrophe since it's not possessive (the guru's sandals)
    and plurals don't use them. :)


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 9, 2006
    #11
  12. David Graham

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "David Graham" <david.graham18
    @ntlworld.com> declaimed:

    >
    > "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    > news:5n.co.uk...
    >> Michael Winter wrote:
    >> > David Graham wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's
    >> >
    >> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".

    >>
    >> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
    >>
    >> --
    >> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    >> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    >>

    > For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?


    Should have been "...or one of the guri."

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity can have limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Apr 9, 2006
    #12
  13. David Graham

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jim Moe <> wrote:

    > David Graham wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
    > >>
    > >> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
    > >>

    > > For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
    > >

    > It should be "gurus" not "guru's".
    > It's an extension of the "it's" vs "its" controversy.


    There is no controversy and it is not an extension of it... er...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 10, 2006
    #13
  14. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> writing in
    news:Xns97A0805CBF0A3httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251:

    > To further the education of mankind, "David Graham" <david.graham18
    > @ntlworld.com> declaimed:
    >
    >>
    >> "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    >> news:5n.co.uk...
    >>> Michael Winter wrote:
    >>> > David Graham wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's
    >>> >
    >>> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
    >>>
    >>> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious
    >>> error?!
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    >>> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    >>>

    >> For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?

    >
    > Should have been "...or one of the guri."
    >


    No, Jim Moe was correct. It should have been "gurus". Source:
    <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/guru>

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Apr 10, 2006
    #14
  15. David Graham

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, Adrienne Boswell <>
    declaimed:

    >> Should have been "...or one of the guri."
    >>

    >
    > No, Jim Moe was correct. It should have been "gurus". Source:
    > <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/guru>


    No "guri"? Hmm, that's strange. "Gurus" almost seems like it should be
    pronounced 'gur-us' instead of 'gur-ooz'. Of course on the other hand,
    I've never heard of "meni", either. :)

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity can have limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Apr 10, 2006
    #15
  16. David Graham

    Jim Moe Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
    >> >>
    >> >> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
    >> >>
    >> > For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
    >> >

    >> It should be "gurus" not "guru's".
    >> It's an extension of the "it's" vs "its" controversy.

    >
    > There is no controversy and it is not an extension of it... er...
    >

    Well, given how often it is gotten wrong... I suspect people are using
    "'s" for plural and possessive because it is soooo much simpler than
    remembering all those pesky rules.

    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
     
    Jim Moe, Apr 10, 2006
    #16
  17. David Graham

    Jim Moe Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >>> Should have been "...or one of the guri."

    >>
    >> No, Jim Moe was correct. It should have been "gurus". Source:
    >> <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/guru>

    >
    > No "guri"? Hmm, that's strange. "Gurus" almost seems like it should be
    > pronounced 'gur-us' instead of 'gur-ooz'. Of course on the other hand,
    > I've never heard of "meni", either. :)
    >

    And just for fun, there is no "viri," only viruses.

    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
     
    Jim Moe, Apr 10, 2006
    #17
  18. David Graham

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Jim Moe wrote:

    > Well, given how often it is gotten wrong... I suspect people are using
    > "'s" for plural and possessive because it is soooo much simpler than
    > remembering all those pesky rules.


    * -s for plural
    * -' for posessives of nouns that already end in "s"
    * -'s for posessives of other nouns

    tonnes of rules, yes.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Apr 10, 2006
    #18
  19. David Graham

    Els Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Jim Moe wrote:
    >
    >> Well, given how often it is gotten wrong... I suspect people are using
    >> "'s" for plural and possessive because it is soooo much simpler than
    >> remembering all those pesky rules.

    >
    > * -s for plural
    > * -' for posessives of nouns that already end in "s"
    > * -'s for posessives of other nouns
    >
    > tonnes of rules, yes.


    I think some people include
    * -'s for abbreviation of "is"
    * -s for possessive of pronoun "it"

    (which they shouldn't, but remembering the difference between verbs,
    nouns and pronouns is too complicated for some ;-) )

    BTW - anyone complaining about 'tons' of rules for English grammar
    should really try and learn some Dutch. And after they master all the
    rules, they should check the latest spelling changes and relearn the
    rules again :\

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Apr 10, 2006
    #19
  20. David Graham

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > Jim Moe wrote:
    >
    > > Well, given how often it is gotten wrong... I suspect people are using
    > > "'s" for plural and possessive because it is soooo much simpler than
    > > remembering all those pesky rules.

    >
    > * -s for plural
    > * -' for posessives of nouns that already end in "s"
    > * -'s for posessives of other nouns
    >
    > tonnes of rules, yes.


    So, your modern metric eye stamps itself on common English
    expressions... the way of the future I guess. When decimal
    currency and weights and measures were introduced into some
    countries, there were penalties in law for using the old measures
    and expressions (after a certain grace period). I bet never
    enforced! Still, it is wise to be safe, Toby, you never know who
    might be reading this...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 10, 2006
    #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. George Kooper
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,032
    Andrew Thompson
    Jan 20, 2004
  2. sathya_me

    I don't understand a past thread (help)

    sathya_me, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    291
    CBFalconer
    Sep 2, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,495
  4. Aries Sun
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    286
    Aries Sun
    Sep 22, 2007
  5. sandeep

    Help needed (understand C function)

    sandeep, Jun 6, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    517
Loading...

Share This Page