Question on CSS alignment

[tshad]

I am setting up my style sheets and am curious about style.

If I was going to set up all my text to vertically align on the bottom,
would it be better to do it on the "tr" tag or the "td", or does it really
matter?

tr {
vertical-align:bottom;
}
td {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10;
text-decoration: none;
vertical-align:bottom;
}

I had thought about putting it on the "tr" as that would cover the "th" as
well. Or should I just put it on the "table" tag and just the change the
ones that need to be different on the "td" level.

Just looking for some opinions.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Steve Pugh]

If I was going to set up all my text to vertically align on the bottom,
would it be better to do it on the "tr" tag or the "td", or does it really
matter?

It has to be the td. vertical-align only applies to inline and
table-cell elements and crucially is not inherited. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align

Steve

 

[tshad]

It has to be the td. vertical-align only applies to inline and
table-cell elements and crucially is not inherited. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align

That was what I want to see. TR does work, however. But that might be an
anomaly. I know Table doesn't.

What about Font-Family? Can I put that in the Table style, since I want all
text to be Verdana?

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Steve Pugh]

That was what I want to see. TR does work, however.

What about Font-Family?

Yes, font-family inherits.

Can I put that in the Table style, since I want all
text to be Verdana?

Bad idea. Check Google for the reasons why Verdana is a poor choice
for author style sheets.

Steve

 

[tshad]

Yes, font-family inherits.


Bad idea. Check Google for the reasons why Verdana is a poor choice
for author style sheets.

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se, but I can find some problems
with Style Sheets (mainly the support of Browsers).

Is there something wrong with Verdana?

I don't use Verdana by itself, but the family:

table {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}

I was using this one because my boss likes it.

Also, I assume if I want to use the same family for all my sheets, I would
need to put the font in both my "body" and "table" styles. Is that right?

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Yes, font-family inherits.


Bad idea. Check Google for the reasons why Verdana is a poor choice
for author style sheets.

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se, but I can find some problems
with Style Sheets (mainly the support of Browsers).

Please snip sigs by hand if your newsclient doesn't do that for you.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[tshad]

What about Font-Family?

Yes, font-family inherits.

Can I put that in the Table style, since I want all
text to be Verdana?

Bad idea. Check Google for the reasons why Verdana is a poor choice
for author style sheets.

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se, but I can find some
problems
with Style Sheets (mainly the support of Browsers).

Please snip sigs by hand if your newsclient doesn't do that for you.

What's a "sig"?

 

[Steve Pugh]

What's a "sig"?

A signature. The section at the end of the message that is (usually)
automatically added by the user's news client. It's separated from the
main body of the message by "-- " and should not be included in any
quoted material in a reply.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

What's a "sig"?

A signature. A signature in a newsgroup message starts with [-- ] (dash dash
space). This makes a proper newsclient cut it from the end of the message, so
that the reply is neat and clean and not unnecessary long.

If you use a newsclient that doesn't handle this [-- ] (dash dash space) very
well, that is, it leaves the signature, sig in the reply, please delete those
lines by hand.

Again a sig. The above is my sig as the previous was Steve Pughs sig.




--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[tshad]

What's a "sig"?

A signature. A signature in a newsgroup message starts with [-- ] (dash
dash space). This makes a proper newsclient cut it from the end of the
message, so that the reply is neat and clean and not unnecessary long.

If you use a newsclient that doesn't handle this [-- ] (dash dash space)
very well, that is, it leaves the signature, sig in the reply, please
delete those lines by hand.

Again a sig. The above is my sig as the previous was Steve Pughs sig.

So I delete the persons signature (as I think I just did) that I am
responding to? Everthing below the "--"?

I am using Outlook express 6 for my browser. Is there a way to tell it to
delete these?

Tom

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

What's a "sig"?

A signature. A signature in a newsgroup message starts with [-- ] (dash
dash space). This makes a proper newsclient cut it from the end of the
message, so that the reply is neat and clean and not unnecessary long.

If you use a newsclient that doesn't handle this [-- ] (dash dash space)
very well, that is, it leaves the signature, sig in the reply, please
delete those lines by hand.

Again a sig. The above is my sig as the previous was Steve Pughs sig.

So I delete the persons signature (as I think I just did) that I am
responding to? Everthing below the "--"?

Well done.

I am using Outlook express 6 for my browser. Is there a way to tell it to
delete these?

I really wouldn't know. There was a fix for Outlook Express out there somewhere,
but I don't recall what it does or what its name is. Sorry.

You could always try a better client, like Thunderbird (free
<http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/>) or Opera
(<http://www.opera.com/>. There are many. With the last one, you get yourself a
decent browser as well .

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

So I delete the persons signature (as I think I just did) that I am
responding to? Everthing below the "--"?

A real sig starts with "-- " not "--".

I am using Outlook express 6 for my browser. Is there a way to
tell it to delete these?

OE needs help. Google for downloads to OE-Quotefix. The add-on may
help to turn OE into a reasonable^W somewhat better application for
reading Usenet.

