Help Request about 4.01 Strict

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Ed Mulroy"

I had not noticed the CSS 'overflow' property - I'll look for it now.
Thank you.

Links sliding under or over a photo is something I am willing to go to
great lengths to avoid. I've seen that a lot on web pages and, with
regard to usability, it is debilitating.

There are ways to do this with css, which can also emulate your current
table functionality, but I'm not going to say it is any easier than "the
old methods".

 

[Steve Pugh]

?

??

Okay so my wording wasn't the most elegant but what are you
questioning?

Steve

 

[dorayme]

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

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".

He has enough majesty to qualify for the job. Accept this Boji.

 

[dorayme]

The replies I received told of three things:

- 4.01 strict has removed the ability to do what I wanted

- JavaScript can do what I want and one gentleman was
even kind enough to post code which does it. I wish to
avoid JavaScript and said so, but he correctly deduced
that with no alternative under 4.01 strict the desire to
avoid it lessens.

- Many people felt that launching a page in a new window
should not be done because it is not on their personal list
of items used for presentation and posted links to web
pages which echo their opinions. I respect their opinions
but am less receptive to the idea that mine are therefore
invalid.

You were also told you could use transitional and even strict but
forego validation. And other things too.

 

[dorayme]

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/Amberlithe/

I used to do some horiz menus like yours:

<div>
<a
href="http://N.webring.com/wrman?ring=ibizanring;sid=23;addsite">J
oin Now</a>
| <a href="ht

etc

Simple and effective. Might go back to it as I often don't end up
using the power to style other things in such a simple horiz
"list" when using fancy doodle lists with just left or right or
both left and right only borders to make for a separator.

Perhaps you might be thinking it is not really a list, this under
the "Ibizan Hound Webring"?

 

[dorayme]

??

Okay so my wording wasn't the most elegant but what are you
questioning?

Steve

No, your wording was fine. I was losing the context probably. I
tried what seemed to me a surprising possibility, that free text
or a small pic that has plenty of room, will go to the right when
you stick in <table align="left">

As I expected, it did not work even when assigning small table
width to help the matter along. The text went under.

So I was missing the context and was lazy to go back and attend.
But there was a nagging thing that maybe I should be knowing what
you are saying anyway. The ? was the simplest way to "do"
something about it and get back to my work.

 

[Ed Mulroy]

Yes, you are correct.

.. Ed

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I used to do some horiz menus like yours:

<div>
<a
href="http://N.webring.com/wrman?ring=ibizanring;sid=23;addsite">J
oin Now</a>
| <a href="ht

etc

Simple and effective. Might go back to it as I often don't end up
using the power to style other things in such a simple horiz
"list" when using fancy doodle lists with just left or right or
both left and right only borders to make for a separator.

Sorry not sure what your are saying here.

Perhaps you might be thinking it is not really a list, this under
the "Ibizan Hound Webring"?

If you look at the source, that code really is not mine, it is some
tweaked web ring crap. I was supposed to use the JavaScript insertion
that is commented out, but it was so full of errors that I just tweaked
the output and put 'fixed' results hard-coded. Been trying for years to
get them to fix it, but now I have just given up!

 

[dorayme]

Sorry not sure what your are saying here.

One can make a horizontal line of links in at least two ways:

<div>TextLink | TextLink | TextLink | TextLink</div>

or via (with display:inline; on the <li>s)

<ul>
<li> TextLink</li>
<li> TextLink</li>
<li> TextLink</li>
</ul>

For many simple lines of links, the former is the simplest and
quickest if one does not want any background boxes and fancy
hover effects (save on the links - <a ...> - themselves). But it
involves mixing presentation with content. (...doing the wrong
thing is so easy and effective in isolated cases)

If you look at the source, that code really is not mine, it is some
tweaked web ring crap. I was supposed to use the JavaScript insertion
that is commented out, but it was so full of errors that I just tweaked
the output and put 'fixed' results hard-coded. Been trying for years to
get them to fix it, but now I have just given up!

