This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Stylesheets > July 2007 > float
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Bouzy210@gmail.com 2007-07-04, 10:14 pm |
| http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l...y_Bouzy/ggj.jpg
That is how my page looks in Firefox.
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l..._Bouzy/gg-1.jpg
Thats how it looks in IE.
Hello I have been researching CSS for about 2 months now. I just
started to make my first web page (Just for fun)(Its turned into
anger)
I have been searching for a solution for my problem above for 6 days
now on various forums and things. People have given me solutions, but
none of them have worked. If anyone could help that would be really
amazing. My problem I am sure has to do with my float property, but I
am not sure. Hear is my code...
body {
background-color: #5f656b;
font-family: Tahoma, "Arial Unicode MS", Arial, sans-serif, serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #eea103
}
/*Divs*/
#content {
height: 505px;
width: 518px;
background-image: url(images/content.jpg);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
padding-left: 38px;
padding-right: 38px;
padding-top: 46px;
padding-bottom: 46px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-top: 26px;
margin-bottom: 20px;
float: none;
margin-left: 195px;
}
#sidebar {
height: 505px;
width: 153px;
background-image: url(images/sidebar.jpg);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
padding-left: 38px;
padding-right: 25px;
padding-top: 46px;
padding-bottom: 46px;
margin-top: 26px;
margin-bottom: 20px;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: 0px;
float: left;
}
#navigation {
margin: 0px;
padding-top: 0px;
border-width: 0px;
}
#banner {
border-width: 0px;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
}
#container {
width: 712px;
margin: 0px auto;
position: relative;
}
#home {
width: 442px;
}
#news {
width: 442px;
}
***********************
and the XHTML
**********************
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtmll/DTD/xhtmll-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1" />
<title>Goldfish Graphics</title>
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="Goldfish.css" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="container">
<div id="banner">
<img src="images/banner.jpg" alt= "Goldfish Graphics Banner Image" />
</div>
<div id="navigation">
<img src="images/navigation.jpg" alt= "navigation background image" />
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<h5>Testimonies</h5>
<p>
""
</p>
<p>
Links
</p>
</div>
<div id="content">
<h2>Home</h2>
<p id="home">
Based in the Midwest, Goldfish Graphics is a freelance design
business. Goldfish Graphics is
dedicated to working with clients to turn their ideas into unique
designs. By communicating
with our clients, we produce quality websites, layouts, print and
website graphics, and logos
that are affordable.
</p>
<h4>News (7/02/07)</h4>
<p id="news">
Although the Goldfish Graphics site is up and running, I am still
currently learning how to better make web sites.
Because I am still learning, all web based projects I take on now will
be 50% of the price they should be. With a little patience you can
have a quality web designs for half the price.
</p>
</div>
<div class="end"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-04, 10:14 pm |
| In article
<1183597925.872977.25380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l...y_Bouzy/ggj.jpg
>
> That is how my page looks in Firefox.
>
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l..._Bouzy/gg-1.jpg
>
> Thats how it looks in IE.
>
> Hello I have been researching CSS for about 2 months now. I just
> started to make my first web page (Just for fun)(Its turned into
> anger)
> I have been searching for a solution for my problem above for 6 days
> now on various forums and things. People have given me solutions, but
> none of them have worked. If anyone could help that would be really
> amazing. My problem I am sure has to do with my float property, but I
> am not sure. Hear is my code...
>
> body {
you code does not tell the same story as your pics even in FF.
Post a url of the actual page.
--
dorayme
| |
| Bouzy210@gmail.com 2007-07-04, 10:14 pm |
| On Jul 4, 8:17 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <1183597925.872977.25...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Bouzy...@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> you code does not tell the same story as your pics even in FF.
> Post a url of the actual page.
>
> --
> dorayme
Its not an actual page yet. (If you didn't know the black stuff is
just MS paint covering my content (I didn't want people to rip, but w/
e I will post the IE pic without it). Thats not the problem the only
problem is the way my #content and #sidebar is displayed.)