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=download+OE-Quotefix>

<http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/resources/tools.htm#oequotefix>

 

[tshad]

A real sig starts with "-- " not "--".


OE needs help. Google for downloads to OE-Quotefix. The add-on may help to
turn OE into a reasonable^W somewhat better application for reading
Usenet.

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=download+OE-Quotefix>

<http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/resources/tools.htm#oequotefix>

Ok,

So back to my question:

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se, but I can find some problems
with Style Sheets (mainly the support of Browsers).

Is there something wrong with Verdana?

I don't use Verdana by itself, but the family:

table {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}

I was using this one because my boss likes it.

Also, I assume if I want to use the same family for all my sheets, I would
need to put the font in both my "body" and "table" styles. Is that right?

Thanks,

Tom

sig gone

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Ok,

So back to my question:

Not Ok,

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se, but I can find some problems
with Style Sheets (mainly the support of Browsers).

Is there something wrong with Verdana?

I repeat (and I don't like doing that):
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q="Don't+use+Verdana">

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Isofarro]

Is there something wrong with Verdana?

I don't use Verdana by itself, but the family:

table {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}

Well googling as noted above would present:
* <url:http://www.html-faq.com/csspresentation/?verdana>
* <url:http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana>



Verdana by itself isn't a problem, unless the web designer does something
silly like setting a smaller font because default Verdana looks too big.
Verdana is designed to look bigger than other fonts - in the interests of
onscreen readability.

Combining Verdana with other sans-serif fonts particularly Arial and
Helvetica is problematical, especially when the font-size is set less than
the default font-size of the browser.

The "problem" lies in the difference between Verdana and other sans-serif
fonts. Verdana has what is called a larger x-size than, say, Arial. That
means even though capital letters will be the same vertical size at the
same font-size, Verdana's lowercase letters are actually taller than Arial.
For example, the lower case x in Verdana is taller than the lower case x in
Arial for the same font-size.

Verdana was created as a more readable font for the web, so by having a
larger proportion x-size than other fonts it is more clear and readable.

The main problem with your above font-list is that, if you decide to reduce
the font=size to something less than 100% to where you find it comfortable
when using Verdana, on the browsers that don't have Verdana, the second
specified font - Arial - is used. Now you have a smaller x-sized font in
place, which results in normal (lower case) text being far smaller than it
was probably originally intended.

The best practice approach is to either use Verdana by itself, or offer
fonts that have the same x-size as Verdana as secondary fonts. This
minimises the "Verdana problem".

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Ok,

So back to my question:

I can't find anything bad about Verdana per se,

Has anyone posted Stephen Poley's link yet?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

but I can find some problems with Style Sheets (mainly the support
of Browsers).

There are very few browsers left in use that do not support CSS.
Unless you are trying to do intricate pixel-perfect layout, you will
have no problems. Design your site so a bit of floating doesn't
destroy it.

Is there something wrong with Verdana?

I don't use Verdana by itself, but the family:

table { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; }

I was using this one because my boss likes it.

Give your boss the link to Stephen's page. Tell him you hope he is not
going to be the only visitor to the site.

Also, I assume if I want to use the same family for all my sheets,

All your sheets? Don't you have just one?

I would need to put the font in both my "body" and "table" styles.
Is that right?

Some browsers need a bit of a kick in that the body font properties
may not cascade to a table cell (td). You may want to specify
td { font: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif 100%; }

 

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in alt.html, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

Has anyone posted Stephen Poley's link yet?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

No, but I was about to until I read your post.

 

[tshad]

Not Ok,


I repeat (and I don't like doing that):
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q="Don't+use+Verdana">

Sorry,

I didn't notice the link as it looked like a link - it looked like a
previous comment (the "<>" were black and I mistook the ">" for a "<" -
which means from previous post on my program).

Tom

 

[tshad]

Has anyone posted Stephen Poley's link yet?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html


There are very few browsers left in use that do not support CSS. Unless
you are trying to do intricate pixel-perfect layout, you will have no
problems. Design your site so a bit of floating doesn't destroy it.


Give your boss the link to Stephen's page. Tell him you hope he is not
going to be the only visitor to the site.


All your sheets? Don't you have just one?


Some browsers need a bit of a kick in that the body font properties may
not cascade to a table cell (td). You may want to specify
td { font: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif 100%; }

I will give the page to my boss.

It does make sense not to use Verdana unless you are only going to use an
intranet, I suppose.

This also may be why I have gone to sites and couldn't read the text because
it was so small.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Matt Clara]

news:[email protected]...

I will give the page to my boss.

It does make sense not to use Verdana unless you are only going to use an
intranet, I suppose.

No it doesn't. Use verdana if that's the way you like your pages to look.
Yes, the font is bigger than most. So what, it's the way it's designed.
This font has been included in Windows since (at least) win 95. 90%+ of the
people in the world using personal computers have Verdana installed on their
system. There are things to look out for (not that anyone here has clearly
enumerated them), but there's no reason to say "don't use Verdana". That's
ridiculous.

This also may be why I have gone to sites and couldn't read the text because
it was so small.

That's bad design whether it be because of misuse of fonts or another
reason.