Ah, so it was not yours, that explains it, I know you are very
strict. So, if you don't cheat and use "|" (the key that is under
the delete key (at least on a Mac) and needs to be used in
conjunction with the shift key) for presentational separators in
a line of links, blowed if I am going to do it either...

But I miss the utter simplicity of it and the nicer look of the
seperator from that of the border. You see, I think the problem
in the looks is this: I like the part where the separator is not
as tall as the text, look at the y and p, how they protrude down:

p | y

Never mind why I like this for now. I can't immediately see how
to achieve this with borders.

But there will be little patience by most here for such obsessive
details - "just use left or right borders in the usual way, 1px
and shut up, dorayme!"

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

One can make a horizontal line of links in at least two ways:

<div>TextLink | TextLink | TextLink | TextLink</div>

I have no problem with above, If your are using server-side script, it
is real easy to create, build links into an array, then join using a |
"pipe" character...PHP:

echo implode( '|', $arrayOfLinks );

or via (with display:inline; on the <li>s)

<ul>
<li> TextLink</li>
<li> TextLink</li>
<li> TextLink</li>
</ul>

For many simple lines of links, the former is the simplest and
quickest if one does not want any background boxes and fancy
hover effects (save on the links - <a ...> - themselves). But it
involves mixing presentation with content. (...doing the wrong
thing is so easy and effective in isolated cases)


Ah, so it was not yours, that explains it, I know you are very
strict. So, if you don't cheat and use "|" (the key that is under
the delete key (at least on a Mac) and needs to be used in
conjunction with the shift key) for presentational separators in
a line of links, blowed if I am going to do it either...

But I miss the utter simplicity of it and the nicer look of the
seperator from that of the border. You see, I think the problem
in the looks is this: I like the part where the separator is not
as tall as the text, look at the y and p, how they protrude down:

p | y

Well your still can using a list...you got me thinking and this is what
I came up with:

<style type="text/css">
UL.linkbar { list-style: none; }
UL.linkbar LI { display: inline; }
UL.linkbar LI + LI:before { content: "| "; }
</style>



<ul class="linkbar">
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
</ul>

No borders, uses a list and pure CSS and your beloved* pipe character!

Actually I like it too with the whole business encloses in square brackets:

[ link | link | link ]

Just the pure simplicity.

But of course the above technique doesn't work with that ubiquitous
program the tries to pass itself off as a web browser!

Never mind why I like this for now. I can't immediately see how
to achieve this with borders.

But there will be little patience by most here for such obsessive
details - "just use left or right borders in the usual way, 1px
and shut up, dorayme!"

 

[dorayme]

<div>TextLink | TextLink | TextLink | TextLink</div>

I have no problem with above,[/QUOTE]

Well, I would have thought you would have at least a little
problem with it? It is, in meaning, a list of links but using
presentational html? But perhaps you are saying you are not such
a goody-two-shoes to that extent?

.....

Well your still can using a list...you got me thinking and this is what
I came up with:

<style type="text/css">
UL.linkbar { list-style: none; }
UL.linkbar LI { display: inline; }
UL.linkbar LI + LI:before { content: "| "; }
</style>



<ul class="linkbar">
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
<li>Link</li>
</ul>

Lemme me try this right now!

Nope, no go in any of my Mac browsers (IE, Safari, iCab, Opera,
FF)?

No borders, uses a list and pure CSS and your beloved* pipe character!

Actually I like it too with the whole business encloses in square brackets:

[ link | link | link ]

Just the pure simplicity.

But of course the above technique doesn't work with that ubiquitous
program the tries to pass itself off as a web browser!

Yes, well, now that is a showstopper! You got my hopes up for a
while.

(just btw, I am not sure about the sq brackets unless it has a
function as some sort of aside. A footnote by its very position
would not need them, which is where I am most fond of dead simple
pipe separated links).

 

[dorayme]

Lemme me try this right now!

Nope, no go in any of my Mac browsers (IE, Safari, iCab, Opera,
FF)?

