Nuts

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jon Slaughter, Apr 16, 2007.

  1. This stuff is getting on my nerves ;/

    I am trying to create a graphical variable size "button" that encapsulates a
    fixed position ul for a menu. I cannot get it to work at all.


    The button consists of 2 images for the right corners, one images for the
    bottom, one for the right most side, and the last for the filler.

    You can check it out by hover over one of the links at

    http://www.jonslaughter.com/MyPage.html


    I want to add corners to the sub menu along with a shadow at the bottom.

    I have the graphics and I've been trying for the last 2 hours to get
    something to work but everything comes out wrong because I cannot position
    absolutely to the fixed position container that holds the ul.

    http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test.html


    What I need to know is how nested containers with different combinations of
    positions work. On my sub menu with a position:fixed and if I do
    position:absolute on any element contained in it then my coordinates always
    end up relative to viewport.

    I've tried many things..

    if I do something like

    <div style="position:fixed">
    <div style="position:relative">
    </div></div>

    and in the second div dot he coordinates refer relative to the fixed
    container of the first? When I do stuff like that in my original code it
    totally screws up the menu. That is, I have to have the sub menu as fixed
    but when I try to create a container inside that that has relative coords it
    then screws up.

    Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?

    This crap is driving me nuts ;/

    Thanks for any help,
    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jon Slaughter

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    [...]
    > What I need to know is how nested containers with different combinations of
    > positions work. On my sub menu with a position:fixed and if I do
    > position:absolute on any element contained in it then my coordinates always
    > end up relative to viewport.
    >
    > I've tried many things..
    >
    > if I do something like
    >
    ><div style="position:fixed">
    ><div style="position:relative">
    ></div></div>
    >
    > and in the second div dot he coordinates refer relative to the fixed
    > container of the first? When I do stuff like that in my original code it
    > totally screws up the menu. That is, I have to have the sub menu as fixed
    > but when I try to create a container inside that that has relative coords it
    > then screws up.
    >
    > Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?


    If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    whatever you specify.

    absolute: origin is containing block infimum point (containing block is
    generally nearest ancestor with position of anything except static)

    fixed: origin is viewport infimum.

    relative: origin is infimum of normal-flow box.

    Yes the terms are very confusingly named. Relative is the odd one out--
    the box is flowed normally, and then offset at the last minute from its
    normal-flow position, leaving a gap where it was.
     
    Ben C, Apr 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html

    The boxes represent the partition that I need. The issue seems to be that I
    have to specify a height for it or it doesn't work. I thought that the
    outer most div would calculate the height but it doesn't seem to do this.

    For my application I can't(or don't) want to specify the height because it
    should be able to compute it automatically. Its just the height of the ul
    inside the divs + a few pixels for the border(in the example its 20px +
    height of ul).

    It looks like I'm going to have to do that though for each sub menu I have.
    Is there any way to get the user agent to calculate it for me? (specifying
    anying absolute fixed height isn't good as I have to do it for each time I
    use the box. Specifying auto doesn't work either)

    Thanks,
    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 16, 2007
    #3
  4. "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >> What I need to know is how nested containers with different combinations
    >> of
    >> positions work. On my sub menu with a position:fixed and if I do
    >> position:absolute on any element contained in it then my coordinates
    >> always
    >> end up relative to viewport.
    >>
    >> I've tried many things..
    >>
    >> if I do something like
    >>
    >><div style="position:fixed">
    >><div style="position:relative">
    >></div></div>
    >>
    >> and in the second div dot he coordinates refer relative to the fixed
    >> container of the first? When I do stuff like that in my original code it
    >> totally screws up the menu. That is, I have to have the sub menu as fixed
    >> but when I try to create a container inside that that has relative coords
    >> it
    >> then screws up.
    >>
    >> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?

    >
    > If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    > whatever you specify.


    ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use display:inline
    it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than display:block. The
    block shifted down while the inline is not.


    > absolute: origin is containing block infimum point (containing block is
    > generally nearest ancestor with position of anything except static)
    >
    > fixed: origin is viewport infimum.
    >
    > relative: origin is infimum of normal-flow box.
    >
    > Yes the terms are very confusingly named. Relative is the odd one out--
    > the box is flowed normally, and then offset at the last minute from its
    > normal-flow position, leaving a gap where it was.


