Opposite of display:none ?

dorayme wrote:

In article <Xns9C506495DD8CCarbpenyahoocom (AT) 85 (DOT) 214.113.135>,
Adrienne Boswell <arbpen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Did you have a look at my earlier post? Have a look at
[http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html] and see if
that helps.

Your square brackets make it impossible for my newsreader to click on
URLs you quotethis way. Just thought to mention it.

IIRC are not "<>" the characters typically used to bound a URL? Does
this work in your newsreader?

<http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <h49p65$om8$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <Xns9C506495DD8CCarbpenyahoocom (AT) 85 (DOT) 214.113.135>,
Adrienne Boswell <arbpen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Did you have a look at my earlier post? Have a look at
[http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html] and see if
that helps.

Your square brackets make it impossible for my newsreader to click on
URLs you quotethis way. Just thought to mention it.



IIRC are not "<>" the characters typically used to bound a URL? Does
this work in your newsreader?

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html

Yes, that works fine. I use this myself. I have no real *comprehension*
if it is useful or whether most people would be as happy with none of
these end things.

[http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html]

means I have to cut and paste and I am wondering how much glue I have
left in my bottle.

--
dorayme

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:53:17 +0000 (UTC) from Adrienne Boswell
<arbpen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>:

Did you have a look at my earlier post? Have a look at
[http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/testprint.html] and see if
that helps.

Thank you for posting. I did look earlier, but it was similar to
another proposed solution and I didn't want to post too many
responses.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
<doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> writing in news:doraymeRidThis-
5BE26C.09331124072009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net:

means I have to cut and paste and I am wondering how much glue I have
left in my bottle.

My dear, you are the glue that keeps us all together.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:17:27 -0400 from Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:

Another option: use separate classes for block and inline elements:

.onlyprint, .onlyprintinline { display: none; }
@media print {
.onlyprint { display: block; }
.onlyprintinline { display: inline; }
}

This is an intriguing idea -- thanks!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

Stan Brown wrote:

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:17:27 -0400 from Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:
Another option: use separate classes for block and inline elements:

.onlyprint, .onlyprintinline { display: none; }
@media print {
.onlyprint { display: block; }
.onlyprintinline { display: inline; }
}

This is an intriguing idea -- thanks!

The question is are the parts that would be "print-only" ever be inline?
Most times the sections one either wishes to print or not print
usually are are *blocks*

Examples like banners, footers and navbars normally excluded from
printing and you may want boilerplate, copyright, disclaimers,
addresses included in printing. The only inline thing I usually adjust
is remove all underscores and coloring from links in the printed version
(servers no purpose in print and is just distracting)


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:
Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:17:27 -0400 from Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:
Another option: use separate classes for block and inline elements:

.onlyprint, .onlyprintinline { display: none; }
@media print {
.onlyprint { display: block; }
.onlyprintinline { display: inline; }
}

This is an intriguing idea -- thanks!


The question is are the parts that would be "print-only" ever be inline?
Most times the sections one either wishes to print or not print usually
are are *blocks*

The working assumption is "yes" because Stan implied up front that that
was the problem he was trying to solve!

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:08:07 -0400 from Jonathan N. Little
<lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net>:

The question is are the parts that would be "print-only" ever be
inline? Most times the sections one either wishes to print or not
print usually are are *blocks*

Examples like banners, footers and navbars normally excluded from
printing and you may want boilerplate, copyright, disclaimers,
addresses included in printing. The only inline thing I usually
adjust is remove all underscores and coloring from links in the
printed version (servers no purpose in print and is just
distracting)

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:19:55 -0400 from Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:

The working assumption is "yes" because Stan implied up front that
that was the problem he was trying to solve!

Thanks to you both. I appreciate the benefit of the doubt :-) but I
think Jonathan may have put his finger on something. I'll check. I've
been assuming I needed to cover both inline and block, but I'll grep
for the relevant class names and see for sure.

This has been a good exercise for me. I suspect I'm not alone: I
created style sheets a few years ago and have modified them as needed
since then. But I never stepped back and took an overall look in all
that time. As I do, I'm finding some classes that are actually no
longer used, some rules that are redundant (because the properties
are inherited from the containing elements), and so forth.

So far I have about 13 KB in one style sheet, replacing 31 K in two.
And there's more yet to do. For instance, a few classes are used
only on the site-map page, so it's kind of silly to have them in the
style sheet that every page loads.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:16:19 -0400 from Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm>:

I've
been assuming I needed to cover both inline and block, but I'll grep
for the relevant class names and see for sure.

I've checked, and there are some print-only <span>s and some screen-
only <span>s. Still, it was a good thought.

I've decided just not to be bothered by this. I'll list the devices
that are in the spec, and not worry about any new ones. If and when
an authoritative new list emerges, I'll have to make a change in only
one file.

Thanks again to everyone who participated.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you