Stop! I was wrong. It _does_ work in _all_ my browsers including
IE.

No good in IE Win, you sure? What about IE7?

If it is no good in Win IE 5 and 6, I could practice my "speak
only to IEWin" conditionals or hacks (I like these things, they
are fun and I like life being awkward, I like chaotic
intersections when driving, I feel like in the dodgem cars at fun
fairs...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Stop! I was wrong. It _does_ work in _all_ my browsers including
IE.

Really? Does not work in IE6. But MacIE5 is a different beast than Win
version.

No good in IE Win, you sure? What about IE7?

No idea... I am still running Windows 2000, not interesting in
Fisher-Price GUI of XP.

If it is no good in Win IE 5 and 6, I could practice my "speak
only to IEWin" conditionals or hacks (I like these things, they
are fun and I like life being awkward, I like chaotic
intersections when driving, I feel like in the dodgem cars at fun
fairs...

Look at this one:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Test</title>

<style type="text/css">
UL.linkbar { list-style: none; }
UL.linkbar:before { content: "[ "; }
UL.linkbar:after { content: " ]"; }
UL.linkbar LI { display: inline; }
UL.linkbar LI + LI:before { content: "| "; }
}
</style>

<script type="text/javascript">
</script>

</head>
<body>
<ul class="linkbar">
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>

Works in Gecko and Opera but again no IE. It is a horizontal list but no
styling. IE appears to support neither the adjacent element selector nor
the :before and :after pseudo classes. Gotta love the old piece of crap!

 

[dorayme]

Stop! I was wrong. It _does_ work in _all_ my browsers including
IE.

Really? Does not work in IE6. But MacIE5 is a different beast than Win
version.
[/QUOTE]

Stop again, getting tired, got up to early and it is 9 hrs into
my work day already, it does _not_ show pipes in IE Mac...

Look at this one:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Test</title>

<style type="text/css">
UL.linkbar { list-style: none; }
UL.linkbar:before { content: "[ "; }
UL.linkbar:after { content: " ]"; }
UL.linkbar LI { display: inline; }
UL.linkbar LI + LI:before { content: "| "; }
}
</style>

<script type="text/javascript">
</script>

</head>
<body>
<ul class="linkbar">
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Link</a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>

Works in Gecko and Opera but again no IE. It is a horizontal list but no
styling. IE appears to support neither the adjacent element selector nor
the :before and :after pseudo classes. Gotta love the old piece of crap!

Again, fine in most browsers but not in IE5 on my Mac (inline is
fine, not the brackets)

 

[Chaddy2222]

I still do not understand why that is.


I thought that supporting them was pointless. Pages

<url's snipt>
As a blind webmaster, although I only do web design as a hobby, you
would be very surprised in what we are interested in.
As an example here in some states of Australia, it may be nation wide
but I am not sure, their are some blind golfers. I believe they also
have some compertisions at a few of the Victorian golf clubs, but I
have never had much of an interest in golf so I don't know the finer
details.
But, I also know of a lot of blind people who do enjoy a lot of other
activities, such as boating.
You can accomidate those of us useing screenreading software and sited
users with images disabled by useing appropreate alt text read more
here, http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips2.html
Yes, I thaught that might work. I believe I also made mention of it.

Unfortunately the float:left scheme does not properly present. When someone
narrows the window, one column drops to below the other instead of a
horizontal scroll bar appearing. I have not found anything in CSS which
when the screen is narrowed will put in a horizontal scroll bar instead of
hiding half of the page below the bottom of the screen.


I think the pages you looked at dimension in percent but on the other pages
the sidebars are dimensioned in ex. You and everyone else these days seem
to speak of em and not of ex. Please tell me if I am wrong to use ex
instead of em.

You would be wrong to use that for font sizeing as IE users can't
re-size the text very easyly.
By the way, you really should not be to fussed if something does not
look quite right, their is no way that your pages will render
identically in every single browser on the planet, the only way this
could happen is if they all implermented the W3C standards in the exact
same way. Which will not happen for a while, if ever.

