Stylesheets - And things were going so well....

Author

And things were going so well....

Colin Peters

2006-04-15, 6:57 pm

http://www.wils.ch/News.aspx

In FF all looks good. At least all looks as I expected, bearing in mind
my limited graphic talent. But IE doesn't even show half the stuff.
Until you CTRL-A then ESC. Oh, it's in the source alright, but IE
doesn't want to render it straightaway. It has to be nudged into it.
Scrolling up and down does the trick too. I guess it's whats known in
the trade as "invalidating the view".

So which bit of my CSS can I change to trick IE into doing the right
thing right from the off?

Neredbojias

2006-04-15, 6:57 pm

To further the education of mankind, Colin Peters <cpeters@coldmail.com>
declaimed:

> http://www.wils.ch/News.aspx
>
> In FF all looks good. At least all looks as I expected, bearing in mind
> my limited graphic talent. But IE doesn't even show half the stuff.
> Until you CTRL-A then ESC. Oh, it's in the source alright, but IE
> doesn't want to render it straightaway. It has to be nudged into it.
> Scrolling up and down does the trick too. I guess it's whats known in
> the trade as "invalidating the view".
>
> So which bit of my CSS can I change to trick IE into doing the right
> thing right from the off?

What kind of doctype is that? And why are some open-ended elements
terminated with <... /> and others not? Did you validate the page?

It looks like a mess to me.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

kchayka

2006-04-15, 6:57 pm

Colin Peters wrote:
> http://www.wils.ch/News.aspx
>
> IE doesn't even show half the stuff.
> Scrolling up and down does the trick too. I guess it's whats known in
> the trade as "invalidating the view".

No, it's what's known as the "peek-a-boo bug". It should take you about
a half a second to find more about it. Google is your friend. Use it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

frederick@southernskies.co.uk

2006-04-15, 6:57 pm

Colin Peters wrote:
> http://www.wils.ch/News.aspx
>
> In FF all looks good. At least all looks as I expected, bearing in mind
> my limited graphic talent. But IE doesn't even show half the stuff.
> Until you CTRL-A then ESC. Oh, it's in the source alright, but IE
> doesn't want to render it straightaway. It has to be nudged into it.
> Scrolling up and down does the trick too. I guess it's whats known in
> the trade as "invalidating the view".
>
> So which bit of my CSS can I change to trick IE into doing the right
> thing right from the off?

Not a direct answer to your question, but:

Firstly, you have a defective doctype declaration. And on a related
point, your code is not quite HTML and not quite XHTML.

Secondly, I have no experience with ASP or whatever it is, but is there
a reason why the entire contents of your body element are wrapped with
the following oddity:
<form method="post" action="News.aspx" id="baseForm"
enctype="Multipart/Form-Data">
<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE"
value="dDw1MzgxO3Q8O2w8aTw0Pjs+O2w8dDxwPGw8aW5uZXJodG1sOz47bDxOZXdzOz4+Ozs+Oz4+Oz4oiMNbXl78Q5entXdegWcSrroQBw=="
/>
</form>
Note that the you've closed the element twice, as well!

Thirdly, if you'd validated your CSS you'd have seen that there's 3
errors; there's also quite a few warnings.

Finally, and quite incidentally, I'd replace your NewsSumm_Title class
with H3 elements.

Cheers,

AGw.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-04-15, 6:57 pm

Colin Peters wrote:

> http://www.wils.ch/News.aspx
>
> In FF all looks good. At least all looks as I expected, bearing in
> mind my limited graphic talent. But IE doesn't even show half the
> stuff. Until you CTRL-A then ESC. Oh, it's in the source alright, but
> IE doesn't want to render it straightaway. It has to be nudged into
> it. Scrolling up and down does the trick too. I guess it's whats
> known in the trade as "invalidating the view".

I do not see what you describe, using W2K IE6 and FF 1.5.0.1. Both
browsers look identical to me.

> So which bit of my CSS can I change to trick IE into doing the right
> thing right from the off?

Try a modern DOCTYPE. HTML 4.0 Transitional is way old. Use 4.01 Strict
for all new documents.

Why is the entire page in a <form>?

Consider moving to a fluid layout; the page is quite narrow in the
center of my browser window, with lots of unused space.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Drop Verdana.
http://xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

You're mixing serif and sans-serif fonts, which is unusual.

