validate HTML

T

Toby A Inkster

brucie said:
i'm saying that the <body> element is the available canvas area of the
browser, not the <html> element.

What about if I do:

head, title { display: block; }

?

All current browsers treat <html> as the available canvas area.

Opera (sensibly) has a default <body> margin and <html> padding of 0.

Internet Explorer and Mozilla however set the <html> padding to 0 and the
<body> margin to some positive value (1em?). This leaves a gap of <html>
showing between the site contents and the browser chrome.

However, when web designers set body { background: whatever; } in CSS,
they don't expect a gap of unstyled <html> around their page, so IE and
Mozilla both have a bunch of special case code to "inherit" the <body>
background to <html> if <html> doesn't have its own background set. (I
think that this is probably where IE's attachment:fixed limitation comes
from?)

Mozilla and IEs code is a mess.
 
R

rf

DU said:
Quite clear but wrong. CSS2.1 corrected this.
This has been discussed before a lot.

Ah yes, I see. They 'corrected' it by simply removing the bit that discusses
it entirely. I note they did not put anything back that 'correctly'
discusses the issue.

I guess they meant the issue to be open to interpretation. No wonder it's
been discussed a lot :)

Cheers
Richard.
 
S

Sid Ismail

: One of the red flags is that the above margins are invalid attributes of the
: <body> tag.
: OK... How do I set my page to have "0" margins?

<body style="margin:0px;">


: And why would Dreamweaver stick them in there?

'Cause Dreamweaver does old HTML and appeases IE and NN.

Sid
 
D

DU

rf wrote:

Ah yes, I see. They 'corrected' it by simply removing the bit that discusses
it entirely.

They updated the 2 tables with the headers
For box generated by C.B. is established by

I note they did not put anything back that 'correctly'
discusses the issue.

They did put small changes. I agree with you that they did not discuss
lengthly, did not clarify much the issue because from their stance, the
ICB issue is UA dependent. The way browsers implement the ICB is up to
browser manufacturers.
I guess they meant the issue to be open to interpretation.

It's outside the specs: it's up to browser manufacturers. It's outside
the scope of the HTML, CSS TRs. ICB is a graphical concept; ICB is a
graphical representation of how the user agent implements the document
canvas in the browser [window] (my interpretation).

No wonder it's
been discussed a lot :)

Cheers
Richard.

It has been discussed in forums here and there (dhtmlcentral.com,
bugzilla bugfiles, w3c emails/public forums , etc.)

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
 
W

Whitecrest

not really. if you purchase a program you want it to do what its
designed to do and do it properly....

The MX version of Dreamweaver had validation built in. It will walk
your code and validate it for you. Hand coding does not guarantee good
code. There are plenty of hand coded pages out there that are far worse
than anything Dreamweaver could create. Dreamweaver is a tool. Like
any tool, you have to use it right.

DW/FP/etc etc users really need to ask themselves why they paid so
much for a program that doesn't do what it was designed to do properly
and for some reason think that its acceptable that it doesn't.

But it does do exactly what it says it will do.
would anyone think it acceptable if their graphics editor didn't edit
graphics properly? media player not play media properly? i think not.
why then is it acceptable for a html editor?

Of course not, and if Dreamweaver did not create Valid code I would
agree. Unfortunately it does create valid code.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Whitecrest said:
Of course not, and if Dreamweaver did not create Valid code I would
agree. Unfortunately it does create valid code.

I haven't used MX myself, so I can't comment on whether it does create valid
code or not, but if it does it's about time. Why has it taken them until
version 5 (or is it 6?) to finally get it right?

And I still think it is way overpriced.
 
W

Whitecrest

I haven't used MX myself, so I can't comment on whether it does create valid
code or not, but if it does it's about time. Why has it taken them until
version 5 (or is it 6?) to finally get it right?

Who knows, why haven't any of the browsers learned to do things right?
Who is to say.
And I still think it is way overpriced.

It is WAY to expensive!
 

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

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,479
Members
44,900
Latest member
Nell636132

Latest Threads

Top