Thank you. I had the intention of doing that that. There are about 93
files on the site and each would need to be edited. I have been
procrastinating.

I am an engineer, literally someone with a pocket protector and, at least in
the past, a slide rule. While I may be a bit creative with respect to
things like bandwidth, response time and fringing capacitance I have little
if any creativity of the sort needed to be a graphic designer. My web site
is admittedly uninspired. I welcome any comments and greatly appreciate
your suggestions.

. Ed

Look, if you use that many nested tables, then clearly you don't know
as much about concerving bandwidth.
Also, I know some of my spelling might not be that flash, but it's
better then your TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WEB ACCESSIBILITY!!!.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

You would be wrong to use that for font sizeing as IE users can't
re-size the text very easyly.

Chaddy, you may have read that as px instead of ex. My understanding is
that IE will resize with em or ex. It is with the use of px and pt where
IE fails.

For general use, this page says ex is better.
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Em_vs._ex>

Stephen Poley has a page on em/ex:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/emex.html>

Tho it is still best to use percents for font sizing...

 

[Chaddy2222]

Chaddy, you may have read that as px instead of ex. My understanding is
that IE will resize with em or ex. It is with the use of px and pt where
IE fails.

Ops, yes I do believe I did miss read that.
I thaught it might have been a typo on Eds part.

For general use, this page says ex is better.
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Em_vs._ex>

Stephen Poley has a page on em/ex:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/emex.html>

Tho it is still best to use percents for font sizing...

Yes, I agree.

 

[Ed Mulroy]

On the site descriptions are already given for the rooms. There is nothing
remaining to provide alt text for the photographs and floor plan.

The width of the menu is given in 'ex' units, not pixels. The font size is
not given in 'ex' units and cannot be as 'ex' is a function of the font
size.

Also, I know some of my spelling might not be that flash, but it's
better then your TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WEB ACCESSIBILITY!!!.

It would be better if you spent a little time reviewing the site before
pushing your caps lock and sticking labels on me.

.. Ed

 

[dorayme]

Also, I know some of my spelling might not be that flash, but it's
better then your TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WEB ACCESSIBILITY!!!.

Hi Chad, I am extremely interested to ask you a couple of things
because of the way you must be using computers and reading
websites. I realise that general table layout has many faults
but what I want to hear is an accurate view of how much of a
stumbling block, if any, it is in simple cases compared with,
say, an equally simple css driven organization of material.

Imagine a table layout that has just two cols and one row,
navigation in a list in one col, content in the other. Lets say
the nav col is read out first. In addition, the navigation col
has information as to which "link" corresponds to the content
that is presently available in the other.

All this compared to say a navigation list in one div ("floated
left" in the css) and a content section in another div.

I would be keen to hear anything you might comment on in this
regard that I am not likely to hear normally. What is it actually
like? There is a "summary" in the table saying what the two cols
are for, it being simple enough. From there on, how awkward an
experience is it? Compared with the two div arrangement?

Used to have a blind student, he was top of the class, I would
ask him if I could find him these days - he went on to greater
things and left me in his brilliant wake...

[Sorry to hijack this thread, but here you are and here am I..
and come to think of it, it might not be so bad considering OP is
being so "tough-minded" to go into it a bit. He seems a
reasonable bloke underneath and he might come around a bit in the
end]

 

[Neredbojias]

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

Chaddy, you may have read that as px instead of ex. My understanding is
that IE will resize with em or ex. It is with the use of px and pt where
IE fails.

For general use, this page says ex is better.
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Em_vs._ex>

The real problem with em (etc.) font-rendering in not so much "pixel
rounding" as is the use of dissimilar algorithms by different browsers to
determine a value. I would further hazard to say that browser variations
are more often a problem to markup authoring than simple standards non-
compliance.

Stephen Poley has a page on em/ex:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/emex.html>

Tho it is still best to use percents for font sizing...

But sometimes it's necessary to use ems, etc., such as in sizing a
container where percentages refer to a completely different dimension.