(The firefox one is correct just pretend the black boxes arn't there.)
(Pretend the boxes aren't there and thats my problem. Hear is the
picture in IE.)...... http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...urrent=gg33.jpg
| |
| Bouzy210@gmail.com 2007-07-04, 10:14 pm |
| On Jul 4, 8:56 pm, Bouzy...@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:17 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Its not an actual page yet. (If you didn't know the black stuff is
> just MS paint covering my content (I didn't want people to rip, but w/
> e I will post the IE pic without it). Thats not the problem the only
> problem is the way my #content and #sidebar is displayed.)
>
> (The firefox one is correct just pretend the black boxes arn't there.)
> (Pretend the boxes aren't there and thats my problem. Hear is the
> picture in IE.)...... http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...=view¤...
Also if you can see the line in between the banner and navigation I
don't know what that is either. (Same thing above the banner doesnt go
all the way to top of page.
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| In article
<1183600561.416105.93490@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:17 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Its not an actual page yet. (If you didn't know the black stuff is
> just MS paint covering my content (I didn't want people to rip, but w/
> e I will post the IE pic without it). Thats not the problem the only
> problem is the way my #content and #sidebar is displayed.)
>
> (The firefox one is correct just pretend the black boxes arn't there.)
> (Pretend the boxes aren't there and thats my problem. Hear is the
> picture in IE.)......
> http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...current=gg33.jp
> g
You can still put up a url of the non-actual page (it helps with
something like this).
Anyway, took a brief look and there is much wrong. For a start,
even if you are going to work in pixels like this (not
recommended), add up your dimensions. Content you say is 518,
container 712? Make a sum of all the bits inside and include the
paddings and it is way over 712.
If you are going make a column left, give it a width, and float
it left. Fine. The content on the right needs no instruction
about float, but does need a left margin (of the width of the nav
col and a little more to be safe) if you do not want it to drop
underneath.
You should also be aware that IE adds 3px between a float and
other "inline" content. This can throw calculations out too. If
you must be so pixel perfect, there are techniques, one being to
give an instruction for a negative margin (by 3px) to the content
but only for IE eyes via a conditional or a hack.
--
dorayme
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l...y_Bouzy/ggj.jpg
>
> That is how my page looks in Firefox.
>
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l..._Bouzy/gg-1.jpg
>
> Thats how it looks in IE.
I get it: "ggj" stands for Firefox, and gg-1 is the universal
abbreviation for Internet Explorer. It's intuitive!
>
> Hello I have been researching CSS for about 2 months now. I just
> started to make my first web page (Just for fun)(Its turned into
> anger)
> I have been searching for a solution for my problem above for 6 days
> now on various forums and things. People have given me solutions, but
> none of them have worked. If anyone could help that would be really
> amazing. My problem I am sure has to do with my float property, but I
> am not sure. Hear is my code...
