 | |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: gap rendered in Firefox 3 but not in IE 7 -
06-13-2008
, 10:39 PM
|
I do not think you did not provide the reason actually. |
Quote:
|
The reason is an incorrect implementation (a bug, if you prefer) of adjoining margin collapsing in IE 5, IE 6, IE 7. There is no buggy implementation in Firefox 1, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, Opera 9, Safari 3, Internet Explorer 8, Hv3 TKHTML, Icab 3+, etc.. |
collapse margins properly only complicated the OPs problem in that he
expected rendering as per IE and was therefore surprised that Firefox
rendered with a gap. He wondered why this was so and his attempts to
remove the gap all failed. He desired no gap. There are several
solutions possible to removing the gap in conforming browsers (Firefox
here) and one was proposed.
I correctly answered the OPs query by informing him that the gap on his
page as rendered by conforming browsers (Firefox here) is because of
"Collapsing Margins".
Additionally I provided a small tool to be able to quickly determine if
a gap problem is due to collapsing margins, or not. You apparently don't
like the tool - no problem, but it works for me.
--
Gus
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
GTalbot wrote: You misunderstood my posting. The rule which I presented is only, as I said, a _check_ , and therefore only a _temporary_ thing. Even that is not true. Your CSS rule removes all the margins on all elements, even those which have no relation with the noticed gap. You can easily create side effects with such kind of rule. You use the universal selector, you know... You didn't just use a selector on an unique DOM element. Not presented as a fix at all, but simply a diagnostic tool. Well, that is a bad diagnostic tool. An unreliable one. A not- trustworthy diagnostic tool. G�rard Too bad you haven't tried it yourself, but then even if you had, you can use or disregard. It works very well for me. BTW, you seem to have concern that the universal selector affects other "side effects". This is true, since it removes _all_ margins, |
Not just all the margins of one element.
Quote:
|
but who cares? It is only to temporarily look at the "noticed gap" area. |
suspicious of over-killing and over-declaring in a stylesheet.
Quote:
|
-- Gus |
is not trustworthy way to detect a problem or to propose a solution.
Again, you are removing all margins of all elements in a document. You
are not removing the margin-top of a single element. You mis-target.
You over-remove all margins on all elements, even on elements which do
not have a margin anyway.
Gérard
#13
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
GTalbot wrote: I do not think you did not provide the reason actually. Two negatives results in a positive. ;-) |
The reason is an incorrect implementation (a bug, if you prefer) of
adjoining margin collapsing in IE 5, IE 6, IE 7.
There is no buggy implementation in Firefox 1, Firefox 2, Firefox 3,
Opera 9, Safari 3, Internet Explorer 8, Hv3 TKHTML, Icab 3+, etc..
Quote:
|
I agree that IE is the buggy culprit here. |
Quote:
|
The fact that IE does not collapse margins properly |
Quote:
|
only complicated the OPs problem in that he expected rendering as per IE and was therefore surprised that Firefox rendered with a gap. He wondered why this was so and his attempts to remove the gap all failed. He desired no gap. There are several solutions possible to removing the gap in conforming browsers (Firefox here) and one was proposed. I correctly answered the OPs query by informing him that the gap on his page as rendered by conforming browsers (Firefox here) is because of "Collapsing Margins". Additionally I provided a small tool |
Gérard
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Your CSS rule removes all the margins on all elements, even those which have no relation with the noticed gap. That does not mean it is useless as a quick check on something, to give a clue on how to investigate further. |
element. You do not need to over-use, abuse, over-kill. By relying on
the universal selector, you still do not know which element had an
effect. You do not know what actually cause the gap to be removed.
It's very bad practice and I see this sort of zero-ing the browser
stylesheets more and more often in stylesheets which in fact is more
about overcoming the flaw and incorrect implementation of IE 5, IE 6,
IE 7 than about uniforming just a few elements that have different
defaults in browsers.
Quote:
|
You can easily create side effects with such kind of rule. Like what? It is completely irrelevant to answer with cases of side effects of the permanent use of the universal selector. |
elements. Like Eric Meyer said, using the universal selector on all
elements will affect text inputs and textareas. It's besides the
point: do not use a canon when all you just need is a fly-swatter. Do
not use a class when using an id is more to the point, more targeted.
Avoid Universal Rules!
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs...ersal_Rules.21
because it's inefficient!
Quote:
|
You use the universal selector, you know... You didn't just use a selector on an unique DOM element. Not presented as a fix at all, but simply a diagnostic tool. Well, that is a bad diagnostic tool. An unreliable one. A not- trustworthy diagnostic tool. You appear to be ignoring the distinction between permanent and temporary that Gus has indicated. |
solution or detection method. And that's bad programming, bad
recommendation, bad detection method.
Gérard
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
I correctly answered the OPs query by informing him that the gap on his page as rendered by conforming browsers (Firefox here) is because of "Collapsing Margins". |
TKHTML, Icab 3+.
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSe...MarginBug.html
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSe...arginBug2.html
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSe...arginBug3.html
Then apply your "detection tool" and the rendered page will be
incorrect, misrendered: removing the body and the <div>'s margins are
not justified, not correct. Adjoining margin collapsing is *not* the
same as absence of margin or margin: 0 everywhere for every element
(even inline elements!).
Your so-called detection tool can be found in many webpages'
stylesheets and in articles (by google-ing about it, I found *many* eg
http://leftjustified.net/journal/200...lobal-ws-reset) promoting
it as a way to reset just a few browser default differences.