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....ch%2FNews.aspx>

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 am

frederick@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
> Colin Peters wrote:
>
>
>
> Not a direct answer to your question, but:
>
> Firstly, you have a defective doctype declaration. And on a related
> point, your code is not quite HTML and not quite XHTML.
>
> Secondly, I have no experience with ASP or whatever it is, but is there
> a reason why the entire contents of your body element are wrapped with
> the following oddity:
> <form method="post" action="News.aspx" id="baseForm"
> enctype="Multipart/Form-Data">
> <input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE"
> value="dDw1MzgxO3Q8O2w8aTw0Pjs+O2w8dDxwPGw8aW5uZXJodG1sOz47bDxOZXdzOz4+Ozs+Oz4+Oz4oiMNbXl78Q5entXdegWcSrroQBw=="
> />
> </form>
> Note that the you've closed the element twice, as well!

Thanks for your reply, I'm going to fix some of the points mentioned.

The enveloping form is on all my pages. Its a workaround to make sure
that I can always add form elements without worrying if there's a
container form for them, or worrying that there might be two forms.

But I only see one closing form tag. Where is the other? I'm puzzled
because I have worked on that lately but I thought I checked it.
>
> Thirdly, if you'd validated your CSS you'd have seen that there's 3
> errors; there's also quite a few warnings.
>
> Finally, and quite incidentally, I'd replace your NewsSumm_Title class
> with H3 elements.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> AGw.
>

frederick@southernskies.co.uk

2006-04-16, 6:50 am

Colin Peters wrote:
> The enveloping form is on all my pages. Its a workaround to make sure
> that I can always add form elements without worrying if there's a
> container form for them, or worrying that there might be two forms.
>
> But I only see one closing form tag. Where is the other? I'm puzzled
> because I have worked on that lately but I thought I checked it.

It appears that I was talking nonsense! I somehow read the "/>" of the
input tag as being at the end of the form tag. Sorry...

--
AGw.

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Neredbojias wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, Colin Peters <cpeters@coldmail.com>
> declaimed:
>
>
>
>
> What kind of doctype is that? And why are some open-ended elements
> terminated with <... /> and others not? Did you validate the page?
>
> It looks like a mess to me.
>
The doctype was cribbed from a book or somewhere. I'll change that.

As for the unterminated open ended elements, which ones do you mean?

And the html validate OK, according to :

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...Fwww.wils.ch%2F

And the CSS......aaarrrrgghhhhhh.

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

kchayka wrote:

> Colin Peters wrote:
>
>
>
> No, it's what's known as the "peek-a-boo bug". It should take you about
> a half a second to find more about it. Google is your friend. Use it.
>

Yep, got it. But come on, "peekaboo" is hardly intuitive. Thnaks anyway.

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Colin Peters wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I do not see what you describe, using W2K IE6 and FF 1.5.0.1. Both
> browsers look identical to me.
>
Interesting. XP Pro + IE6 on my machine shows the effect every time.
Seems to be as described by the other posters link. I'll try to follow
this up myself.
>
>
>
> Try a modern DOCTYPE. HTML 4.0 Transitional is way old. Use 4.01 Strict
> for all new documents.

Will do. Although I notice that
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_doctype.asp

don't.

>
> Why is the entire page in a <form>?

Because depending on who's logged in there can be extra buttons to push.
Sure, I could detect if any form elements would be needed then envelope
the content or not, but it's easier to just to wrap a form around the
lot then not worry about it. Are there any reasons not to use a form?
>
> Consider moving to a fluid layout; the page is quite narrow in the
> center of my browser window, with lots of unused space.
> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Nice link. Although I'm not yet convinced about making the content area
wider. After all, in the newspaper sphere, the column size on
broadsheets isn't significantly wider than tabloids. So I guess the
human eye has a certain comfortable width for reading text. Also, some
of the elements, like the pull quotes, are width-sized in percentage
terms. On a wide screen this would cause short quotes to occupy just one
line which cocks up the quotemark GIF layout. I'm sure there are ways
around this, but for now I'll leave this aspect. According to the CSS
validator I've got more pressing problems. At least the HTML look
cleaner now.
>
> Drop Verdana.
> http://xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Yep, gonna chuck Verdana. I put it in initially because some web guru
advocates it. I agree that it looks too wide.
>
> You're mixing serif and sans-serif fonts, which is unusual.
>
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....ch%2FNews.aspx>
>

Ed Mullen

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Colin Peters wrote:

> The doctype was cribbed from a book or somewhere. I'll change that.
>

FYI - http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Colin Peters wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Interesting. XP Pro + IE6 on my machine shows the effect every time.
> Seems to be as described by the other posters link. I'll try to follow
> this up myself.
>
>
>
> Will do. Although I notice that
> http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_doctype.asp
>
> don't.
>
>
>
> Because depending on who's logged in there can be extra buttons to push.
> Sure, I could detect if any form elements would be needed then envelope
> the content or not, but it's easier to just to wrap a form around the
> lot then not worry about it. Are there any reasons not to use a form?
>
>
>
> Nice link. Although I'm not yet convinced about making the content area
> wider. After all, in the newspaper sphere, the column size on
> broadsheets isn't significantly wider than tabloids. So I guess the
> human eye has a certain comfortable width for reading text. Also, some
> of the elements, like the pull quotes, are width-sized in percentage
> terms. On a wide screen this would cause short quotes to occupy just one
> line which cocks up the quotemark GIF layout. I'm sure there are ways
> around this, but for now I'll leave this aspect. According to the CSS
> validator I've got more pressing problems. At least the HTML look
> cleaner now.
>
>
>
> Yep, gonna chuck Verdana. I put it in initially because some web guru
> advocates it. I agree that it looks too wide.
>

Actually, I'm getting more convinced about not targeting 800x600. Must
get the CSS sorted out first, though.

Neredbojias

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

To further the education of mankind, Colin Peters <cpeters@coldmail.com>
vouchsafed:

> The doctype was cribbed from a book or somewhere. I'll change that.
>
> As for the unterminated open ended elements, which ones do you mean?

This:

<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE"
value="dDw1MzgxO3Q8O2w8aTw0Pjs+O2w8dDxwPGw8aW5uZXJodG1sOz47bDxOZXdzOz4
+Ozs+Oz4+Oz4oiMNbXl78Q5entXdegWcSrroQBw==" />

is terminated xhtml-style.

This (-and others):

<meta name="keywords" content="Wilsch">

isn't.

> And the html validate OK, according to :
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...Fwww.wils.ch%2F

Yes - as html 4.0. But the link in your doctype is for xhtml...

> And the CSS......aaarrrrgghhhhhh.

Grrrrrrrrrooooooooaaaarrrrrrrrr!

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Colin Peters wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> Will do. Although I notice that http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_doctype.asp
> don't.

Not in the page itself, they don't. Those w3schools pages have been
around for awhile; perhaps they are still in the Transition process. I
did say for "new documents" you should use Strict, where you are not
going to be embedding old HTML styling tricks.

Quote:
HTML Strict DTD

Use this when you want clean markup, free of presentational clutter. Use
this together with Cascading Style Sheets (CSS):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

But you were using HTML 4.0 - and not the new 4.01.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Colin Peters

2006-04-16, 6:50 pm

Neredbojias wrote:

> To further the education of mankind, Colin Peters <cpeters@coldmail.com>
> vouchsafed:
>
>
>
>
> This:
>
> <input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE"
> value="dDw1MzgxO3Q8O2w8aTw0Pjs+O2w8dDxwPGw8aW5uZXJodG1sOz47bDxOZXdzOz4
> +Ozs+Oz4+Oz4oiMNbXl78Q5entXdegWcSrroQBw==" />
>
> is terminated xhtml-style.

OK. I've just changed the doctype and it didn't validate. Now I've
wrapped this element in a div and it passes validation.

>
> This (-and others):
>
> <meta name="keywords" content="Wilsch">
>
> isn't.

Curiously, this slipped through the validation, but I see the mistake
and I'll fix that too.
>
>
>
>
> Yes - as html 4.0. But the link in your doctype is for xhtml...
>
>
>
>
> Grrrrrrrrrooooooooaaaarrrrrrrrr!
>

I've also eliminated the CSS errors. uuuummmmmm. But not all the
warnings. oooohhhhh.

None of which eliminated the peekaboo thing so I'll delve into that
further. Thanks to all your help. Without your collective help I'd never
know how much I don't know.

Toby Inkster

2006-04-17, 3:50 am

Colin Peters wrote:

> [ "<input />" in HTML ] passes validation.

Yes, but it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

"<input />" means "<input>>".

Though most browsers are too dumb to notice.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Neredbojias

2006-04-17, 3:50 am

To further the education of mankind, Colin Peters <cpeters@coldmail.com>
vouchsafed:

>
> OK. I've just changed the doctype and it didn't validate. Now I've
> wrapped this element in a div and it passes validation.

Yep, I'm not that great on forms but I think you're supposed to put the
items inside a form (-like input, etc.) in a container. Why? -Who
knows?

>
> Curiously, this slipped through the validation, but I see the mistake
> and I'll fix that too.