    What I'm having trouble is, is how they inherit the positioning from there
    parent containers. I wasn't sure if it was inheriting or not before but my
    simple example seems to work(See other post). The issue seems to be that I
    have to specify the height because the user agent isn't calculating it for
    me the way I thought it would. I can specify the height but I'd rather not
    if possible.

    Thanks,
    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 16, 2007
    #4
  5. Jon Slaughter wrote:
    > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:


    >>>
    >>> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?

    >> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    >> whatever you specify.

    >
    > ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use display:inline
    > it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than display:block. The
    > block shifted down while the inline is not.
    >


    Floats, absolutely positioned elements, inline-blocks, table-cells,
    table-captions, and elements with 'overflow' other than 'visible'
    (except when that value has been propagated to the viewport) establish
    new block formatting contexts.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15

    You could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you study up a bit on CSS.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Jon Slaughter

    Bergamot Guest

    Jon Slaughter wrote:
    > http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html


    Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    They're only pretending to be borders anyway.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Apr 16, 2007
    #6
  7. "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:6d47f$4623f2d1$40cba7c7$...
    > Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >> "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?
    >>> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    >>> whatever you specify.

    >>
    >> ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use
    >> display:inline it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than
    >> display:block. The block shifted down while the inline is not.
    >>

    >
    > Floats, absolutely positioned elements, inline-blocks, table-cells,
    > table-captions, and elements with 'overflow' other than 'visible' (except
    > when that value has been propagated to the viewport) establish new block
    > formatting contexts.
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15
    >
    > You could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you study up a bit on
    > CSS.
    >
    >


    ****. I'm reading the css spec now. You seem to have to point out every time
    someone wants some help(or just me specifically) to go somewhere else. If
    you don't like me asking questions then thats just tough cause you can't do
    a damn thing about it but bitch.
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #7
  8. "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html

    >
    > Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    > and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    > They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
    >


    Yes but it doesn't look as good. I went ahead and sorta hard coded the stuff
    and the results are almost exactly what I want:

    http://www.jonslaughter.com/MyPage.html



    But I need to somehow shift the sub menu boxes up a few pixes to make them
    look better. Every time I do something like top:-10px it absolutely offsets
    it from the top of the browser. Its so damn annoying.



    Thanks,

    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #8
  9. "Jon Slaughter" <> wrote in message
    news:FFTUh.17144$...
    >
    > "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html

    >>
    >> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    >> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    >> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
    >>

    >
    > Yes but it doesn't look as good. I went ahead and sorta hard coded the
    > stuff and the results are almost exactly what I want:
    >
    > http://www.jonslaughter.com/MyPage.html
    >
    >
    >
    > But I need to somehow shift the sub menu boxes up a few pixes to make them
    > look better. Every time I do something like top:-10px it absolutely
    > offsets it from the top of the browser. Its so damn annoying.
    >
    >


    OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess. I don't know why I have to
    nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing in
    absolute mode off the current content block.

    To shift the things I had to encause the menu's in two divs, on in relative
    positioning and the other in absolute. If I just did one or the other it
    wouldn't work ;/


    crap... in IE the shifting screws it up. IE seems to only shift 1/2 of what
    firefox does ;/ guess I can solve it with a conditional shift.


    Thanks,
    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Jon Slaughter wrote:
    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    > news:6d47f$4623f2d1$40cba7c7$...
    >> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>> "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    >>>>> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or block?
    >>>> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    >>>> whatever you specify.
    >>> ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use
    >>> display:inline it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than
    >>> display:block. The block shifted down while the inline is not.
    >>>

    >> Floats, absolutely positioned elements, inline-blocks, table-cells,
    >> table-captions, and elements with 'overflow' other than 'visible' (except
    >> when that value has been propagated to the viewport) establish new block
    >> formatting contexts.
    >>
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15
    >>
    >> You could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you study up a bit on
    >> CSS.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > ****. I'm reading the css spec now. You seem to have to point out every time
    > someone wants some help(or just me specifically) to go somewhere else. If
    > you don't like me asking questions then thats just tough cause you can't do
    > a damn thing about it but bitch.
    >
    >