The bottom line I am saying is that if you need to apply/set the
padding left and margin left to a few elements (like lists and list-
items), then you shouldn't use the universal selector.
Quote:
|
Additionally I provided a small tool to be able to quickly determine if a gap problem is due to collapsing margins, or not. You apparently don't like the tool - no problem, but it works for me. |
collapsing. Resetting margins to 0 and collapsing margins is *not* the
same thing.
Gérard
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
dorayme a écrit : Your CSS rule removes all the margins on all elements, even those which have no relation with the noticed gap. That does not mean it is useless as a quick check on something, to give a clue on how to investigate further. Then use a targeted, specific check on the margin-top of the targeted element. You do not need to over-use, abuse, over-kill. |
universal selector for a quick check? These strong words sound more
appropriate when the target is something more substantial than a
temporary diagnostic tool of elimination.
In many cases one does not quite know what element to target. It is
hardly abusing anything if it is used to eliminate something from the
enquiring diagnostic mind.
I understand your view about the dangers of zeroing margins and paddings
by use of the universal selector. But this is not at all relevant. No
amount of describing the evils of such universal zeroing intended for
permanency will be obviously relevant to its use as a temporary measure
of diagnosis.
Sometimes, to locate some pesky problem, I have simply deleted half of a
stylesheet, or all but one of several. Ditto with HTML. It is not
something a rational person would do as a permanent fix, but it might
assist one to narrow the area to be searched for some trouble. It would
be hardly helpful for someone to be alarmed at this as if this is how
the site will end up, chopped in two somehow!
--
dorayme
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Your CSS rule removes all the margins on all elements, even those which have no relation with the noticed gap. That does not mean it is useless as a quick check on something, to give a clue on how to investigate further. Then use a targeted, specific check on the margin-top of the targeted element. You do not need to over-use, abuse, over-kill. "Overuse, abuse, overkill" for zeroing margins and/or padding with a universal selector for a quick check? These strong words sound more appropriate when the target is something more substantial than a temporary diagnostic tool of elimination. In many cases one does not quite know what element to target. It is hardly abusing anything if it is used to eliminate something from the enquiring diagnostic mind. I understand your view about the dangers of zeroing margins and paddings by use of the universal selector. But this is not at all relevant. No amount of describing the evils of such universal zeroing intended for permanency will be obviously relevant to its use as a temporary measure of diagnosis. Sometimes, to locate some pesky problem, I have simply deleted half of a stylesheet, or all but one of several. Ditto with HTML. It is not something a rational person would do as a permanent fix, but it might assist one to narrow the area to be searched for some trouble. It would be hardly helpful for someone to be alarmed at this as if this is how the site will end up, chopped in two somehow! |
with GTalbot nonetheless. If one has no idea what the problem is, a
universal change will hardly really help, and if one _does_ have any
idea at all, he/she/it should go to that element.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 14 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: Your CSS rule removes all the margins on all elements, even those which have no relation with the noticed gap. That does not mean it is useless as a quick check on something, to give a clue on how to investigate further. Then use a targeted, specific check on the margin-top of the targeted element. You do not need to over-use, abuse, over-kill. "Overuse, abuse, overkill" for zeroing margins and/or padding with a universal selector for a quick check? These strong words sound more appropriate when the target is something more substantial than a temporary diagnostic tool of elimination. In many cases one does not quite know what element to target. It is hardly abusing anything if it is used to eliminate something from the enquiring diagnostic mind. I understand your view about the dangers of zeroing margins and paddings by use of the universal selector. But this is not at all relevant. No amount of describing the evils of such universal zeroing intended for permanency will be obviously relevant to its use as a temporary measure of diagnosis. .... If one has no idea what the problem is, a universal change will hardly really help, |
disappear, you know it might well be a margin problem and you can look
more locally then. So your contribution makes no reasoned sense to me.
--
dorayme
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
I understand your view about the dangers of zeroing margins and paddings by use of the universal selector. But this is not at all relevant. No amount of describing the evils of such universal zeroing intended for permanency will be obviously relevant to its use as a temporary measure of diagnosis. ... If one has no idea what the problem is, a universal change will hardly really help, If a 2 sec zeroing of the margins makes the unwanted phenomena disappear, you know it might well be a margin problem and you can look more locally then. So your contribution makes no reasoned sense to me. |
the adjacent element has a wanted default margin, you've just "identified"
the wrong problem thru carelessness.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 15 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: I understand your view about the dangers of zeroing margins and paddings by use of the universal selector. But this is not at all relevant. No amount of describing the evils of such universal zeroing intended for permanency will be obviously relevant to its use as a temporary measure of diagnosis. ... If one has no idea what the problem is, a universal change will hardly really help, If a 2 sec zeroing of the margins makes the unwanted phenomena disappear, you know it might well be a margin problem and you can look more locally then. So your contribution makes no reasoned sense to me. Not really. If one element has unwanted/inadvertant/mistaken padding and the adjacent element has a wanted default margin, you've just "identified" the wrong problem thru carelessness. |
seconds (in which time you do *not* try to identify anything positively
or "fix" anything or run into any dangers whatsoever. You just look to
see if some unwanted look is affected for the better. If you think it is
a waste of time, make sure you never do it, not even to waste 2 sec.
Others will use it and it will often be worth the 2 secs.
To see this point, you need to understand the spirit in which it is used
and not jump to too many conclusions.
--
dorayme
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.