Re: They just don't work

komone wrote:

No wonder CSS doesn't get used as intended... it never does what it
says on the tin. That's not the W3C's fault - just a reality that has
persisted for as many years as I have been working in IT/Web.

Prove me wrong? Can you make it work?

People that understand CSS use it because it speeds up development
time, makes a site smaller & faster, easier to maintain, easier to
target cross-media, and so on. People don't usually use CSS to prove
anything. If you don't want to use it, that's really your choice, and
have fun using table-layout, <font>, and so on. For me just looking at
a typical table-layout HTML source is enough to remind why I don't do
that.

Funny post!

OK, ahem, Mr. P. I take it you understand CSS (as I apparently don't, LOL)?
If so, show me how stupid I have been. The source is available in my
original post.

It ain't possible, y'know.

/k1


"Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com> wrote

komone wrote:


No wonder CSS doesn't get used as intended... it never does what it
says on the tin. That's not the W3C's fault - just a reality that has
persisted for as many years as I have been working in IT/Web.

Prove me wrong? Can you make it work?


People that understand CSS use it because it speeds up development
time, makes a site smaller & faster, easier to maintain, easier to
target cross-media, and so on. People don't usually use CSS to prove
anything. If you don't want to use it, that's really your choice, and
have fun using table-layout, <font>, and so on. For me just looking at
a typical table-layout HTML source is enough to remind why I don't do
that.

Steve Davis wrote:

OK, ahem, Mr. P. I take it you understand CSS (as I apparently don't,
LOL)? If so, show me how stupid I have been. The source is available
in my original post.

It ain't possible, y'know.

Maybe. Not all things are possible in popular browsers using CSS2. So
you need to use what works and stay away from what is know to break.
This takes initial learning and the W3C specs you quoted won't be of
any help in knowing what often breaks. If you show an image of what you
want to do, or describe it, maybe someone can help.

OK.

Layout target is:

Top (banner): 100% width, 50px height.
Sidebar (a navigator): On the left, 150px width, height variable
Main (content): next to the sidebar, width rest of window, height variable
Bottom (info): 20px height, drops down to cope with long sidebar or main, or
sits at the bottom of the window if either are shorter then the window size.

Hardly rocket science is it?

As I said I have done a functional version using tables and css modifiers,
so this is now entirely academic... until I next build.

You should know that I've worked with CSS since the inception of CSS-P so
I'm not exactly uninformed about this stuff.

/k1

"Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com> wrote

Steve Davis wrote:


OK, ahem, Mr. P. I take it you understand CSS (as I apparently don't,
LOL)? If so, show me how stupid I have been. The source is available
in my original post.

It ain't possible, y'know.


Maybe. Not all things are possible in popular browsers using CSS2. So
you need to use what works and stay away from what is know to break.
This takes initial learning and the W3C specs you quoted won't be of
any help in knowing what often breaks. If you show an image of what you
want to do, or describe it, maybe someone can help.

Steve Davis / 2003-11-11 18:42:

"Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bor32u$1hh757$2 (AT) ID-203055 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de...

komone [a.k.a. Steve Davis] wrote:

Prove me wrong? Can you make it work?

People that understand CSS use it because it speeds up
development time, makes a site smaller & faster, easier[...]
For me just looking at a typical table-layout HTML source is
enough to remind why I don't do that.

OK, ahem, Mr. P. I take it you understand CSS (as I apparently don't, LOL)?
If so, show me how stupid I have been. The source is available in my
original post.

It ain't possible, y'know.

How do you know? If *you* don't know how to do something, it doesn't
make it impossible, does it?

The example you provided (that doesn't validate, by the way) uses
CSS2 features and behaves to the spec in Mozilla. The problems
you've "noticed" are caused by two things: MSIE doesn't support CSS2
well enough so you have to emulate the same behaviour with CSS1 plus
the parts of CSS2 that MSIE does support. That's the hard part.
Another problem is that you've misunderstood CSS box model and
expect it to behave like MSIE does. However, as I said, your example
works to the spec in Mozilla and if you think otherwise, then I must
conclude that you've misunderstood the spec.

See also the demo that Anne mentioned:
http://limpid.nl/lab/css/fixed/

--
Mikko

Mikko wrote:

How do you know? If *you* don't know how to do something, it doesn't
make it impossible, does it?

I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

The example you provided (that doesn't validate, by the way) uses

Hmm. Did you also try to validate:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...ed-positioning
Interesting, no?

CSS2 features and behaves to the spec in Mozilla. The problems
you've "noticed" are caused by two things: MSIE doesn't support CSS2
well enough so you have to emulate the same behaviour with CSS1 plus
the parts of CSS2 that MSIE does support. That's the hard part.
Another problem is that you've misunderstood CSS box model and
expect it to behave like MSIE does. However, as I said, your example
works to the spec in Mozilla and if you think otherwise, then I must
conclude that you've misunderstood the spec.
Perhaps.... what did I misunderstand there? I personally believe that the

behaviour to which I referred was in actual fact "unspecified", but am
certainly willing to be proven wrong.

The fact remains, that the target layout is not possible entirely through
the use of CSS.

Is it.

/k1

"Steve Davis" <s.davis1 (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote

OK.

Layout target is:

Top (banner): 100% width, 50px height.
Sidebar (a navigator): On the left, 150px width, height variable
Main (content): next to the sidebar, width rest of window, height variable
Bottom (info): 20px height, drops down to cope with long sidebar or main,
or
sits at the bottom of the window if either are shorter then the window
size.

Hardly rocket science is it

Steve, I assure you... it IS possible. If you want to see some great
examples, check out:
www.csszengarden.com
This site uses 1 very basic HTML file, and people submit CSS files which
display it very differently. You can see the entire list of submissions
here:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/

I doubt very much that anyone will post a solution for you here, but I am
very confident that it can be done. Good luck.

Regards,
Peter Foti

"Steve Davis" <s.davis1 (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote

Hmm. Did you also try to validate:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...ed-positioning
Interesting, no?

Interesting? Not really... it validates as HTML 4.0 Transitional... were
you suggesting that it doesn't validate?

Thanks, Peter. I was aware of that site and it's excellent.

Sadly, however, it does not cover the precise issue as posted originally
(you have to wonder why not also

Regards,

/k1




"Peter Foti" <peterf (AT) systolicnetworks (DOT) com> wrote

"Steve Davis" <s.davis1 (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote in message
news:lF8sb.80832$di.21370831 (AT) amsnews02 (DOT) chello.com...
snip

Not being specific enough there. The reason my original code fails
validation is for the same reason as the HTML embedded in that section of
the spec. Not the spec page itself!

best,
/k1

"Peter Foti" <peterf (AT) systolicnetworks (DOT) com> wrote

"Steve Davis" <s.davis1 (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote in message
news:jc9sb.81034$di.21461266 (AT) amsnews02 (DOT) chello.com...
Hmm. Did you also try to validate:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...ed-positioning
Interesting, no?

Interesting? Not really... it validates as HTML 4.0 Transitional... were
you suggesting that it doesn't validate?