>
> body {
>
> background-color: #5f656b;
> font-family: Tahoma, "Arial Unicode MS", Arial, sans-serif, serif;
> font-size: 12px;
> color: #eea103
>
> }
>
> /*Divs*/
>
> #content {
>
> height: 505px;
> width: 518px;
> background-image: url(images/content.jpg);
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> padding-left: 38px;
> padding-right: 38px;
> padding-top: 46px;
> padding-bottom: 46px;
> margin-right: 0px;
> margin-top: 26px;
> margin-bottom: 20px;
> float: none;
> margin-left: 195px;
>
>
>
> }
>
>
> #sidebar {
>
>
> height: 505px;
> width: 153px;
> background-image: url(images/sidebar.jpg);
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> padding-left: 38px;
> padding-right: 25px;
> padding-top: 46px;
> padding-bottom: 46px;
> margin-top: 26px;
> margin-bottom: 20px;
> margin-left: auto;
> margin-right: 0px;
> float: left;
>
>
> }
>
>
> #navigation {
>
> margin: 0px;
> padding-top: 0px;
> border-width: 0px;
>
>
> }
>
> #banner {
>
> border-width: 0px;
> margin: 0px;
> padding: 0px;
>
>
> }
>
>
> #container {
>
> width: 712px;
> margin: 0px auto;
> position: relative;
>
>
> }
>
> #home {
>
> width: 442px;
>
> }
>
> #news {
>
> width: 442px;
>
> }
>
>
> ***********************
> and the XHTML
> **********************
>
>
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtmll/DTD/xhtmll-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
>
> <head>
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=ISO-8859-1" />
>
> <title>Goldfish Graphics</title>
>
> <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="Goldfish.css" />
>
> </head>
> <body>
>
> <div id="container">
>
> <div id="banner">
> <img src="images/banner.jpg" alt= "Goldfish Graphics Banner Image" />
> </div>
>
> <div id="navigation">
> <img src="images/navigation.jpg" alt= "navigation background image" />
> </div>
>
> <div id="sidebar">
>
> <h5>Testimonies</h5>
> <p>
> ""
> </p>
>
> <p>
> Links
> </p>
>
> </div>
>
> <div id="content">
> <h2>Home</h2>
> <p id="home">
> Based in the Midwest, Goldfish Graphics is a freelance design
> business. Goldfish Graphics is
> dedicated to working with clients to turn their ideas into unique
> designs. By communicating
> with our clients, we produce quality websites, layouts, print and
> website graphics, and logos
> that are affordable.
>
> </p>
> <h4>News (7/02/07)</h4>
>
> <p id="news">
> Although the Goldfish Graphics site is up and running, I am still
> currently learning how to better make web sites.
> Because I am still learning, all web based projects I take on now will
> be 50% of the price they should be. With a little patience you can
> have a quality web designs for half the price.
> </p>
>
> </div>
>
>
>
> <div class="end"></div>
>
> </div>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> </body>
> </html>
>
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:17 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[color=darkred]
Please trim the sigs from posts to which you reply. I know Google Groups
doesn't make this easy for you, so please think to do it manually.
[color=darkred]
>
> Its not an actual page yet. (If you didn't know the black stuff is
> just MS paint covering my content (I didn't want people to rip, but w/
> e I will post the IE pic without it).
But then you posted your content to the Internet in usenet using the GG
interface, where everyone can see it and it will be archived to boot. So
(1) your info is available for anyone who might want it, and (2) I've
seen your content and, trust me, no one will want it.
> Thats not the problem the only
> problem is the way my #content and #sidebar is displayed.)
If you know what the problem is and isn't, why are you posting here? Of
course, I don't know what you refer to with "Thats", because I couldn't
quite parse the preceding sentence anyway.
>
> (The firefox one is correct just pretend the black boxes arn't there.)
If you want us to pretend they aren't there, then please remove them
yourself. Not just from the images, either: if you are so sure (or want
to confirm) that those elements are not relevant to your problem, remove
them completely. Thus you prepare the simplified test case which is most
useful for debugging.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Sherm Pendley 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> writes:
> Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
>
> I get it: "ggj" stands for Firefox, and gg-1 is the universal
> abbreviation for Internet Explorer. It's intuitive!
You quoted 200+ lines of code just to add that? And then in your next
message you want to give Bouzy a hard time for quoting someone's sig?
Pot, meet kettle.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l...y_Bouzy/ggj.jpg
>
> That is how my page looks in Firefox.
>
> http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l..._Bouzy/gg-1.jpg
>
> Thats how it looks in IE.
I get it: "ggj" stands for Firefox, and gg-1 is the universal
abbreviation for Internet Explorer. It's intuitive! ;-)
Sarcasm aside, a URL is much preferred. We can't debug a JPEG. My Edit
CSS and Edit HTML tools don't work, and the validators can't see
anything wrong with your code when fed a surface photo of its rendering.