    1) This is not a help desk but a discussion group.
    2) I have been trying to direct you to where you might learn something
    that could help you.
    3) Just love your bubbly cheerful demeanor!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 17, 2007
    #10
  11. "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:95ab1$46242828$40cba7c7$...
    > Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >> "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    >> news:6d47f$4623f2d1$40cba7c7$...
    >>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>> "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    >>>>>> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or
    >>>>>> block?
    >>>>> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display:
    >>>>> block
    >>>>> whatever you specify.
    >>>> ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use
    >>>> display:inline it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than
    >>>> display:block. The block shifted down while the inline is not.
    >>>>
    >>> Floats, absolutely positioned elements, inline-blocks, table-cells,
    >>> table-captions, and elements with 'overflow' other than 'visible'
    >>> (except when that value has been propagated to the viewport) establish
    >>> new block formatting contexts.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15
    >>>
    >>> You could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you study up a bit on
    >>> CSS.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> ****. I'm reading the css spec now. You seem to have to point out every
    >> time someone wants some help(or just me specifically) to go somewhere
    >> else. If you don't like me asking questions then thats just tough cause
    >> you can't do a damn thing about it but bitch.
    >>
    >>

    > 1) This is not a help desk but a discussion group.
    > 2) I have been trying to direct you to where you might learn something
    > that could help you.
    > 3) Just love your bubbly cheerful demeanor!
    >


    Oh... then its my fault then. I thought I could post question for help here.

    Sorry. I guess I'll try to find some place where people are willing to help
    instead of just discuss.
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Jon Slaughter

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    >
    > "Ben C" <> wrote in message

    [...]
    >> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display: block
    >> whatever you specify.

    >
    > ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it?


    You can't change it. If you specify absolute or fixed position for
    something with a value of display of inline, run-in, table-row-group,
    table-column, table-column-group, table-header-group,
    table-footer-group, table-row, table-cell, table-caption or inline-block
    what you get is display: block. See CSS 2.1 9.7.

    position: relative is completely different though.

    > If I use display:inline it works and looks different, atleast in
    > FireFox, than display:block.


    I'm surprised by that.

    [...]
    >> Yes the terms are very confusingly named. Relative is the odd one out--
    >> the box is flowed normally, and then offset at the last minute from its
    >> normal-flow position, leaving a gap where it was.

    >
    > What I'm having trouble is, is how they inherit the positioning from there
    > parent containers.


    Simple, they don't. position is never inherited.

    > I wasn't sure if it was inheriting or not before but my simple example
    > seems to work(See other post). The issue seems to be that I have to
    > specify the height because the user agent isn't calculating it for me
    > the way I thought it would. I can specify the height but I'd rather
    > not if possible.


    See also section 10.6 of the spec.
     
    Ben C, Apr 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Jon Slaughter

    Bergamot Guest

    Jon Slaughter wrote:
    > "Jon Slaughter" <> wrote in message
    > news:FFTUh.17144$...
    >>
    >> "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
    >>>
    >>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    >>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    >>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.

    >>
    >> Yes but it doesn't look as good.


    Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
    http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
    So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?

    > OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.


    No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
    things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
    about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
    instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.

    CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
    think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
    something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
    does take effort.

    > I don't know why I have to
    > nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing in
    > absolute mode off the current content block.


    Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.

    > crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.


    Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
    http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Apr 17, 2007
    #13
  14. "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >> "Jon Slaughter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:FFTUh.17144$...
    >>>
    >>> "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    >>>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    >>>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
    >>>
    >>> Yes but it doesn't look as good.

    >
    > Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
    > http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
    > So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?
    >


    It does but that is not what I want for my home page.

    >> OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.

    >
    > No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
    > things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
    > about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
    > instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.
    >


    I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for last
    15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
    consistancy. CSS is not consistant. Its not made to do what it should.
    Its markup and transformational abilities are amazing for what they do but
    they are severly limited. I program on and off though and the last few years
    I have not programming much except learning C# and .NET.

    > CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
    > think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
    > something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
    > does take effort.
    >


    Sure. But thats not something I want to do. I have more important things to
    do than learn every new super duper programming language that comes a long.
    I want to get my web site done and be over with it. I'm not a web designer
    or programming and I don't want to be. Sure I want to put together pages
    when I need to do but its way to much trouble to do simple stuff(mainly the
    browser differences).

    What pisses me off about web design and turns me off from it is the total
    lack of unification. This is a big deal when your developing cross system
    compatibility. Its just a mess IMO. CSS was suppose to fix that and be
    leveraged to increase the visual transformations of pre-existing html
    without interfering with incapable browsers... but when you have 20
    different browsers(including the same brower but different versions) and
    they all implement the specs differentialy or partially and one is expected
    to conform to them all then its total nuts.

