Stylesheets

Author

oops

sciontologist

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

Shut my mouth.
My css validated, but the html did not.
I had a DOCTYPE mismatch.
Fixing that fixed the template.
Now I'm starting to like css again.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

sciontologist wrote:

> Shut my mouth.
> My css validated, but the html did not.
> I had a DOCTYPE mismatch.
> Fixing that fixed the template.
> Now I'm starting to like css again.

Whoohoo.

BTW, we newsgroup readers, who don't use that abominable Google Groups
interface would appreciate if you replied to the correct posts, and
didn't start new threads when a reply should be used. Thanks for your
consideration.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

sciontologist

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

>
> BTW, we newsgroup readers, who don't use that abominable Google Groups
> interface would appreciate if you replied to the correct posts, and
> didn't start new threads when a reply should be used. Thanks for your
> consideration.

I do have a tendancy to do what ever the hell I like.
I did notice that valid css (once I got the DOCTYPES synched up)
looked essentially the same everywhere, on all browsers,
but *ONLY* if I used hard-coded pixel widths and locations.
And I don't like those because 400px means different things
at different resolutions.

And when I switched to percentage widths like:
width: 90%; the results stayed much the same on
Firefox and Safari, but STILL Looked awful on IE6

I'm not a big windows fan, but I do have one of those abominable
machines on my desk somewhere, so I downloaded IE7 and found percentage
widths
and offsets DO work just fine on IE7 (but not IE6)

So, somewhat ironically, my orignal complaints would have been valid a
month ago.
Now they no longer hold water.

Michael Winter

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

[snip]

> BTW, we newsgroup readers, who don't use that abominable Google
> Groups interface would appreciate if you replied to the correct
> posts, and didn't start new threads when a reply should be used.
> Thanks for your consideration.

Looking at the message headers, it /was/ a reply and only the Subject
changed. It threads properly in Thunderbird - are you sure the problem
isn't with 40tude?

Mike

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

Michael Winter wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Looking at the message headers, it /was/ a reply and only the Subject
> changed. It threads properly in Thunderbird - are you sure the
> problem isn't with 40tude?

Oh, you're right. My apologies. I have 40tude set to sort by Subject
line, and didn't notice it this time. Thanks.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

David Stone

2006-11-19, 7:36 pm

In article <1163629780.221403.9670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"sciontologist" <Sandy.Pittendrigh@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>
> I do have a tendancy to do what ever the hell I like.
> I did notice that valid css (once I got the DOCTYPES synched up)
> looked essentially the same everywhere, on all browsers,
> but *ONLY* if I used hard-coded pixel widths and locations.
> And I don't like those because 400px means different things
> at different resolutions.
>
> And when I switched to percentage widths like:
> width: 90%; the results stayed much the same on
> Firefox and Safari, but STILL Looked awful on IE6

Did you consider trying em units instead of %? That seems to work
for me... (Not knowing exactly what differences you are seeing
are, makes it hard to give useful suggestions)