Re: CSS for positioning

[Jenn]

"Jenn" <[email protected]> wrote:

Usually, at least as far as I know, nothing you do in an external
CSS sheet can help the HTML validate. The HTML stands on its own
in many ways. Sometimes some faulty insertion of CSS can confuse
the HTML, but if the fault is purely confined to the CSS itself,
it contributes nothing to the validation of the HTML

Well, I had to take out table and td background images and put them into the
style sheet in order for the html to validate.

Don't be. Be patient and don't let the nastier parts of the
culture that resides here get to you.

I didn't really expect that sort of a response from Adrienne.

My "Yes, it validates so that eliminates many possible mistakes
in the markup, so that is good." - see above - was meant as
praise for you.


You won't screw it up because you can get assistance here. The
faults that the CSS validator picked up were not big ones. I
tried to explain about units in my DIV example above. If you say
width: 80 for any element's style, you need to add units. 80px,
80%, 80em; and so on. These may seem minor things but they need
to be got right otherwise the styles you are asking the browser
to display will not work.

I don't believe I put any widths in the style sheet as I usually put those
on the <tables> or <td>'s ...... I'm not even sure how to go about doing
that in a style sheet without having so many separate styles it would drive
me crazy trying to remember them all. I mean lots of td's with different
widths.... the validator didn't allow table tags to have height="" tags so
those had to go in the td's too. Oh.. and that style sheet still contains a
few styles that I just need to delete that don't work anymore with that set
of pages. I was just too tired to go through it.

I can easily imagine how awful it sounded to be told this and I
have said my piece on this elsewhere. It was just another unwise
and insensitive charge against you.

thanks ..... guess I'm tired because I stayed up pretty late editing stuff.
It was fun giving it a try, tho. I almost gave up when the first page
totally broke when I added the doctype.. then I had to find a charset that
worked. I spent some hours this morning finishing up all the pages that are
iframed content. Each of those validated at the http://validator.w3.org/.
I thought I was done several times until I'd find another page I missed. It
was quite picky as far as finding every error possible, so I thought I had
done a good job getting like 62 pages to validate.

 

[Jenn]

Good, that is same as the one FF uses. You did not cheat.

oh good! I thought that was the correct one to use. thanks

 

[Jenn]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme


What this is is essentially hiding something under the rug, or when
your mother asks you to clean up the livingroom, you stuff everything
under the sofa cushions. That works until your mother sits down on
the couch and immediately notices how lumpy it is.

If an author is going to check something, check the whole thing and
fix it - unless the source is from a server over which the author has
no control.

The whole thing is fixed. I stopped 3 times before posting the link to make
sure I got all the pages, including the iframed pages to validate. If I
missed anything, it isn't because I didn't try to do it.. it's because I was
tired.

Now, if Jenn had said that she was using an iframe for some of the
content, and had not had time to fix it, that would be fine. But she
gave the impression that she had fixed all the errors, which she did
not.

I did not need to tell anyone here I was using iframes because many of you
had already mentioned it before... ergo.. the nasty comment by someone that
they thought I was using iframes in place of includes... which I was not.
The site was sort of an experiment when I built it. I wanted to see how I
could get content to load more seamlessly without having to leave the page,
as in what happens often with aspx pages if you click on a news story.. you
leave the page to load the content.

The W3 validator passes the calling document without any problems.
It's a pity it can't go deeper into iframes and such.

You can right click on any iframe and get its path to test the content via
the properties ... which I edited all 62 pages. They all validated. I
haven't put the css file through a validator for that yet, tho. Maybe
tomorrow or during the week I may get time to try that next.

 

[Jenn]

I did check the test document, and in looking at the source, found the
iframe. Since you have control over the source of the iframe, you
need to fix that, too.


Which uses an iframe whose contents does not validate.


Since you have control over the content of the iframe, you have to
check it as well.

Hello?? I just gave you the results of the indexhome.html page .. it PASSED
validation.

Understand, too, that some users do not have iframes enabled for
security reasons. There is a very nasty 1 pixel iframe malware that
hits servers which are not locked down well enough. Google for iframe
security.

