DOCTYPE

I have been researching css-p and following example tutorials on PVII.

Now... if I use the entire DOCTYPE declaration that PVII suggest, I get problems -- if I leave it as DW creates it, I get no problems.

Here's an example:

http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest.htm - uses DW DOCTYPE declaration


http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest2.htm - uses the additional "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd" in the DOCTYPE declaration.

What gives? I'm using the same type of css that PVII uses, except there's no tables - all div's

your page renders just find here in both net 7 and IE 5.1.6 for a mac. You should use the proper doc type. css-p needs the proper doc type to work........as for the <div> tags and no tables....ccs-p has no tables........layers.....

Gary,

But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it, or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full declaration.

Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results. All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.

Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:31:13 +0000 (UTC), "shelton"
webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com wrote:

But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it,
or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full
declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full
declaration.

What that means is that your code is not right. ;-)

Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results.
All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set
to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.

Exactly!

Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?

Not sure why would you want to, but yes. You just need to remember
that the inner layer will be relative to its container, not the page.


Gary

Also remember that nested layers must always be fully quantified css-p. That
is, you must always put their positioning in either an embedded style sheet or
an external style sheet, but never within the body.

--
--
DiMa
--------------------
WEB FORUM USERS: Please log on to the Newsgroup for quicker replies to your
posts:
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver
For Answers, check here first:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:macromedia.dreamwea ver
http://www.macromedia.com/support/dreamweaver/technotes.html
http://www.projectseven.com/faqbase
http://www.dreamweaverFAQ.com

http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/etiquette.htm
DiMa Design > From Lines...to Designs
http://www.dimadesign.net


"Gary White" <reply (AT) newsgroup (DOT) please> wrote

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:31:13 +0000 (UTC), "shelton"
webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com wrote:

But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it,
or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full
declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full
declaration.

What that means is that your code is not right. ;-)


Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results.
All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set
to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.

Exactly!


Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?

Not sure why would you want to, but yes. You just need to remember
that the inner layer will be relative to its container, not the page.


Gary

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:24:46 -0700, "DiMa"
<diana (AT) YOURHATANDCOATdimadesign (DOT) net> wrote:

Also remember that nested layers must always be fully quantified css-p. That
is, you must always put their positioning in either an embedded style sheet or
an external style sheet, but never within the body.

Good point!


Gary