problem w/link color

N

Neo

I am having this problem where I get a colored link box around the
image used. How do I eliminate this colored link box so it's just the
image?
 
I

ironcorona

PeterMcC said:
ironcorona wrote in
or you can do it in CSS by using the following code:

img {border:0;}

Are you crazy? Why risk all those security hazards for the sake of a border?
[1]

Oh my Invisible Pink Unicorn!!!!one!! You're right. Some say that CSS
is what killed off the dinosaurs.

--
ironcorona

[1] see thread "Cascading style sheet hazard"

:)
 
N

Neo

Great! The border=0 worked like a dream! I have no idea how to use CSS
since I have never worked with it before. Thanks for the help! :)
 
I

ironcorona

Neo said:
Great! The border=0 worked like a dream! I have no idea how to use CSS
since I have never worked with it before. Thanks for the help! :)

Oh, really? CSS is what all the kids are doing nowadays. I'd suggest
learning. How are you currently styling your webpages?
 
S

Sid Ismail

: Neo wrote:
: > Great! The border=0 worked like a dream! I have no idea how to use CSS
: > since I have never worked with it before. Thanks for the help! :)
:
: Oh, really? CSS is what all the kids are doing nowadays. I'd suggest
: learning. How are you currently styling your webpages?


<P>He <font face="wide latin" size="7" color="red">isn't</font></P>

Sid
 
I

ironcorona

Sid said:
: Neo wrote:
: > Great! The border=0 worked like a dream! I have no idea how to use CSS
: > since I have never worked with it before. Thanks for the help! :)
:
: Oh, really? CSS is what all the kids are doing nowadays. I'd suggest
: learning. How are you currently styling your webpages?


<P>He <font face="wide latin" size="7" color="red">isn't</font></P>


<marquee loop="infinite" bgcolor="blue"><font face="times new roman"
color="red" size="3">Oh dear god, you <font color="yellow"
size="5"><blink><b>don't</b></blink></font> think so do
you?</font></marquee>
 
N

Neo

yeah, you guys pretty much have it. lol i don't use templates and type
it all up myself and with the most basic html codes.
 
I

ironcorona

Neo said:
yeah, you guys pretty much have it. lol i don't use templates and type
it all up myself and with the most basic html codes.

If you have the time you should give it a go. When you get used to the
way CSS works you have *so* much power over the layout of the page. And
it makes it pretty easy to change how the page looks without messing
about with the HTML.

The W3C have an excellent tutorial:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/

If you want your pages to look as good as possible you should try to
learn it.

Good Luck
 
I

ironcorona

Andy Dingley said:
That's not the W3C's work, nor is it "excellent"

You're right. Sorry, I thought it was. I've never bothered looking at
the "about" page.
I wouldn't say it wasn't useful, but w3schools is infamously full of
errors.

I didn't know that either. I've never noticed any errors but I'll take
your word that they're there. I did find it very good when I was
learning but, yes, there probably are other, better, tutorials out
there. It's what I use as a reference because it has a quite large
reference section:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp

Perhaps you could suggest a better tutorial?
 
A

Andy Dingley

ironcorona said:
Perhaps you could suggest a better tutorial?

If only I knew of one!

With reservations, I don't dislike it particularly as a tutorial.
However the real "reference" for CSS is simply the real W3C
recommendation. It's not always the most accessible reading, but it's
canonical and it's free.

This is admittedly hard to justify for CSS, as the W3C recommendation
is pretty unreadable. But for the much more easily understandable HTML
or XML recommendatiosn then you should be going "straight to the
source" as soon as you have any need for a "reference" beyond the
hand-holding tutorials.
 
I

ironcorona

Andy Dingley said:
With reservations, I don't dislike it particularly as a tutorial.
However the real "reference" for CSS is simply the real W3C
recommendation. It's not always the most accessible reading, but it's
canonical and it's free.

Yeah, I agree. But they've made it a bit hard to search for specific
pieces of information. The only time I *really* need to look at the
actual spec is when I want to find out the default values for certain
rules. eg. What the spec says the box model should look like versus
what IE says it should look like :) etc.

I have a sneaky suspicion that they could do with a graphics designer
over there at the W3C and probably a user interface expert too. I mean,
yeah, it's perfectly valid but a nightmare to slog through.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

The W3C have an excellent tutorial:

Well, the W3C do have a few excellent tutorials on selected topics...
but...

Hey, ***just a minute***. They are NOT the W3C (nor, as far as I can
see from their web page, do they make any false claims to be so).