>
> Hello I have been researching CSS for about 2 months now. I just
> started to make my first web page (Just for fun)(Its turned into
> anger)
CSS is *not* a conspiracy! It just seems that way sometimes.
> I have been searching for a solution for my problem above for 6 days
> now on various forums and things. People have given me solutions, but
> none of them have worked. If anyone could help that would be really
> amazing.
Yes, especially considering what you've given us to work with.
> My problem I am sure has to do with my float property, but I
> am not sure. Hear is my code...
No code, please, just a URL.
Also, you forgot to state your problem. Yes, I see from your JPEGs that
IE and FF produce different results. Is that what's bothering you? Or
what, exactly?
>
> body {
> background-color: #5f656b;
> font-family: Tahoma, "Arial Unicode MS", Arial, sans-serif, serif;
> font-size: 12px;
In your ongoing research into CSS, add some study about why px is less
worthy than em or % when sizing text. Also, start with a bigger size.
12px is way too small, especially at a low contrast such as you've
chosen. I recommend 100% or 1em.
> color: #eea103
>
> }
>
> /*Divs*/
>
> #content {
> height: 505px;
> width: 518px;
> background-image: url(images/content.jpg);
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> padding-left: 38px;
> padding-right: 38px;
> padding-top: 46px;
> padding-bottom: 46px;
> margin-right: 0px;
> margin-top: 26px;
> margin-bottom: 20px;
> float: none;
> margin-left: 195px;
195 < 216. See below.
> }
>
> #sidebar {
> height: 505px;
> width: 153px;
> background-image: url(images/sidebar.jpg);
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> padding-left: 38px;
> padding-right: 25px;
> padding-top: 46px;
> padding-bottom: 46px;
> margin-top: 26px;
> margin-bottom: 20px;
> margin-left: auto;
> margin-right: 0px;
> float: left;
> }
153 + 38 + 25 = 216px. Then there's margin-left.
The result is a value greater than 195px. Is the resulting compromise
placement the problem that's troubling you?
>
> #container {
> width: 712px;
> margin: 0px auto;
> position: relative;
> }
518 + 38 + 38 + 0 (#content) + 216 (#sidebar) is already 810px, which is
known to be more than 712px. You need to rework your figures, best of
all with percentages (or auto values) rather than exact pixels.
>
> #home {
> width: 442px;
> }
>
> #news {
> width: 442px;
> }
>
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtmll/DTD/xhtmll-strict.dtd">
I spell XHTML with only one "L". ;-)
> <img src="images/banner.jpg" alt= "Goldfish Graphics Banner Image" />
> </div>
> <div id="navigation">
> <img src="images/navigation.jpg" alt= "navigation background image" />
I don't have access to your background images. :-(
>
> <div id="sidebar">
>
> <h5>Testimonies</h5>
What happened to your <h1> through <h4>? Ah, I see some other headers
below, but only an <h2> and an <h4>. Better to use logical headings
(<h5> is some subdivision of an <h4> topic), and (re-)style the sizes to
suit your tastes. See the article by Spartanicus at
http://codewallop.110mb.com/goodpra...eadingology.htm .
> <p>
> ""
> </p>
>
> <p>
> Links
> </p>
>
> </div>
>
> <div id="content">
> <h2>Home</h2>
> <p id="home">
> ...By communicating
> with our clients, we produce quality websites, layouts, print and
> website graphics, and logos that are affordable.
Cool! I usually have to write actual code to achieve all that. ;-)
> </p>
> <h4>News (7/02/07)</h4>
>
> <p id="news">
> Although the Goldfish Graphics site is up and running, I am still
> currently learning how to better make web sites.
> Because I am still learning, all web based projects I take on now will
> be 50% of the price they should be. With a little patience you can
> have a quality web designs for half the price.
> </p>
>
> </div>
>
> <div class="end"></div>
This div is empty and the class is not referenced in the CSS. Delete.
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
HTH.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> You quoted 200+ lines of code just to add that? And then in your next
> message you want to give Bouzy a hard time for quoting someone's sig?
