IE7 tags question

[dorayme]

i do try to keep yak etc to a minimum.
tried using style on the <div> and <td> s.

And this has what quite to do with the url I give above
(considering you replied to the post in which I mention it)?

 

[dorayme]

i have to validate the page each week for 508 so nothing new.

Why did you include the text of a doc that was anything but valid
a few posts back for nothing? What if I send you $508?

 

[GTalbot]

<[email protected]
m>,



A possibly relevant URL of mine to this OP might be:

<http://netweaver.com.au/centring/>

Maybe next Xmas break I will revise this one...

(btw there is a link to you in this last!)

I read your tutorials and I often stumbled on inappropriate wording or
inaccurate vocabulary, terminology.

One quick example:

"
Centring block elements as opposed to inline material (also sometimes
referred to as inline blocks, e.g.. line blocks) will be next.
"

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/index.html

But it should say instead:

"
Centring block elements as opposed to inline-level elements (also
sometimes referred to as inline boxes and line box) will be next.
"


Another example:

Fig 3a. <div style="text-align: center;">text...<p>text...</p></div>
should be instead/rather
Fig 3a. <div style="text-align: center;">Loose...<p>text...</p></
div> ,
otherwise the example is one bit difficult to follow.

regards, Gérard

 

[GTalbot]

A possibly relevant URL of mine to this OP might be:

<http://netweaver.com.au/centring/>

Dorayme,

Everywhere in

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/page3.html

where you mention "parent" or "parent element", you should replace
this with "containing block" which is acting as the reference for
absolute positioning. The parent element is not necessarly acting as
the containing block for absolute positioning. What you are saying,
repeating here is the classic IE6 error with regards to positioning.

A positioned element should be positioned to the nearest containing
positioned element, not the containing element.
http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/opera6/#css

The containing block for a positioned box is established by the
nearest positioned ancestor (or, if none exists, the initial
containing block)
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q28

nearest positioned ancestor is not necessarly the parent element.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details

------------

Another error

Fig 1. <div style="background: url("pic.png") no-repeat center;"></
div>

should be instead

Fig 1. <div style="background: url('pic.png') no-repeat center;"></
div>

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/page5.html

regards, Gérard

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I have the solution.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

i have to validate the page each week for 508 so nothing new.

Validation for section 508 does not necessarily mean valid against W3
standards. 508 says nothing about publishing to formal grammars. 508
is priority 1, validation is priority 2.

 

[rf]

In the interests of correct correcting, should it be "centEring" and not
"centring?" :-D

Not in Australia.

 

[Neredbojias]

I have the solution.

Me, too. But I lost the question.

 

[Neredbojias]

Not in Australia.

See, that's the trouble with colloquials.

 

[mcnewsxp]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "mcnewsxp"
<[email protected]> writing inseptember.org:

Validation for section 508 does not necessarily mean valid against W3
standards.  508 says nothing about publishing to formal grammars.  508
is priority 1, validation is priority 2.

just meant that we have to validate our pages each week - including
508 compliance.

 

[Doug Miller]

In the interests of correct correcting, should it be "centEring" and not
"centring?" :-D

Not in places where they spell "center" as "centre" -- which, I believe, is
all of the English-speaking world *except* the United States. Subject to
correction by our neighbors north of the border, of course...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Me, too. But I lost the question.

<elmer>
Shhhhh...be vewy vewy qwiet or the wascally OP may heaw you...
</elmer>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Not in Australia.

Extra Es cost more....

 

[Dylan Parry]

Extra Es cost more....

And if you are going to experiment, you should be careful not to use too
many in any case.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

And if you are going to experiment, you should be careful not to use too
many in any case.

Okay.

And if you ar going to xprimnt, you should b carful not to us too many
in any cas.

;-)

 

[GTalbot]

You can't centre a line box

You are correct. You can't center a line box. Such statement does not
make really sense from a CSS 2.1 perspective.

But I still maintain that Dorayme's sentence should be checked,
corrected.

His original/initial sentence went :

"
Centring block elements as opposed to inline material (also sometimes
referred to as inline blocks, e.g.. line blocks) will be next.
"

1- I never ever read about "line blocks" anywhere in CSS 2.1 spec.
2- "inline material": why not use and reuse the CSS 2.1 spec
terminology? I propose inline-level elements (typically text and
images) instead and I think Dorayme should just drop, remove, delete
the part in the parenthesis. E.g. remove "(also sometimes referred to
as inline blocks, e.g.. line blocks)"
3- an inline-block is a very special case of inline-level element and
Dorayme's next pages in his tutorial do not refer or address inline-
blocks at all. So, why mention "inline blocks"?