    >> I don't know why I have to
    >> nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing
    >> in
    >> absolute mode off the current content block.

    >
    > Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.


    Well, I guess I haven't got that far in the spec(at the start of
    positioning). I'm sure the semantics of positioning for css could have been
    designed a bit better. .NET has an excellent methodology for positioning
    that CSS could take a few lessons from.

    >
    >> crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.

    >
    > Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
    > http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html


    Which is a complete turn off. I'm suppose to write code that is compatible
    for some browser that is a piece of crap... and not only that, theres about
    6 of them(IE 3 - IE7). IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if thats
    all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.

    What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code from
    the html if its IE 6 or lower and be done with it. If the user really wants
    to see the graphics then can upgrade to better browser.

    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Jon Slaughter

    al jones Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:17:49 GMT, Jon Slaughter wrote:

    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    > news:95ab1$46242828$40cba7c7$...
    >> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>> "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:6d47f$4623f2d1$40cba7c7$...
    >>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>>> "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On 2007-04-16, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> Maybe I need to specify something else besides display:inline or
    >>>>>>> block?
    >>>>>> If you set position: fixed or position: absolute, you get display:
    >>>>>> block
    >>>>>> whatever you specify.
    >>>>> ? You mean as a default or that I cannot change it? If I use
    >>>>> display:inline it works and looks different, atleast in FireFox, than
    >>>>> display:block. The block shifted down while the inline is not.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Floats, absolutely positioned elements, inline-blocks, table-cells,
    >>>> table-captions, and elements with 'overflow' other than 'visible'
    >>>> (except when that value has been propagated to the viewport) establish
    >>>> new block formatting contexts.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q15
    >>>>
    >>>> You could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you study up a bit on
    >>>> CSS.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> ****. I'm reading the css spec now. You seem to have to point out every
    >>> time someone wants some help(or just me specifically) to go somewhere
    >>> else. If you don't like me asking questions then thats just tough cause
    >>> you can't do a damn thing about it but bitch.


    Suggesting that you 'go somewhere else' might be the place you need to go
    to see what they are talking about. What *I* see is someone taking a
    scattergun approach ('Well, shit, this didn't work. What happens if I do
    this instead ...???') and I've been there - and it's easier on my
    frustration level to just sit back, read (or re-read) what they've
    suggested and *then* see what I can make this thing called HTML/CSS do.

    >>>
    >>>

    >> 1) This is not a help desk but a discussion group.
    >> 2) I have been trying to direct you to where you might learn something
    >> that could help you.
    >> 3) Just love your bubbly cheerful demeanor!
    >>

    >
    > Oh... then its my fault then. I thought I could post question for help here.

    You *can* post any type of mesage you choose. The type of response you're
    going to get depends on your comments and responsive to the answers. As
    Jonathan (I believe) said, this is not your (or anyones) private help desk.
    There have been times I've come in here, denser than a rock and gotten
    excellent help - it's then up to me to determine if it's *really* helpful
    or not. Jukka can be the example of this groups 'tough love', and
    sometimes he's so abrupt that one needs to ask for clarification and it
    usually follows.

    > Sorry. I guess I'll try to find some place where people are willing to help
    > instead of just discuss.

    Sorry you feel that way. You've instigated a couple of the longer threads
    seen in the past few days - which means the regulars are reading and
    responding to you. It's your choice if you decide that they aren't worth
    listening to.

    --
    //al
     
    al jones, Apr 17, 2007
    #15
  16. Jon Slaughter

    Bergamot Guest

    Jon Slaughter wrote:
    > "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jon Slaughter wrote:

    >
    >>> CSS is a fucking mess.

    >>
    >> If you took the time to actually learn

    >
    > I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for last
    > 15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
    > consistancy. CSS is not consistant.


    Yawn. I programmed in multiple assembly languages for more than 20
    years, plus a number of other languages. Sounds like you're just making
    excuses.

    >> CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn.

    >
    > Sure. But thats not something I want to do.
    > I'm not a web designer or programming and I don't want to be.


    Then go find yourself a ready-made template and be done with it.

    > IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if thats
    > all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.


    IE7 is just IE6 with some bug fixes and a weird UI. It is "pretty good"
    compared to IE6, but still falls rather short of other browsers.