No, I didn't mean to send it at all. I accidentally hit some
CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+F17 function which expedites my looking like a fool.
Saves time, I guess, but I haven't learned all the shortcuts yet, so
usually I have to do it all manually.
--
John
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| In article <468c7963_6@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> Sarcasm aside, a URL is much preferred. We can't debug a JPEG. My Edit
> CSS and Edit HTML tools don't work, and the validators can't see
> anything wrong with your code when fed a surface photo of its rendering.
Is this metacasm?
--
dorayme
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| dorayme wrote:
> In article <468c7963_6@news.bluewin.ch>,
> John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> Is this metacasm?
No, you're thinking of sarcasm which is *above*.
Sarcasm to the side is, um, wait a minute while I look up the Latin...,
ah! "On the side" is "dorsal," so "sarcasm aside" is, uh, dorcasm.
--
John
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| In article <468c7a7b$1_1@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> No, I didn't mean to send it at all. I accidentally hit some
> CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+F17 function which expedites my looking like a fool.
> Saves time, I guess, but I haven't learned all the shortcuts yet, so
> usually I have to do it all manually.
But you did mean to repeat what I already told the OP about his
pxs not adding up. (it's ok, I know you supplied more figures).
You, especially, must be very careful when crossing paths with my
posts; considering your research into my statement of The Missing
King. <g>
btw, John, seen a similar statement of The Desert anywhere?
Solved it yet? It is a lot fun, trust me.
--
dorayme
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| John Hosking wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> No, you're thinking of sarcasm which is *above*.
>
> Sarcasm to the side is, um, wait a minute while I look up the Latin...,
> ah! "On the side" is "dorsal," so "sarcasm aside" is, uh, dorcasm.
>
No, wait, stop the presses. My nurse just came in with my medications
and told me that the side is "lateral". (Admission: I've never actually
been to Latin America.) So it must be lateralasm. I think I will
register lateralasm.org just to promote this knowledge (after my meds
take effect).
--
John
| |
| John Hosking 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| dorayme wrote:
> In article <468c7a7b$1_1@news.bluewin.ch>,
> John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
>
> But you did mean to repeat what I already told the OP about his
> pxs not adding up. (it's ok, I know you supplied more figures).
Yes, and I meant to commend your comments to the OP. I seem to have also
forgotten to mention Quirks mode and an uncertain use of XHTML. I have
obviously skipped a dosage of something tonight, possibly sleep.
> You, especially, must be very careful when crossing paths with my
> posts; considering your research into my statement of The Missing
> King. <g>
Actually, I don't remember posting about any such research. Wasn't that
a different poor sap?
>
> btw, John, seen a similar statement of The Desert anywhere?
> Solved it yet? It is a lot fun, trust me.
No, it is not fun. I was stumped when I first read the damned thing (a
year or so ago) and I remain stumped to this day. No fun at all. But
don't tell me the answer, because that would spoil the fun. Which it
doesn't have. So there.
--
John
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| In article <468c7d6e$1_5@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> No, you're thinking of sarcasm which is *above*.
>
> Sarcasm to the side is, um, wait a minute while I look up the Latin...,
> ah! "On the side" is "dorsal," so "sarcasm aside" is, uh, dorcasm.
No no no. You put sarcasm aside. That means that near the
beginning of your sentence "Sarcasm aside...", just after these
words, to be precise, your previous sarcastic remarks were put
into a category of dorcasm by you. But as you continued the
sentence it became clear that you were engaged in another sarcasm
and I was wondering if this form of sarcasm had any particular
status or name. "meta" is doubtless wrong. We need a name for
sarcasm that follows dorcasm ('post dorcasm' will do this simple
bit) but yet is intimately related to dorcasm (so intimately that
there is playful (indeed a sarcastic) bringing back to centre
stage what is claimed to be dorcasm). You have ruined my
afternoon now and I cannot do any more work, so distracted am I
in this search. My alt text pills are highly unlikely to be able
to help and I have nothing else at the moment.
