Frameborder in CSS?

Hello,

Is it possible to set framrborder, scrolling properties using pure
CSS?

I come up with something like:

<iframe style="height:80px;width:180px;border:0;margin:0;p adding:0"
frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.google.com"/>

Anything can be improved?

Thanks.

Scripsit howa:

Is it possible to set framrborder, scrolling properties using pure
CSS?

Yes. Whether browsers implement it properly depends on the browser.

I come up with something like:

iframe style="height:80px;width:180px;border:0;margin:0;p adding:0"
frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.google.com"/

For example, Firefox obeys the border:0 request, whereas IE 7 uses its own
rendering style for iframe, immune to CSS. On both browsers, your
scrolling="no" attribute "successfully" truncates the search box so that the
user gets confused.

Stay tuned to getting sued for copyright infringement if you frame any
external content without permission. (I haven't checked Google's general
terms and conditions on this; have you?)

Anything can be improved?

Yes. Stop using iframe. Stop polluting your pages with stupid search boxes
that provide no added value to users and constitute a copyright
infringements. You cannot do that in CSS, but doing so makes the CSS problem
you describe vanish in a puff of logic and reason.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On Jun 3, 6:26 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Yes. Stop using iframe. Stop polluting your pages with stupid search boxes
that provide no added value to users and constitute a copyright
infringements. You cannot do that in CSS, but doing so makes the CSS problem
you describe vanish in a puff of logic and reason.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

google.com is just an example, i didn't mean to be iframe google.com,
is it useless for me

my real question is how to replace those inline HTML stuffs using CSS

Scripsit howa:

google.com is just an example, i didn't mean to be iframe google.com,
is it useless for me

Your bad. If you give an example, why do you give a manifestly _bad_
example? And surely you could have given a _real_ example if you have a real
problem.

my real question is how to replace those inline HTML stuffs using CSS

What inline HTML stuffs? If you mean the frameborder attribute, why would it
matter the least whether you could replace it by some CSS code? Besides, you
cannot, as I told you in my reply.

Quite often, people seem to think that replacing presentational HTML
attributes (and elements) by CSS code is some sort of game - without
realizing that there is no prize. It is generally worse than useless to
modify existing pages to clean them up that way. If there is no change in
page behavior, you neither lose nor win anything, except that you lose your
time. But quite often people make mistakes and produce pages that work more
unreliably than the original page.

Use CSS for presentation as much as reasonably possible for _new sites_.
Leave old pages alone unless there is some tangible benefit from modifying
them.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

In article <0yV8i.173671$kM1.72603 (AT) reader1 (DOT) news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Quite often, people seem to think that replacing presentational HTML
attributes (and elements) by CSS code is some sort of game - without
realizing that there is no prize. It is generally worse than useless to
modify existing pages to clean them up that way. If there is no change in
page behavior, you neither lose nor win anything, except that you lose your
time. But quite often people make mistakes and produce pages that work more
unreliably than the original page.

Use CSS for presentation as much as reasonably possible for _new sites_.
Leave old pages alone unless there is some tangible benefit from modifying
them.

Sometimes, with persistence, the tangible benefits emerge along
unexpected lines. The very attempt at replacing presentational
can lead to a more useful redesign. Once on the road, the desire
to redesign can grow in a being, the skills to so do also growing
and so on. You know, not everyone is a careful planner. What I am
saying is that yes, you are right that it is a game, but one that
can lead to tangible and worthwhile results. If it does not, then
it is truly idiotic of course.

(I just feel more optimistic today. Maybe it is the beautiful
sunny winter weather here)

--
dorayme

Scripsit dorayme:

The very attempt at replacing presentational
can lead to a more useful redesign.

For random reasons and with some small or ridiculously small probability,
anything can lead to anything, but does this really matter? In practice, an
attempt at replacing presentational markup will partly result in replacing
it, partly in messing things up, and partly in frustration.

If you can actually replace it by CSS, you will feel warm and happy in the
illusion that you have accomplished something. You will not (immediately)
see the harm you created by modifying existing code, often without really
understanding it, and often causing unpredictable side effects. If you
cannot, you will give up, possibly after changing the code in ways that
create some damage and unpredictable side effects. Either way, why would you
be the least motivated into the extra effort of a more useful redesign.

Especially if the transition is "successful", the laws of the human mind and
practices of organizations imply that you will not even _consider_ a more
useful redesign in the foreseeable future. If you have spent hours, days, or
weeks in replacing the paint of a house, with products from a non-deprecated
manufacturer, reproducing the effect of the removed paint as far as
possible, how interested would you be in tearing down the house and building
a new one?

You know, not everyone is a careful planner.

And rewriting working code, to clean it up or to speed it up, will not make
you one.

(I just feel more optimistic today. Maybe it is the beautiful
sunny winter weather here)

I don't feel any more optimistic about the effects of misguided efforts,
despite the beautiful summer morning here. But I developed a new metaphor:
in my mind, I can see crowds of designers cutting down all the flowers and
grass and trees, in order to grow new plants that replicate the appearance
of the old plants approved by the W3C, though infested with nasty bugs and
with some round shapes turned into rectangular, carrying half a dozen of
icons claiming conformance to cryptically identified "standards".

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

In article <2B69i.173882$ny6.125586 (AT) reader1 (DOT) news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Scripsit dorayme:

The very attempt at replacing presentational
can lead to a more useful redesign.

For random reasons and with some small or ridiculously small probability,
anything can lead to anything, but does this really matter? In practice, an
attempt at replacing presentational markup will partly result in replacing
it, partly in messing things up, and partly in frustration.

....

Especially if the transition is "successful", the laws of the human mind and
practices of organizations imply that you will not even _consider_ a more
useful redesign in the foreseeable future.

Well, perhaps you generalise here too extremely. I do not think
it so low in probability if we do not presuppose a wooden
determination on the part of the replacer to merely to get that
warm glow of being so 'politicaly correct'. There are many
intelligent people that are conscious of their efforts being a
first stab in a new direction. As they practice on things they
have an intense interest in - their own creations! - they come
into contact with subversive ideas like that perhaps separating
content from style has its own more natural pathways. They start
by trying to move the whole river to the right by a few hundred
miles, sort of parallel. But then they will notice the terrain is
a bit different there and the river would more easily run a
rather different shape in the same general direction.

--
dorayme