"invisible" image

[sjp]

I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
attribute.

When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
im­age appear.

But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
no image!


Any idea what is happening? Thanks.


FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
straightforward.

 

[Oli Filth]

FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
straightforward.

They may well be simple, but something odd is clearly happening, so
you'll probably get more success if you post a URI, or at the very least
some code (a URI is preferable)

 

[Steve Pugh]

I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
attribute.

When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
im­age appear.

But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
no image!

Which browser(s)?
What's the URL?

Sounds like it could be the IE peekaboo bug.

Steve

 

[sjp]

Which browser(s)?
What's the URL?

Sounds like it could be the IE peekaboo bug.

Steve

--

IE 6+
its a site under devlopment, so its not online. But the whole site is
only 3 pages and maybe two pages worth of code (including the CSS) so
I could post the code without taking up much space. What section would
be most useful, or should I just post the style sheet and the whole
HTML page? (They are small)
Thanks....and what is the "peekaboo" bug?

 

[Richard]

I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
attribute.

When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
im­age appear.

But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
no image!

Any idea what is happening? Thanks.

FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
straightforward.

Are you trying to use <img src="name.jpg align="left">???

If so, sorry, but that attribute is for tables not styling.
Try this instead: <img src="name.jpg" style="text-align:left;">


What you need to do is to learn how css styling functions.
What is done in tables and styles are two different things.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Are you trying to use <img src="name.jpg align="left">???

Yes Richard, he said that. (Except that he probably didn't miss a
quote out)

If so, sorry, but that attribute is for tables not styling.

Rubbish. See the HTML spec. align is a valid attribute for <img>. It's
deprecated and should be replaced with CSS but not with the CSS you
suggest...

Try this instead: <img src="name.jpg" style="text-align:left;">

Totally different. That aligns the content of the img element to the
left. As <img> doesn't have any content it's meaningless.

float: left would be the correct CSS equivalent. If it is a variant of
the peekaboo bug as I suggested then the CSS will trigger it just the
same.

What you need to do is to learn how css styling functions.

Why don't you?

Steve

 

[Jan Faerber]

Steve Pugh wrote:

float: left would be the correct CSS equivalent. If it is a variant of
the peekaboo bug as I suggested then the CSS will trigger it just the
same.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

correct?

 

[Jan Faerber]

But the whole site is
only 3 pages and maybe two pages worth of code (including the CSS) so
I could post the code without taking up much space.

Does it look like this:

|---------------------|---------------------|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|---------------------|---------------------|
| |
| |
| |
|-------------------------------------------|

.... frame#1, frame#2, frame#3?

lol

 

[Jan Faerber]

They may well be simple, but something odd is clearly happening, so
you'll probably get more success if you post a URI, or at the very least
some code (a URI is preferable)

 

[Steve Pugh]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

correct?

What's correct? That's the correct URL for the part of the
specification that defines floats, yes. Were you unsure?

Steve

 

[Jan Faerber]

What's correct? That's the correct URL for the part of the
specification that defines floats, yes. Were you unsure?

Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
case folded? They have transitional, frameset and strict. /TR stands for
transitional? Isn't strict the recommended version? And CSS2. 'floating' is
not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?

To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.

 

[rf]

Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
case folded? They have transitional, frameset and strict. /TR stands for
transitional? Isn't strict the recommended version? And CSS2. 'floating' is
not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?

Could you email me some of those drugs you are using. They sound very
colourfully 1970-ish

To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.

Er, no.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
case folded?

Floats are indeed not deprecated. I have no idea what "special case
folded" means.

They have transitional, frameset and strict.

HTML 4, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 do.

But that has nothing to do with CSS except that if you use Strict
rather than Transitional you will inevitably end up using CSS for your
presentation rather than HTML.

/TR stands for transitional?

No TR stands for Technical Recommendation.

Isn't strict the recommended version?

Of HTML, but we're talking about CSS now.

And CSS2. 'floating' is not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?

No it is defined in CSS1, CSS2.1 and CSS 3 as well.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1.html#float

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#floating

To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.

Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
then you style it with CSS.

Steve

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

Could you email me some of those drugs you are using. They sound very
colourfully 1970-ish

60's LSD had way more colors

 

[Jan Faerber]

Floats are indeed not deprecated. I have no idea what "special case
folded" means.