Did you know there are people on the internet who like to hack websites and
break into people pcs with malware and try to get their personal
information? That stops no one from ordering items online at eBay or any
other online shopping service.... a 1 pixel malware isn't going to stop me
using iframes, either.

Servers do what they can, yet, still even the best most secure sites still
can get hacked. If someone has you as the bullseye.. you are their target.
You can try, but if they want what you have badly enough... they will get
it.

 

[Rob W.]

Op 16-5-2010 3:21, Adrienne Boswell schreef:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jenn"

I think it's important to have a good stylesheet editor, especially
when you are using an external stylesheet. I use TopStyle from
Bradsoft [http://bradsoft.com/top-style]. Integrated progams are
nice, but I like using separate tools, just as I separate content

<snip>

I got a page not found for the bradsoft page link above.

Well, there you go. I've been so pleased with it, I never bothered to
check for newer versions. Here you go:
http://svanas.dynip.com/topstyle/

Excuse me....

The link above leads to Topstyle 4, which is not free (not counting the
free trial period)

May I suggest this link: <http://topstyle.en.softonic.com/>
where Topsyle Lite 3.10 can be found.
It's still completely free.


Since I never tried T4, I don't know exactly what the improvements are
but as a non-professional webperson I haven't felt the need to abandon
3.10 yet.

 

[Rob W.]

Op 16-5-2010 6:18, dorayme schreef:

I can easily imagine how awful it sounded to be told this and I
have said my piece on this elsewhere. It was just another unwise
and insensitive charge against you.

You ladies may want to check Wikipedia for "Asperger"

After you've done that I'm perfectly willing to discuss it with you
and give you my personal experiences and opinions.

 

[dorayme]

What this is is essentially hiding something under the rug,
or when your
mother asks you to clean up the livingroom, you stuff everything under
the sofa cushions. That works until your mother sits down on the couch
and immediately notices how lumpy it is.

In other words it is accusation of deliberate cheating. Great!
There are two iframes, one inside the other. The source of the
deeper one that Jenn missed validating was:

<http://pqlr.org/TEST/chrlinks.html>

it seems. There is a problem or two with this, true. One is a
character encoding problem. Once this is fixed, there is the
height attribute on a table that is stopping full validation.

It is quite a tiny doc compared to the more substantial one she
would have concentrated on. If she intended to mislead this Royal
Commission or Grand Jury, you would think she would go all the
way and not bother about either. She probably *missed* the
little one. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not look like
cheating to me. And it would be easy to do by accident.

 

[freemont]

I don't use <div>'s in this site, and I don't intend on re-coding the
entire thing so I can use <div>'s. It's a tables based site and I
edited the code to see if I could validate it in the doctype I was
using. I don't even quite understand what the heck a <div> is to begin
with. I just see people using them, and they don't work like a table,
either. They don't make sense to me like a table makes sense, so I'm
sticking with tables for this site.

Here:

<http://freemontsoffice.com/test/jenn/pqlr/pqlr.htm>

The result of boredom + a nice bottle of white wine.

Not a table in sight. Took me a couple of hours to re-do this page.

It's not a professional page yet, because the width of the thing is still
fixed, and the layout breaks badly if non-standard browsers and font
sizes are used. It still needs a lot of work.

But it beats the hell out of your tables. It's a good start. For one
thing, it's modular in that markup, presentation and scripting are
separated into different files. Less than 100 lines in the html document
compared to almost 400 in yours. 116 lines in my stylesheet, compared to
almost 400 in yours. No idiotic iframes. CSS and HTML 4.01 Strict
validation links on the page. Centered. I even left in your 1995-style
"hit counter". LOL

Your header image prevented me from making the page fluid. Someone better
than me with PS or GIMP could figure out how to make that thing
"stretch". And why in the hell you have it broken into three images is
beyond me. This is what I see on your test page:

<http://freemontsoffice.com/test/jenn/pqlr/pqlr.png>

I left some comments in the stylesheet concerning your bible quote thing.
Of course my html is commented also.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something. More than likely you'll just
criticize my "attitude" and ignore the work because it's different from
yours. Not my problem, but maybe you'll surprise everyone.