If your final correct doctype is for xhtml, all "open" elements need the
end slash. If for html, you can (and should) eliminate all of them.

>
> I've also eliminated the CSS errors. uuuummmmmm. But not all the
> warnings. oooohhhhh.

Warnings usually aren't earth-shattering, but if they can be easily
fixed...

> None of which eliminated the peekaboo thing so I'll delve into that
> further. Thanks to all your help. Without your collective help I'd
> never know how much I don't know.

IE7 should be coming out this decade. Maybe they'll have fixed that.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

dwight.stegall@gmail.com

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

read a great book http://www.idest.com/csshacks

Many libraries world wide have books related to the internet, web and
computers in general. They also have CDs and DVDs. Go to your local
public library and get the username and password for
http://www.firstsearch.org/ You can look up the book yourself but they
will have to order it for you. Sometimes this can take awhile if the
book is checked out by someone else. After reading the books and making
copies of certain pages with a photo copier simply return it to them.

By using firstsearch you can search for any book in the world. Some
libraries might charge a small fee but most are free. Every web design
book I have read was acquired in this fashion. :)

Tony

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Tony

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Colin Peters wrote:
> kchayka wrote:
>
>
> Yep, got it. But come on, "peekaboo" is hardly intuitive. Thnaks anyway.

But looking over the group archives would have given a lot of info,
given that this particular issue comes up constantly - as in multiple
times every week.

Colin Peters

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Tony wrote:
> Colin Peters wrote:
>
>
>
> PEEKABOO BUG!!!
>
>
> Hey guys - who maintains the FAQ? Is this in it? This seems to get asked
> at least 3 times per week anymore

I didn't know there was one. Perhaps it should be posted more
frequently. Anyway, now I know the name of the phenomena I was able to
source a solution, I think.

axlq

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

In article <cWd0g.10589$az4.7456@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>Try a modern DOCTYPE. HTML 4.0 Transitional is way old. Use 4.01 Strict
>for all new documents.

Someone explain to me what's wrong with HTML 4.0 Transitional. So
what if it's old? It's widely supported and it works.

I develop pages in either Transitional or Strict, as it suits me.
If I'm in a hurry, Transitional is more efficient, at least for me.

(Aside: One thing I wish all these HTML specs had is a way to
specify widths in mixed units. Say I have float:left div containing
a 40px wide graphic next to a 10em wide block, and I want the text
outside that div to have a 40px+11em left margin. I don't see any
practical way to do this. It's a feature that I find I need every
day.)

>Drop Verdana.
>http://xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

That's ridiculous. His argument is basically "Verdana looks too big
for my taste" -- and he claims to speak for "most people" in that
regard. Yeah, right. If that's the look you want on your site,
then use it. Personally I find Verdana much easier on my eyes when
reading a lot of text (such as a short story) on the web, than any
other font rendered the same size.

>You're mixing serif and sans-serif fonts, which is unusual.

It's perfectly normal if done consistently; for example serif for
headings and san-serif for body text. This is standard convention
in textbooks (actually opposite, san-serif for headings and serif
for body text).

-A

frederick@southernskies.co.uk

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

axlq wrote:
> In article <cWd0g.10589$az4.7456@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
> Someone explain to me what's wrong with HTML 4.0 Transitional. So
> what if it's old? It's widely supported and it works.

Well, by that logic, why not use HTML 3.2?!

HTML 4.01 Strict is the most recent version of the standard (for want
of a better word). It addresses flaws in preceding versions. It's
supported by all browsers of any significance in the real world. It
forces the author to prepare documents that are more likely to be
well-structured and accessible. Etc, etc...

This isn't 1997 or whenever, when following standards was almost
guaranteed to break your page. Why not use the most up-to-date
version? You lose nothing, and have the potential to gain from it.

>
> It's perfectly normal if done consistently; for example serif for
> headings and san-serif for body text. This is standard convention
> in textbooks (actually opposite, san-serif for headings and serif
> for body text).

Mixing serif and sans-serif can of course work. But arguing what might
work on the Web on the basis of what's used in textbooks is misleading.
Different media have different "rules", and for good reason.

--
AGw.

axlq

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

In article <1247lte7t95m89e@corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
>PEEKABOO BUG!!!
>
>Hey guys - who maintains the FAQ? Is this in it? This seems to get asked
>at least 3 times per week anymore

This is the first I've seen it mentioned in this newsgroup, and it's
been bedeviling me too. I didn't know it had that name.