    > What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code from
    > the html if its IE 6 or lower


    Are you using inline styles for the whole page? That's an awfully
    inefficient way to do things.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Apr 17, 2007
    #16
  17. Jon Slaughter

    al jones Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:34:56 GMT, Jon Slaughter wrote:

    > "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>> "Jon Slaughter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:FFTUh.17144$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
    >>>>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
    >>>>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes but it doesn't look as good.

    >>
    >> Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
    >> http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
    >> So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?
    >>

    >
    > It does but that is not what I want for my home page.
    >
    >>> OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.

    >>
    >> No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
    >> things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
    >> about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
    >> instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.
    >>

    >
    > I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for last
    > 15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
    > consistancy. CSS is not consistant. Its not made to do what it should.
    > Its markup and transformational abilities are amazing for what they do but
    > they are severly limited. I program on and off though and the last few years
    > I have not programming much except learning C# and .NET.
    >
    >> CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
    >> think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
    >> something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
    >> does take effort.
    >>

    >
    > Sure. But thats not something I want to do. I have more important things to
    > do than learn every new super duper programming language that comes a long.
    > I want to get my web site done and be over with it. I'm not a web designer
    > or programming and I don't want to be. Sure I want to put together pages
    > when I need to do but its way to much trouble to do simple stuff(mainly the
    > browser differences).
    >
    > What pisses me off about web design and turns me off from it is the total
    > lack of unification. This is a big deal when your developing cross system
    > compatibility. Its just a mess IMO. CSS was suppose to fix that and be
    > leveraged to increase the visual transformations of pre-existing html
    > without interfering with incapable browsers... but when you have 20
    > different browsers(including the same brower but different versions) and
    > they all implement the specs differentialy or partially and one is expected
    > to conform to them all then its total nuts.
    >
    >>> I don't know why I have to
    >>> nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing
    >>> in
    >>> absolute mode off the current content block.

    >>
    >> Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.

    >
    > Well, I guess I haven't got that far in the spec(at the start of
    > positioning). I'm sure the semantics of positioning for css could have been
    > designed a bit better. .NET has an excellent methodology for positioning
    > that CSS could take a few lessons from.
    >
    >>
    >>> crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.

    >>
    >> Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
    >> http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

    >
    > Which is a complete turn off. I'm suppose to write code that is compatible
    > for some browser that is a piece of crap... and not only that, theres about
    > 6 of them(IE 3 - IE7). IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if thats
    > all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.
    >
    > What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code from
    > the html if its IE 6 or lower and be done with it. If the user really wants
    > to see the graphics then can upgrade to better browser.
    >
    > Jon


    Jon me again. As an old programmer who's written so many different version
    of COBOL *any* discusssion about standardization of languages us a real
    joke. ((BTW, I also write in several version of BASIC, FORTRAN, C and have
    had some very enjoyable eperiences copnverting from one to the other, but
    that's an aside.))

    First: and I really think this has been pointed out endlessly in this
    newsgroup HTML / CSS are not languages - not in the sense that you and I
    would think of a programming language at all. I'll get called down for my
    loose terms, but they describe a web page and then suggest how the browser
    is to implement it - *NO* language I know of reaches to this level of
    'suggestion'. In any language it's easy enough to say 'turn on the pixel
    at xx,yy and when intrpreted or compiled the result will be (if the
    computer gods are willing) that the pixel at xx,yy is lit up in some
    fashion. That, though, makes several assumptions that we cannot make on
    the web - is the screen wide/long enough to have a pixel at that location,
    is there a screen (remember we define for 'read' systems here as well), is
    there a pixel to turn on?

    Secondly, given that you can program - this is *NOT* programming! When I
    write a business system I have *all* the constraints in place before I set
    pen to coding pad (or at least hope I do) which is something no one can do
    here - none of know definitively how our 'page' is going to be interpreted
    because there are just way too many possible pieces of equipment on which
    it can be displayed.

    Lastly, I know the learning curve for almost any language can be extreme -
    if you're not willing to extend that same intenseness to learning how to
    'code' a web page then my suggestion would be to let someone else do it for
    you.

    --
    //al
     
    al jones, Apr 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Jon Slaughter

    Jim Ford Guest

    al jones wrote:

    > Jon me again. As an old programmer who's written so many different version
    > of COBOL *any* discusssion about standardization of languages us a real
    > joke. ((BTW, I also write in several version of BASIC, FORTRAN, C and have
    > had some very enjoyable eperiences copnverting from one to the other, but
    > that's an aside.))


