Help Request about 4.01 Strict

[Jonathan N. Little]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jonathan N. Little"

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

Whereas a:link:hover *is* supported by IE (IIRC - you've got me doubting
myself now). Easier just to not use <a name=""> in the first place
though.

Agree there totally, NN4 @.01% on my site!

 

[Ed Mulroy]

1-I am not in Australia.

Your loss. ;-)

Agreed but I've managed to pleasantly survive in North Carolina and New
Jersey.

I went to Australia after visiting New Zealand. It is a pretty country - at
least in the Southeast as that was all I saw. Sydney was nice if a bit
crowded. Melbourne reminded me of San Francisco because of the
trolleys/cable cars but also seemed a bit dangerous (there was the first
time I'd seen barriers between taxi drivers and their passengers).
Australians were friendly except for in Canberra where all seemed a bit
rude. I was annoyed by the fact that the rudest all had American accents.
Of all the places I liked Cooma and the people there the best. The currency
controls were a pain but apparently successful since $1 Australian equalled
$1.40 US. Of course that was a while ago - the opera house was fairly new
and they kicked Sinatra out while I was there.

.. Ed

 

[Ed Mulroy]

Finally, a convincing argument for investigating in depth the alternatives
to tables.

... you know those
jokes where you wish for something ...

My grandmother used to speak of an ancient Chinese curse which was "may you
get what you wish for".

.. Ed

 

[Ed Mulroy]

THANK YOU!!!!! I'll do that.

If the truth be known, I'd gladly trade Firefox' better css support for it
not occasionally locking up when it shells to Adobe Acrobat to display a
*.PDF file. Unlike IE it has tabs and when one instance locks up that often
means 3 other pages are also gone.

.. Ed

Jonathan N. Little wrote in message

No, I don't want that. The a:hover is as I want it. I do not want to
discard behavior that I worked to achieve because Firefox decides to
decorate a non-link as if it were a link. It decorates acronym items
also although not in any way that you can control or turn off.


As I have described, Firefox treats it differently for
<a name=

Actually it is IE that flubbing up here, an 'A 'element whether it is an
anchor or a link is *still* an 'A' element. So...

A:hover should apply to markup as <a name="anAnchor>Some Anchor</a>

To fix it your use an attribute selector to specify only 'A' elements that
have 'href' attributes, i.e, links!

STYLE:
A { color: yellow; }
A[href]:link { color: blue; }
A[href]:visted { color: violet; }
A[href]:hover { color: green; }
A[href]:active { color: red; }
/* yes I know i didn't spec a background */

HTML:

<a name="anAnchor">An Achor</a>
<a href="#">A Link</a>

Now only the link hovers, problem is IE again is the problem with poor CSS
support. So you can work around by:

1) stop using <a name="something"></a> and reference an id on an element
<h2 id="someAnchor>... or <p id="anotherAnchor">...
2) have hovered links defined with a class
3) enclose hovered link some other element whereas your can define the
hovers

.gotLinks A:hover{}


<div class="gotLinks">Blah, blah blah <a href="#">Will Hover</a>...

You just have more studying to do....

 

[Ed Mulroy]

... Just don't force that choice on your other visitors,

since you have no way of knowing their preference.

Their preference applies only as much as is consistent with delivering them
the information I provided in a manner which I have provided. If you've
ever spent time teaching a class you would know that presentation is often
that which separates successfully imparting knowledge from wasting time.

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_do_I_force

I do not agree. That a user with sufficient education about how the browser
works can counteract some thing in my web pages is not a valid argument that
I should not do that in the pages. From that then perhaps I not provide
text on the pages because he can make it too small to read. Should I not
add air to my tires because someone could let the air out? The argument on
that page is specious.

.. Ed

 

[Ed Mulroy]

BTW: Please don't post upside down.

I don't. That's why I post at the top.

I quote a reasonable approximation to the full content of the message at the
bottom. On rare occasions some of the previous post (2nd back) is included
in the bottom quoting because things make more sense with it in there. What
is at the bottom is normally edited to delete extraneous items and
reformatted to still fit on the line with the "> " addition. If there is a
certain part of that to which I am replying that if placed above what I am
saying makes things more clear then I place a copy of it above much as I
have done now.

News groups are threaded trees of messages. Those viewing read through
messages as presented in those trees. When they get to my message they know
what went before and need little if any of that placed above my reply. What
they do need is to see the message without needing to press PgDn.

.. Ed - top posting for 21 years, no plans to change

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Tables are easy. CSS is not easy.

I thought that as well, about five or six years ago. After futzing with
it for a few weeks, it suddenly clicked. Picture a big light bulb over
the head like in a cartoon. I do mean it *clicked!* A big Ahhh-HA!

If it were then there wouldn't be so many megs of blogs and web site
tutorials trying to explain how to do the same things that tables do.

Read a bunch of them myself, after the fact. My feeling is that most are
trying to turn on that light bulb for the millions of web authors who
haven't found the switch on their own.

Man in forest chops down tree with axe; takes twenty minutes. Logger
walks up, gives him chain saw and explains how to start it; next tree
felled in two minutes.

(There are just as many tutorials on designing sites with tables...)

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

I don't. That's why I post at the top.