Hm, searching around, there are some kludge fixes for it. I find that
the following fixes the peekaboo bug on my site:

body { line-height: 1.2em; }

This flows down to all other elements and the peekaboo bug goes away.

-A

Tony

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Colin Peters wrote:
> Tony wrote:

>
> I didn't know there was one. Perhaps it should be posted more
> frequently.

I won't argue that one bit. I'll have to look - maybe there isn't one.
If not, there should be...

Tony

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

axlq wrote:
> In article <cWd0g.10589$az4.7456@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Someone explain to me what's wrong with HTML 4.0 Transitional. So
> what if it's old? It's widely supported and it works.

Very simply: rendering quirks are more likely, and are usually bigger,
when using Transitional. Using Strict limits the X-browser rendering
quirks to a much smaller and more managable set.

Alan J. Flavell

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, axlq wrote:

> Someone explain to me what's wrong with HTML 4.0 Transitional.

Did you want the 5 minute trial argument, or the full half-hour?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

axlq wrote:

> In article <cWd0g.10589$az4.7456@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> Someone explain to me what's wrong with HTML 4.0 Transitional. So
> what if it's old? It's widely supported and it works.

...for some degree of work (to borrow a phrase).

> I develop pages in either Transitional or Strict, as it suits me.
> If I'm in a hurry, Transitional is more efficient, at least for me.

I find no problem churning out pages in Strict. In fact, with all the
presentation in the style sheet, it is actually faster.

>
> That's ridiculous. His argument is basically "Verdana looks too big
> for my taste" -- and he claims to speak for "most people" in that
> regard. Yeah, right. If that's the look you want on your site,
> then use it. Personally I find Verdana much easier on my eyes when
> reading a lot of text (such as a short story) on the web, than any
> other font rendered the same size.

The problem is that authors who use Verdana almost always set their font
sizes smaller than 100%, or 1em, usually something like 10px or 80%.
They themselves think it looks too large, apparently (and don't know how
to adjust their own browsrs).

Then the visitor without Verdana comes along, gets your fallback font,
and it looks like flyspecks.

>
> It's perfectly normal if done consistently; for example serif for
> headings and san-serif for body text. This is standard convention
> in textbooks (actually opposite, san-serif for headings and serif
> for body text).

You missed my point. The original site (now changed, I believe) used:

font-family: Verdana, Georgia, Arial, sans-serif;

...all for one element. Using a sans-serif, a serif, a sans-serif, and
the sans-serif fallback, is .. um .. unusual. Georgia is a serifed font.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

axlq

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

In article <IRT0g.16540$az4.984@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>You missed my point. The original site (now changed, I believe) used:
>
> font-family: Verdana, Georgia, Arial, sans-serif;

Ugh. You're right. That makes no sense; Georgia a fallback for
Verdana??

-A

axlq

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

In article <1247v2g6u55ud91@corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>axlq wrote:
>
>Very simply: rendering quirks are more likely, and are usually bigger,
>when using Transitional. Using Strict limits the X-browser rendering
>quirks to a much smaller and more managable set.

That's a good answer, and you're correct; I found that mixing tables and
CSS, with table properties defined in the table elements, will screw up
IE. Other than that, the rendering quirk I get often is the peekaboo
bug and that appears whether one uses strict or transitional.

-A

Tony

2006-04-18, 6:58 pm

axlq wrote:
> In article <1247v2g6u55ud91@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's a good answer, and you're correct; I found that mixing tables and
> CSS, with table properties defined in the table elements, will screw up
> IE. Other than that, the rendering quirk I get often is the peekaboo
> bug and that appears whether one uses strict or transitional.
>

Box model problems, too, among others.

Ever take a good look around quirksmode?

axlq

2006-04-18, 10:43 pm

In article <124actdr4of7u67@corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>axlq wrote:
>
>Box model problems, too, among others.
>
>Ever take a good look around quirksmode?

I'm new at this... what's "quirksmode"?

-A

frederick@southernskies.co.uk

2006-04-19, 3:43 am

axlq wrote:
> In article <IRT0g.16540$az4.984@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> Ugh. You're right. That makes no sense; Georgia a fallback for
> Verdana??

Perhaps it was a misthunk for "Geneva"?

--
AGw.

frederick@southernskies.co.uk

2006-04-19, 3:43 am

axlq wrote:
> I'm new at this... what's "quirksmode"?

http://www.quirksmode.org

--
AGw.

Tony

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

axlq wrote:
> In article <124actdr4of7u67@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
>

> I'm new at this... what's "quirksmode"?

http://www.quirksmode.org

Really good reading