But this is what a humble student of html and css can do in just a couple
of hours. What can /you/ do with this?

 

[dorayme]

Op 16-5-2010 6:18, dorayme schreef:

You ladies may want to check Wikipedia for "Asperger"

After you've done that I'm perfectly willing to discuss it with you
and give you my personal experiences and opinions.

Look here Roberta, are you saying you have Asperger syndrome?
Tell us about your experiences, go on, be a she devil and
entertain us.

Last Christmas I read a book by a guy who had and with great help
learnt to cope marvellously. I will dig it out soon.

 

[Doug Miller]

You did not check the content that is coming from the iframe. That is what
does not validate.

Yes, it does. The iframe makes a relative reference to "indexhome.html",
which, when used from http://pqlr.org/TEST/index.html, expands to
http://pqlr.org/TEST/indexhome.html -- which *does* validate.

You have control over the content of that iframe - fix it.

What's to fix?

 

[Jenn]

In other words it is accusation of deliberate cheating. Great!
There are two iframes, one inside the other. The source of the
deeper one that Jenn missed validating was:

<http://pqlr.org/TEST/chrlinks.html>

it seems. There is a problem or two with this, true. One is a
character encoding problem. Once this is fixed, there is the
height attribute on a table that is stopping full validation.

I was so tired of working on the site.. my eyes and brain was just tired of
looking at the code... I'm not surprised I missed a file. It's funny, but
by the time I was done doing all the other files all I had to do was look at
the tiny file.. copy and paste the correct header info into the Christian
links file, and remove the height attribute from the table.... upload it and
test for validation.

It is quite a tiny doc compared to the more substantial one she
would have concentrated on. If she intended to mislead this Royal
Commission or Grand Jury, you would think she would go all the
way and not bother about either. She probably *missed* the
little one. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not look like
cheating to me. And it would be easy to do by accident.

More like it was done by fatigue! It does help to have a 2nd pair of
eyes looking for something I may have missed. It all should validate now
including chrlinks.html. If you hadn't said that particular file was missed
I would not have noticed it! Thanks! I did, however, validate a few pages I
am not even using yet just because they were in the folder... when I
realized I did that.. I thought it was time to stop. haha

 

[Jenn]

Op 16-5-2010 3:21, Adrienne Boswell schreef:
Excuse me....

The link above leads to Topstyle 4, which is not free (not counting
the free trial period)

May I suggest this link: <http://topstyle.en.softonic.com/>
where Topsyle Lite 3.10 can be found.
It's still completely free.


Since I never tried T4, I don't know exactly what the improvements are
but as a non-professional webperson I haven't felt the need to abandon
3.10 yet.

That looks like a nice program for sure... how long have you been using it?

 

[Rob W.]

Op 16-5-2010 18:25, Jenn schreef:

That looks like a nice program for sure... how long have you been using it?

Me? Couple of years. But as I said: I don't *make* websites for a living.
That Adrienne recommends it should mean more.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

The whole thing is fixed. I stopped 3 times before posting the link
to make sure I got all the pages, including the iframed pages to
validate. If I missed anything, it isn't because I didn't try to do
it.. it's because I was tired.




I did not need to tell anyone here I was using iframes because many of
you had already mentioned it before... ergo.. the nasty comment by
someone that they thought I was using iframes in place of includes...
which I was not. The site was sort of an experiment when I built it. I
wanted to see how I could get content to load more seamlessly without
having to leave the page, as in what happens often with aspx pages if
you click on a news story.. you leave the page to load the content.




You can right click on any iframe and get its path to test the content
via the properties ... which I edited all 62 pages. They all
validated. I haven't put the css file through a validator for that
yet, tho. Maybe tomorrow or during the week I may get time to try
that next.

Congradulation, Jenn! Now it validates. Good going.

You are correct, I was validating the wrong document. I had gone back
to the root directory. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding, please
accept my apologies.

 

[Jenn]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jenn"

Congradulation, Jenn! Now it validates. Good going.

You are correct, I was validating the wrong document. I had gone back
to the root directory. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding,
please accept my apologies.

thanks Adrienne ... apology accepted .. much appreciated.