    Programming languages - luxury! When I were a lad, it were all switches
    valves, relays and mercury delay lines. We used to _dream_ about doing
    it with a keyboard!
    ;^)

    Jim Ford
     
    Jim Ford, Apr 17, 2007
    #18
  19. "al jones" <> wrote in message
    news:1e5jpu6h6o67d$...
    > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:34:56 GMT, Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >
    >> "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>> "Jon Slaughter" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:FFTUh.17144$...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Bergamot" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the
    >>>>>> top/bottom
    >>>>>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those
    >>>>>> divs.
    >>>>>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes but it doesn't look as good.
    >>>
    >>> Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
    >>> http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
    >>> So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?
    >>>

    >>
    >> It does but that is not what I want for my home page.
    >>
    >>>> OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.
    >>>
    >>> No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
    >>> things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
    >>> about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
    >>> instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for
    >> last
    >> 15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
    >> consistancy. CSS is not consistant. Its not made to do what it should.
    >> Its markup and transformational abilities are amazing for what they do
    >> but
    >> they are severly limited. I program on and off though and the last few
    >> years
    >> I have not programming much except learning C# and .NET.
    >>
    >>> CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
    >>> think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
    >>> something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
    >>> does take effort.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Sure. But thats not something I want to do. I have more important things
    >> to
    >> do than learn every new super duper programming language that comes a
    >> long.
    >> I want to get my web site done and be over with it. I'm not a web
    >> designer
    >> or programming and I don't want to be. Sure I want to put together pages
    >> when I need to do but its way to much trouble to do simple stuff(mainly
    >> the
    >> browser differences).
    >>
    >> What pisses me off about web design and turns me off from it is the total
    >> lack of unification. This is a big deal when your developing cross system
    >> compatibility. Its just a mess IMO. CSS was suppose to fix that and be
    >> leveraged to increase the visual transformations of pre-existing html
    >> without interfering with incapable browsers... but when you have 20
    >> different browsers(including the same brower but different versions) and
    >> they all implement the specs differentialy or partially and one is
    >> expected
    >> to conform to them all then its total nuts.
    >>
    >>>> I don't know why I have to
    >>>> nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing
    >>>> in
    >>>> absolute mode off the current content block.
    >>>
    >>> Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.

    >>
    >> Well, I guess I haven't got that far in the spec(at the start of
    >> positioning). I'm sure the semantics of positioning for css could have
    >> been
    >> designed a bit better. .NET has an excellent methodology for positioning
    >> that CSS could take a few lessons from.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.
    >>>
    >>> Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
    >>> http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

    >>
    >> Which is a complete turn off. I'm suppose to write code that is
    >> compatible
    >> for some browser that is a piece of crap... and not only that, theres
    >> about
    >> 6 of them(IE 3 - IE7). IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if
    >> thats
    >> all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.
    >>
    >> What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code
    >> from
    >> the html if its IE 6 or lower and be done with it. If the user really
    >> wants
    >> to see the graphics then can upgrade to better browser.
    >>
    >> Jon

    >
    > Jon me again. As an old programmer who's written so many different
    > version
    > of COBOL *any* discusssion about standardization of languages us a real
    > joke. ((BTW, I also write in several version of BASIC, FORTRAN, C and
    > have
    > had some very enjoyable eperiences copnverting from one to the other, but
    > that's an aside.))
    >
    > First: and I really think this has been pointed out endlessly in this
    > newsgroup HTML / CSS are not languages - not in the sense that you and I
    > would think of a programming language at all. I'll get called down for my
    > loose terms, but they describe a web page and then suggest how the browser
    > is to implement it - *NO* language I know of reaches to this level of
    > 'suggestion'. In any language it's easy enough to say 'turn on the pixel
    > at xx,yy and when intrpreted or compiled the result will be (if the
    > computer gods are willing) that the pixel at xx,yy is lit up in some
    > fashion. That, though, makes several assumptions that we cannot make on
    > the web - is the screen wide/long enough to have a pixel at that location,
    > is there a screen (remember we define for 'read' systems here as well), is
    > there a pixel to turn on?
    >


    Well, the are not programming languages. They are languages. They have a
    grammar, a syntax, and semantics. But they are a messy language.

