Re: Hover over text (no link) changes background color not in IE?

Moon wrote:

Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:

Just three questions:
1) Why Transitional, for an apparently new page?

Cause I'm not up to current stuff obviously and I thought to put the
browsers in a more less strict mode.

You have a wrong idea of what Transitional is for, then. It is for _pages_
in transition or, to be honest, for _legacy_ pages.

3) Why no URL?

Cause I've just started with nothing online yet?

You didn't get the point, apparently. So please read the group for a week or
two, or check back the Google archives, and you'll understand.

You're not telling what kind of an element has id="spoiler", but the
crystal ball tells that it is not a link element.

Actually the *subject* tells you that it's no link!

The subject might be wrong (people often tell things about their pages that
aren't true, and get confused, because they refuse to reveal the URL that
tells the true story - or, worse still, modify the demo page content after
posting its URL!). Moreover, the Subject line is supposed to stand on its
own, and so is the message body. It is bad practice to imply the heading in
the text, on Usenet and elsewhere.

So here it is:

No it isn't. It's a snippet of code, not a URL.

{
background: #000000;
color: #000000;
}

That's not even a complete CSS rule: it lacks the selector part.

#spoiler:hover {
background: #FFFFFF;
}
div id="spoiler">This is spoiler text only readable when mouse
hovers over it.</div

And it's still a _bad_ approach, and it's probably still true, though not
confirmable in the absence of a URL and other data, that you are using IE 6,
which simply don't support that.

By the way, class="..." is preferable to id="..." in cases like this. There
is nothing in the concept of a spoiler that says that a page may contain
only one spoiler.

On 2008-08-31, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:
[...]

By the way, class="..." is preferable to id="..." in cases like this. There
is nothing in the concept of a spoiler that says that a page may contain
only one spoiler.

Rather a strange criterion. Is there anything in the concept of anything
that says that a page may contain only one of it?

Moon wrote:

Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:

You didn't get the point, apparently. So please read the group for a
week or two, or check back the Google archives, and you'll
understand.

Right, I guess actually stating the point right now in your posting
would have taken the time you needed to go on ranting.

You still didn't post a URL.

Please don't bother posting anything before you have a clue.

Yucca

Ben C wrote:

On 2008-08-31, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:
[...]
By the way, class="..." is preferable to id="..." in cases like
this. There is nothing in the concept of a spoiler that says that a
page may contain only one spoiler.

Rather a strange criterion. Is there anything in the concept of
anything that says that a page may contain only one of it?

That's the very idea of id="...": it is unique on a page. Why would you use
it for elements that may well get repeated in later versions? That would
just make changes more difficult.

A page footer, for example, may be regarded as essentially unique on a page.
This does not mean that you could not use class="..." for it, too. It just
means that id="..." is a logical and practical alternative.

Yuvva

On 2008-08-31, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Ben C wrote:

On 2008-08-31, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:
[...]
By the way, class="..." is preferable to id="..." in cases like
this. There is nothing in the concept of a spoiler that says that a
page may contain only one spoiler.

Rather a strange criterion. Is there anything in the concept of
anything that says that a page may contain only one of it?

That's the very idea of id="...": it is unique on a page.

Of course, but for all we know only one "spoiler" per page is part of
the OP's design.

Why would you use it for elements that may well get repeated in later
versions? That would just make changes more difficult.

Yes, although it's that difficult to convert id to class if you need to.

A page footer, for example, may be regarded as essentially unique on a
page. This does not mean that you could not use class="..." for it,
too. It just means that id="..." is a logical and practical
alternative.

Using id is quite a good way to make clear that there is only one of
something, so for that reason it adds a bit of "documentation" to use it
for something like spoiler-- it suggests to a non-cynical person editing
the source to expect only one.

On 2008-08-31, Moon wrote:

Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
....
Moreover, the Subject line is supposed to stand on its own, and so is the
message body. It is bad practice to imply the heading in the text, on
Usenet and elsewhere.

Your expertise on webdesign apparently doesn't extend to usenet and
elsewhere. I've seen a lot of complaints about meaningless subjects but a
complaint about a meaningful subject and a message body that is in
correspondence with it - that's a first. And also utter BS.

You must be new to usenet. It is a common complaint. Many
newsreaders do not have the subject obviously visible when reading
the message text, and if you want help, it is only common sense to
make your message as clear as possible.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

On 2008-09-02, Moon wrote:

Chris F.A. Johnson schrieb:

You must be new to usenet.

Right.

Many
newsreaders do not have the subject obviously visible when reading
the message text

None of those that I've used over the years work like this nor do I see why
anyone would use such limited software instead of getting a decent reader
like 40tude.

There are 3 immediate strikes against 40tude:

it is not open source
it will not run on my system
it costs money

You snipped an important point that I made: "[not including the
problem in the message itself] is a common complaint."

Much of the so-called "limited" software has more features than
expensive junk like 40tude. And I would expect the same complaint
even from users of 40tude.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

There are 3 immediate strikes against 40tude:

it is not open source

So? *

it will not run on my system

So this would be a killer reason not to use it, alright. **

it costs money

Freeware to private users, educational users, and non-profit groups;
shareware for commercial users (60-day free trial)


* More interesting is that it's not being actively developed or supported.
** It runs on Windows, Chris. You could upgrade. ;-)

--
John
The possessive pronoun "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.

On 2008-09-02, John Hosking wrote:

** It runs on Windows, Chris. You could upgrade. ;-)

Windows would be an expensive and extreme downgrade.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

There are 3 immediate strikes against 40tude:

<snip>

it costs money

Except for it being free.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html