--
dorayme
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| In article <468c8086$1_3@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> Yes, and I meant to commend your comments to the OP. I seem to have also
> forgotten to mention Quirks mode and an uncertain use of XHTML. I have
> obviously skipped a dosage of something tonight, possibly sleep.
>
>
> Actually, I don't remember posting about any such research. Wasn't that
> a different poor sap?
>
>
> No, it is not fun. I was stumped when I first read the damned thing (a
> year or so ago) and I remain stumped to this day. No fun at all. But
> don't tell me the answer, because that would spoil the fun. Which it
> doesn't have. So there.
>
> --
> John
O yes, goddamn it. It now comes back to me. That was Chris FA
Johnson. Sorry.
It does have a solution, you will have to trust me. (I lost a
friend for a while who had difficulty solving it and got real mad
when I showed her my effort - even if my effort was right, one
has to have a special tolerant eye to see the elegance in it. But
my solution is a damn sight more elegant than my original ad very
very ugly solution to Rubik's Cube (I noticed that there was an
amusing featuring of R'sC in a film called The Pursuit of
Happyness... sort of cute film, I liked it.)
--
dorayme
| |
| Sherm Pendley 2007-07-05, 3:17 am |
| John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> writes:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> No, I didn't mean to send it at all.
Sorry, my bad - your other followup hadn't arrived at my server when I
sent that.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
| |
|
| On 2007-07-05, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
><1183600561.416105.93490@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
[...]
> If you are going make a column left, give it a width, and float
> it left. Fine. The content on the right needs no instruction
> about float, but does need a left margin (of the width of the nav
> col and a little more to be safe) if you do not want it to drop
> underneath.
Just to clarify that a bit: the content block on the right will only
drop underneath if it's also a float. If it's not floated, assuming it
doesn't have clear set, it's not going to drop.
| |
|
|
"Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
news:slrnf8p5hv.6fr.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> On 2007-07-05, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
> [http://members.optushome.com.au/dro...sad/desert.html]
>
>
> I can get across the desert all right, but the idea is to prove that one
> has done it in the minimum possible mileage?
Ask the horse. The nameless one.
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 6:18 am |
| In article <slrnf8p5hv.6fr.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-07-05, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
> [http://members.optushome.com.au/dro...sad/desert.html]
>
>
> I can get across the desert all right, but the idea is to prove that one
> has done it in the minimum possible mileage?
>
> No spoilers.
Yes, that is what the problem is. It is easy enough to get across
with great wastage. It is a lot of fun trying to find the
optimum, trust me.
(OTT: where is that post about a Soduko solver on this or
alt.html recently. I jotted down the numbers which the OP claimed
was beyond the reach of normal human solution. Solved it quite
easily. I recall him or her saying it had 17 numbers only or
something as if this is a mark of a hard one. It is not if many
numbers can be added quickly. I am wondering about this: I
suppose those who can make a solver are not necessarily folk who
have now and then won and now and then suffered badly with them
in the field.)
--
dorayme
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 6:18 am |
| In article <slrnf8p47d.6fr.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-07-05, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Just to clarify that a bit: the content block on the right will only
> drop underneath if it's also a float. If it's not floated, assuming it
> doesn't have clear set, it's not going to drop.
Yes, that is a good clarificaion. If it is not a float, the
content will wrap underneath when it has a chance if it overruns
the bottom of the floated left nav.
--
dorayme
| |
| dorayme 2007-07-05, 6:18 am |
| In article <vn1ji.3547$4A1.1229@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnf8p5hv.6fr.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>
> Ask the horse. The nameless one.
Hey, rf, it's a bloody camel!