A: Top-posting.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

To put it another way:

open the front cover and begin reading there?
the back cover and end up at the front or do you
chapter one or do you start somewhere near
When reading a book, do you start at

News groups are threaded trees of messages. Those viewing read through
messages as presented in those trees.

Sometimes. If the previous messages are even on their news server.

What
they do need is to see the message without needing to press PgDn.

Which is why you trim unnecessary quotes, only quoting the minimum
required to give context. Much of the time you already do this, you just
quote the entire post again underneath.

. Ed - top posting for 21 years, no plans to change

You'll find that many of the most knowledgeable members of the group
will quickly learn to ignore your posts if you continue to top-post.

 

[Steven Saunderson]

I don't. That's why I post at the top.

Well, it is your choice and is better in some cases. After considering
the third paragraph in your post it would seem even better if you didn't
bother including any of the previous post(s) at all because most readers
would already be aware of the content. Perhaps you could include a link
to the previous post to assist the small number of readers that would
like to refer to it.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

. Ed - top posting for 21 years, no plans to change

Has Outlook Express been around that long?

I could *swear* that top-posting originated when Outlook Express decided
it wanted to be a news reader...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

THANK YOU!!!!! I'll do that.

If the truth be known, I'd gladly trade Firefox' better css support for it
not occasionally locking up when it shells to Adobe Acrobat to display a
*.PDF file. Unlike IE it has tabs and when one instance locks up that often
means 3 other pages are also gone.

What are you talking about?

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

Man in forest chops down tree with axe; takes twenty minutes. Logger
walks up, gives him chain saw and explains how to start it; next tree
felled in two minutes.

....Then Neredbojias walks up with 100 tons of dynamite and says, "Move it,
cretin." Toothpicks in 10 seconds.

 

[Neredbojias]

I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
might fix my page.

I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
Transitional to 4.01 Strict. ....
The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
http://validator.w3.org/

The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
<a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>

What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
new window? (please, not javascript)

Wow, you seemed to have spawned a plethora of opinionated opinions. So, I
may as well join in.

There is no "target" attribute in non-frames html 4.01 strict. Forget it.
Or use transitional.

On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
<table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">

However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
bottom of the left hand menu column.

Left align is the default. Why would you need to state it?

 

[Steve Pugh]

Left align is the default. Why would you need to state it?

Setting align="left" on a table acts the same as setting float:left;

So whilst the default is for the table to be adjacent to the left hand
edge of its container, the default is not for following content to
flow alongside the right hand side of the table.

As the OP didn't say what CSS he used to try and replace the align
attribute we can't say what he was doing wrong, but if he sets float:
left; then, barring clashes with other styles, the page should behave
the same as with align="left".

Steve

 

[dorayme]

There is no "target" attribute in non-frames html 4.01 strict. Forget it.

OK, there is a scrum on here and I want to dive in too:

There is a target="_blank" and you can use it in 4.01 strict and
it will by and large work as you want it to work. The small
immediate price is validation. If you really want to use 4.01
rather than a transitional, if you want pages to open in new
windows, if you want the whole goddamn world, then you have to
pay something somewhere sometime. Something always has to give in
every situation. You earthlings by and large [1] are not little
gods that can be perfect.

[1] With the exception of Spartanicus.

 

[dorayme]

Setting align="left" on a table acts the same as setting float:left;

?

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Steve Pugh <[email protected]>
vouchsafed:

Setting align="left" on a table acts the same as setting float:left;

So whilst the default is for the table to be adjacent to the left hand
edge of its container, the default is not for following content to
flow alongside the right hand side of the table.

Interesting, I don't think I ever knew that. Tend to shy away from
"align=xxx" in html, (especially in divs.) And now with css...well, it's
obvious.

As the OP didn't say what CSS he used to try and replace the align
attribute we can't say what he was doing wrong, but if he sets float:
left; then, barring clashes with other styles, the page should behave
the same as with align="left".

Yep.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, dorayme

OK, there is a scrum on here and I want to dive in too:

There is a target="_blank" and you can use it in 4.01 strict and
it will by and large work as you want it to work. The small
immediate price is validation.

That's all I was saying. It usually _does_ work, but is invalid.
Personally, I don't think Raggett should have eliminated it, either. -A
bad move.

If you really want to use 4.01
rather than a transitional, if you want pages to open in new
windows, if you want the whole goddamn world, then you have to
pay something somewhere sometime. Something always has to give in
every situation. You earthlings by and large [1] are not little
gods that can be perfect.

[1] With the exception of Spartanicus.

What's so great about Spartanicus? His very name means "paltry thing".

 

[Martin Jay]

Whoops! <g> How come you haven't added
body { background: #fff; } yet?

Hey, give a man a chance!!!

I've taken your earlier tip and changed my default browser colours to
something suitably nasty, so that such problems are highlighted in the
future.

I prefer a slightly off-white background, like #dfdfdf but that wouldn't
go well with the non-transparent backgrounds of your main images...

Tried that, but T wanted white. You can't argue with an artist.

 

[Ed Mulroy]

What are you talking about?

The tabs are pleasant. However when it locks up and you have to cancel the
process to get rid of it all the pages shown in tabs are closed along with
the page in which Adobe Acrobat failed. My current defense for this is that
when encountering a link to a PDF file, copy the link, start an instance of
IE and open it in an IE window.

.. Ed