Sadly, although there's an enormous amount of stuff on their site,
it's well known to be riddled with errors of various kinds. A
beginner would not know which the errors were, without reference to
more authoritative sources. I'd be very reluctant to send anyone
there without first assuring myself that they had been equipped with
the necessary sceptical equipment :-}
If you want your pages to look as good as possible

Well, the w3schools site already refuses to fit in the browser window
that I made available to it by default - so it immediately failed the
test of looking "as good as possible".

And when I switched off my browser's "minimum font size" defence,
their text became so small as to be barely readable in my browsing
situation. They appear to have started from a font size which 70% of
my preferred choice, which is illogical.

It uses an "XHTML/1.0 Transitional" DOCTYPE, which is absurdly
illogical. Did the W3C ever seriously expect that DOCTYPE to be used
for new content? I find it hard to believe. And (on a superficial
inspection) the pages do their layout with table columns having fixed
pixel sizes a la HTML/3.2(spit).

So they sure don't set a good example, from the outset. For a legacy
site with material from the last millennium, this would be quite
expected; but for something claiming to teach good web design, it's
utterly inappropriate in this day and age.
you should try to learn it.

Certainly one should learn CSS. No argument there.

However, this, quoted from the above site:

|In our CSS tutorial you will learn how to use CSS to control the
|style and layout

is more than a little misleading. On the web, "control" is in the
hands of the reader, and any authoring technique which fails to
acknowledge that will soon find things "rough going".

CSS is used to *propose* (some commentators would go so far as to say
*suggest*) one - or more - presentation(s). An important part of the
significance of that word "Cascading" in CSS is that the author's
proposals are cascaded with user settings, whether via the user's
choice of browser defaults or, with the more sophisticated users, with
their user stylesheet. IMNSHO anyone learning CSS needs to get to
understand that from the outset, otherwise they start off on the wrong
foot (wrongly thinking that they really /are/ "controlling" the final
presentation), and will be doomed to disappointment when they
ultimately have to un-learn that wrong assumption.

On the other hand, someone who is willing to approach the task on the
understanding that web page design is really a "concordat" with their
readers, will not only start off on the best foot, but will find the
results increasingly satisfying as they advance in their understanding
of flexible design. That's my opinion, anyway.
Good Luck

Indeed :-}
 
I

ironcorona

Alan said:
Well, the W3C do have a few excellent tutorials on selected topics...
but...


Hey, ***just a minute***. They are NOT the W3C (nor, as far as I can
see from their web page, do they make any false claims to be so).

Yes, another poster has already informed me. I just assumed from the
URI that it had something to do with them. Like I said before; I never
bothered looking at the "about"

Well, the w3schools site already refuses to fit in the browser window
that I made available to it by default - so it immediately failed the
test of looking "as good as possible".

The full sentence was:

"If you want your pages to look as good as possible you should try to
learn it."

The "it" referred to is CSS. I agree that may not have been clear. And
from a grammatical perspective I *was* referring to the website (since
"it", being a pronoun, was referring to the last mentioned noun
"W3schools"). In reality I was referring to CSS.
Certainly one should learn CSS. No argument there.

However, this, quoted from the above site:

|In our CSS tutorial you will learn how to use CSS to control the
|style and layout

Yeah, honestly, as I mentioned in another post, I only use it for its
reference. I just assumed the tutorial was decent (mainly because I
thought the W3schools had something to do with W3C. Now I know.)
CSS is used to *propose* (some commentators would go so far as to say
*suggest*) one - or more - presentation(s). An important part of the
significance of that word "Cascading" in CSS is that the author's
proposals are cascaded with user settings, whether via the user's
choice of browser defaults or, with the more sophisticated users, with
their user stylesheet. IMNSHO anyone learning CSS needs to get to
understand that from the outset, otherwise they start off on the wrong
foot (wrongly thinking that they really /are/ "controlling" the final
presentation), and will be doomed to disappointment when they
ultimately have to un-learn that wrong assumption.

I agree totally.
 
I

ironcorona

Neo said:
I love online tutes. LoL Thanks Iron! :)

Since writing that I've found out that that tutorial isn't so hot. no
one's suggested another one. Just bare in mind that if you're learning
from the W3schools tutorial there are mistakes and you might have to
unlearn some things.
 
N

Neo

LoL Okie dokie. well if someone could perhaps recommend another, better
quality, tute I would appreciate it. Has anyone tried Draac's? Is it
worthy?
 
N

Neredbojias

If you have the time you should give it a go. When you get used to the
way CSS works you have *so* much power over the layout of the page.

I thought css was for presentation and not layout.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,009
Latest member
GidgetGamb

Latest Threads

Top