--
dorayme
| |
|
|
| Bouzy210@gmail.com 2007-07-05, 6:18 pm |
| Ok thanks for all you advice (Even if it was sarcastic)
So I am going to try to switch my code to using %s. So far this is
what I have...
body {
background-color: #5f656b;
font-family: Tahoma, "Arial Unicode MS", Arial, sans-serif, serif;
font-size: .8em;
color: #eea103
}
/*Divs*/
#content {
height: 505px;
width: 518px;
background-image: url(images/content.jpg);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
margin-top: 3%;
margin-left: 27%;
}
#sidebar {
height: 505px;
width: 153px;
background-image: url(images/sidebar.jpg);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
margin-top: 3%;
margin-bottom: 2%;
padding-top: 4%;
padding-left: 3.5%;
margin-left: auto;
float: left;
}
#navigation {
margin: 0%;
padding-top: 0%;
border-width: 0%;
height: 28px;
}
#banner {
border-width: 0%;
margin: 0%;
padding: 0%;
margin-top: 0%;
height: 119px;
}
#container {
width: 712px;
margin: auto;
position: relative;
padding: 0%;
}
#home {
width: 442px;
}
#news {
width: 442px;
}
Up to that point everything looks the same in Firefox as in IE. Now I
understand I must add up values so they don't make the #content go
down, but how do I add up the values? When I put in padding on the
#content and #sidebar content goes below again. You guys said above
that I needed to check my figures, but I don't know what that
entitles.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Gabe/Desktop/Goldfish%20Graphics/index.html
If I forgot to include anything you need, let me know but don't be so
harsh I am learning this stuff from tutorials and its hard for me.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2007-07-05, 6:18 pm |
| Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> So I am going to try to switch my code to using %s. So far this is
> what I have...
>
> body {
>
> background-color: #5f656b;
> font-family: Tahoma, "Arial Unicode MS", Arial, sans-serif, serif;
Drop the serif. All your families are sans-serif.
> font-size: .8em;
Change this from .8em (only 80% of everyone's default size) to 100%.
font-size: 100%;
...and if it looks too large on *your* monitor, adjust it, but don't mess
with mine.
> margin-top: 3%;
> margin-left: 27%;
Use em units for margins (or even pixels),
> #sidebar {
>
> height: 505px;
> width: 153px;
and em units for height and width as well. By using ems the page should
resize when a visitor can't read your .8em/80% of their default size.
<snip rest>
> Up to that point everything looks the same in Firefox as in IE. Now I
> understand I must add up values so they don't make the #content go
> down, but how do I add up the values? When I put in padding on the
> #content and #sidebar content goes below again. You guys said above
> that I needed to check my figures, but I don't know what that
> entitles.
>
> file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Gabe/Desktop/Goldfish%20Graphics/index.html
We can't see a file on your computer. Post it on the web somewhere.
> If I forgot to include anything you need, let me know but don't be so
> harsh I am learning this stuff from tutorials and its hard for me.
Have you looked at http://htmldog.com/ which is a fairly good one?
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
| |
| Bergamot 2007-07-05, 6:18 pm |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Bouzy210@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
>
>
> Use em units for margins (or even pixels),
Why? Perhaps you haven't looked at em-based designs with large default
text sizes. They don't necessarily work as well as you think, especially
with smaller window sizes. A 1em margin-top can be excessive when the
visitor uses large text. Using % can maximize use of the available
space, stretching things out a bit more in larger windows and condensing
them when space is limited.
What unit to use depends on more than 1 factor. If the design is
intended to adapt to different window sizes, using % can be the better
choice. The blanket statement to "use em units" instead is wrong.
>
> and em units for height and width as well. By using ems the page should
> resize when a visitor can't read your .8em/80% of their default size.
Actually, it means that the sidebar(s) may take up a disproportionate
amount of the available width, leaving less room for content. I see this
all the time - extra wide side columns and the content squished up in
the middle. :(
As for height, it probably shouldn't be specified at all. Even if it is
set in ems, there is no guarantee that actual textual content will fit
in that space. It depends on the font and where line wrapping occurs.
I'm not saying using ems is always bad, just that you need to be aware
there are drawbacks, too. Use them intelligently.
--
Berg
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|