'Case folding' comes from XML ... I read a php book this morning. They use
this expression because it can be hardly translated into german, there are
definitely no german expressions for it. I used this expression because I
thought it ment 'one case inherits another one' but obviously it has more
to do with upper_case and lower_case and to get all xml tags in upper_case
letters.
I will try to abandon fake words in further postings.

HTML 4, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 do.

But that has nothing to do with CSS except that if you use Strict
rather than Transitional you will inevitably end up using CSS for your
presentation rather than HTML.

I see.

No TR stands for Technical Recommendation.
OK!


Of HTML, but we're talking about CSS now.


No it is defined in CSS1, CSS2.1 and CSS 3 as well.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1.html#float
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#floating

I knew I didn't know anything.

Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
then you style it with CSS.

I didn't mean 'content' of the page that you can read and browse.
More what elements you can use.
At first you do HTML and then CSS ... <gulp> this can produce more work than
necessary.

 

[rf]

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:


60's LSD had way more colors

Mr D sir! I was in school during the 60's.

Come to think of it they *were* more colourfull.

I remember a certain day up in Coonabarrabran during the summer of 68 with a
certain pop band, er, ... well, ah, no I umm don't, not that well

 

[Steve Pugh]

I didn't mean 'content' of the page that you can read and browse.

That's what most people round here mean when they say content. If you
want to use your own meaning then please let us know so we can
understand what you're trying to say.

More what elements you can use.

The most appropriate ones. Look at the HTML 4 spec for a list of the
available elements, note that a few of them (<center>, <font>, etc.
are deprecated and should only be used if you have a very, very, very
good reason for not using the alternatives). Then look at your content
and decide which element matches the purpose of each piece of content.
If in doubt ask here.

At first you do HTML and then CSS ... <gulp> this can produce more work than
necessary.

You can skip all the work by sending text files instead. But then you
lose out on all those nice hyperlinks and so on.

You can skip the CSS portion of the work by sending unstyled HTML
only. You'll have a perfectly functional web site with all the content
marked up appropriately, but it will be rendered with the browser's
default presentation (which often leaves something to be desired).

If you want a working web page that also looks pleasant and
distinctive then you need to do the work. So in those terms it is
necessary.

However, unless you're planning to give every page a unique look you
only need to do the CSS portion of the work once for a whole site.

Steve

 

[Jan Faerber]

That's what most people round here mean when they say content. If you
want to use your own meaning then please let us know so we can
understand what you're trying to say.

Yes, but it is a HTML group, it is mainly html - more tangential is flash,
javascript, Applets ... you have thousands of documentations on www.w3.org
and www.w3c.org and so on and on those link collections, you read some
pages and then you find other pages that try to organize the content of
those pages.

The most appropriate ones. Look at the HTML 4 spec for a list of the
available elements, note that a few of them (<center>, <font>, etc.
are deprecated and should only be used if you have a very, very, very
good reason for not using the alternatives). Then look at your content
and decide which element matches the purpose of each piece of content.
If in doubt ask here.

Not only elements ... elements, attributes, messures and all this.

You can skip all the work by sending text files instead. But then you
lose out on all those nice hyperlinks and so on.

You can skip the CSS portion of the work by sending unstyled HTML
only. You'll have a perfectly functional web site with all the content
marked up appropriately, but it will be rendered with the browser's
default presentation (which often leaves something to be desired).

If you want a working web page that also looks pleasant and
distinctive then you need to do the work. So in those terms it is
necessary.

However, unless you're planning to give every page a unique look you
only need to do the CSS portion of the work once for a whole site.

Yes, but if you know that you want to use CSS you have to do it
simultaniously - html and css.

 

[kchayka]

When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.

As Steve suggested, this is no doubt a case of the IE peekaboo bug.

On <img>, the align attribute (left/right values) and CSS float property
are equivalent, at least where IE rendering is concerned. The same work
arounds for float should also work for align.

<URL:http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/peekaboo.html>

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Jan Faerber scribbled in the mud:

They use
this expression because it can be hardly translated into german, there are
definitely no german expressions for it.

<german> has been depreciated in favor of <english>