(well, not without centering the whole block
it's in).

Would be better to say "...e.g. inline boxes and inline blocks".

I think Dorayme should just use the same vocabulary/terminology in use
in the CSS 2.1 and avoid vocabulary/terminology that his tutorial
webpages are not going to address to begin with anyway.

regards, Gérard
--
Internet Explorer 8 bugs: 60 bugs so far
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/
Internet Explorer 7 bugs: 185 bugs so far
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/
Some web authors contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

 

[dorayme]

The problem with CSS terminology is that using the words "box" or
"block" more than three times in one sentence induces a catatonic state
in most normal people.

The strength of dorayme's tutorials is the use of user-friendly plain
English and imaginative analogies. The less technical terminology the
better, but it's good to provide a bit in places so the reader has a few
reference points to match the dorayme-wisdom up with the actual spec.
But where it is used the technical terminology does have to be
absolutely correct.

Thank you all and thank you Ben for the kind words. As I
indicated recently, I am meaning to give this centring thing a
review when time permits (but I may hasten to address some of the
things raised.) In many ways I don't think of these pages as
tutorials, that would be a bit too ambitious, they are more the
sort of thing I do in my mind to get a grip on these matters. If
they help others without misleading, I am pleased. If people who
know little read them, my hope is that they will be better off. I
tremble at the thought of people who know a lot reading them! <g>

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]
m>,

"
Centring block elements as opposed to inline material (also sometimes
referred to as inline blocks, e.g.. line blocks) will be next.
"

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/index.html

But it should say instead:

"
Centring block elements as opposed to inline-level elements (also
sometimes referred to as inline boxes and line box) will be next.
"


Another example:

Fig 3a. <div style="text-align: center;">text...<p>text...</p></div>
should be instead/rather
Fig 3a. <div style="text-align: center;">Loose...<p>text...</p></
div> ,
otherwise the example is one bit difficult to follow.

Thank you Gerard. I have hopefully improved all the things you
mention here.

 

[Helpful person]

Thank you all and thank you Ben for the kind words. As I
indicated recently, I am meaning to give this centring thing a
review when time permits (but I may hasten to address some of the
things raised.) In many ways I don't think of these pages as
tutorials, that would be a bit too ambitious, they are more the
sort of thing I do in my mind to get a grip on these matters. If
they help others without misleading, I am pleased. If people who
know little read them, my hope is that they will be better off. I
tremble at the thought of people who know a lot reading them! <g>

As a rank beginner I would like to thank you for your instructive
pages. They certainly helped me understand margins, borders etc. I
just wish I could easily retain that memory!

www.richardfisher.com

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]
m>,

A possibly relevant URL of mine to this OP might be:

<http://netweaver.com.au/centring/>

[d]orayme,

Everywhere in

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/page3.html

where you mention "parent" or "parent element", you should replace
this with "containing block" which is acting as the reference for
absolute positioning. The parent element is not necessarly acting as
the containing block for absolute positioning. What you are saying,
repeating here is the classic IE6 error with regards to positioning.

A positioned element should be positioned to the nearest containing
positioned element, not the containing element.
http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/opera6/#css

The containing block for a positioned box is established by the
nearest positioned ancestor (or, if none exists, the initial
containing block)
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q28

nearest positioned ancestor is not necessarly the parent element.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details

Not sure I should do this here. But thank you and I *will*
consider it. Not sure I agree that it is an error as is implied
in your introduction to the next point (below)

The stuff about *nearest positioned ancestor* is a complication I
am inclined to leave out just here, however important it is to
know about in general. The overwhelming majority of folk
wrestling with how to position an element in another element need
remember just that the parent should have some positioning.

A person usually wants to position something directly in an
element. The idea presented here is very much practical and
example based in tone. If I go down your road I reckon I lose
directness and simplicity and create question marks that are not
needed immediately. But I do recognise that the use of the colder
"containing block" does not actually directly bring in the
complications. Perhaps I am just emotionally attached to the word
"parent". It recalls my fondness in early childhood for playing
mummies and daddies with various friends.

Another error

Fig 1. <div style="background: url("pic.png") no-repeat center;"></
div>

should be instead

Fig 1. <div style="background: url('pic.png') no-repeat center;"></
div>

http://netweaver.com.au/centring/page5.html

Yes, thanks! Interesting one (to me only probably)... I just cut
and paste from the CSS in the head of the document where the ""
were OK. I lie in the exhibited code, it is not really done with
inline styles! Just easier to describe what is going on this way.
I have made the corrections. Much appreciated Gerard.