    > Secondly, given that you can program - this is *NOT* programming! When I
    > write a business system I have *all* the constraints in place before I set
    > pen to coding pad (or at least hope I do) which is something no one can do
    > here - none of know definitively how our 'page' is going to be interpreted
    > because there are just way too many possible pieces of equipment on which
    > it can be displayed.


    Yes, I see that it is not programming. This is what, I suppose, makes it so
    difficult. I'm used to programming constructs such as variables,
    evaulations, assignments, etc... css has none of this to any real extent.

    >
    > Lastly, I know the learning curve for almost any language can be
    > extreme -
    > if you're not willing to extend that same intenseness to learning how to
    > 'code' a web page then my suggestion would be to let someone else do it
    > for
    > you.


    Well, My issue is not learning it so much but I guess I get pissed when I
    run into trouble and they do it in such a contorted way. Languages are
    suppose to be about making things easier and not more difficult.

    As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use JS as atleast it is a programming
    language. But ofcourse then it limits my user base. Why not just use a lite
    version of JS that removes all the main issues with it that people don't
    like instead of comming up with an entirely new way(and then another and
    another). I'm tired of a new language comming out every 3.4 days just
    because someone thinks they can do it better.

    Instead of being productive one ends up spending there time learning the new
    language. CSS looks good from the outside but not having basic programming
    constructs severly limits its ability. I only use it because it is
    standard. I'd rather use JS because atleast with that I know whats going on.
    CSS seems fine for simple transformative applications but anything beyond
    that seems to be hell and counterproductive. Maybe they will fix the issues
    in later versions.

    I'm just here to learn enough to get me through my site. Maybe I should do
    less bitching though and just learn it. Just really peeves me off when I
    have to deal with so many incongruities between implementations. It happens
    with programming languages too but the difference is that ultimately in the
    end that code gets translated in same thing(ok, maybe not exactly but
    doesn't matter) and there is only one hardware set. Ok, thats not entirely
    true but one could target one specific set of functionality(such as
    protected mode, flat mode, Vesa, VGA, etc..) and not have to worry to much
    about supporting every different combination. But with web browsing it
    seems like you have to please everyone no matter what browser there using.
    It gets ridiculous and someone just needs to say "UPGRADE YOUR FUCKING
    BROWSER!!!!!!".


    Thanks,
    Jon
     
    Jon Slaughter, Apr 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Jon Slaughter

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-04-17, Jon Slaughter <> wrote:
    [...]
    > Well, My issue is not learning it so much but I guess I get pissed when I
    > run into trouble and they do it in such a contorted way. Languages are
    > suppose to be about making things easier and not more difficult.
    >
    > As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use JS as atleast it is a programming
    > language. But ofcourse then it limits my user base. Why not just use a lite
    > version of JS that removes all the main issues with it that people don't
    > like instead of comming up with an entirely new way(and then another and
    > another).


    One of the issues with it people might not like is the very fact that it
    is a programming language. I might not want to allow just any old
    program written by anyone to run on my computer. But I mind less reading
    their HTML documents or letting them make suggestions about how they
    should be laid out in stylesheets.

    > I'm tired of a new language comming out every 3.4 days just because
    > someone thinks they can do it better.
    >
    > Instead of being productive one ends up spending there time learning the new
    > language. CSS looks good from the outside but not having basic programming
    > constructs severly limits its ability. I only use it because it is
    > standard. I'd rather use JS because atleast with that I know whats going on.
    > CSS seems fine for simple transformative applications but anything beyond
    > that seems to be hell and counterproductive. Maybe they will fix the issues
    > in later versions.
    >
    > I'm just here to learn enough to get me through my site. Maybe I should do
    > less bitching though and just learn it. Just really peeves me off when I
    > have to deal with so many incongruities between implementations.


    It's only really IE that causes all those problems. The rest are largely
    consistent on a large subset of the CSS 2.1 spec.
     
    Ben C, Apr 17, 2007
    #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. bob

    format driving me nuts

    bob, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
  2. Simple Simon

    DateTime driving me nuts

    Simple Simon, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    374
    Simple Simon
    Jul 29, 2003
  3. Kathy Burke
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    651
    Munsifali Rashid
    Aug 13, 2003
  4. Marty

    Driving me nuts...

    Marty, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    697
    Guest
    Nov 12, 2003
  5. Ivan Demkovitch

    Cookie - drive me nuts!!!

    Ivan Demkovitch, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    520
    Ivan Demkovitch
    Dec 9, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page