Font discrepancy between tag and CSS

#1 July 20th, 2005, 08:18 PM

I've got a document that StarOffice converted into HTML, and I'm
trying to clean up the cuft that it generated. I put together some
basic styles, and tied using them: the results are puzzling. The style
definition is:

<STYLE>

</STYLE>

The StarOffice-generated HTML made extensive use of font tags, which I
am trying to eliminate.

<div class=res>


RECENT EXPERIENCE:



name,
address (dates):


<UL TYPE=DISC>

<LI>text</li>
<LI>text
<LI>text
<LI>text
<LI>text
<LI>text
<LI>text
</UL>

Superficially it appear as though the text in the first li element
should be rendered the same as the text in the other li elements, but
it isn't. Also, if I try to include either of

font: "Courier, serif";
font-family: "Courier, serif";

in my definition of .emp, then it no longer renders in bold. Please
advise.

Note, this is not XHTML, so the missing ending tags (, )
should be legitimate.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

#2 July 20th, 2005, 08:18 PM

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I've got a document that StarOffice converted into HTML,[/color]

Hmm. I've never examined StarOffice generated code before. But this
doesn't bode well...
[color=blue]
>and I'm
>trying to clean up the cuft that it generated. I put together some
>basic styles, and tied using them: the results are puzzling. The style
>definition is:
>
> <STYLE>
> 
> </STYLE>[/color]

[color=blue]
>The StarOffice-generated HTML made extensive use of font tags, which I
>am trying to eliminate.[/color]

Bravo.
[color=blue]
> <div class=res>
>
> 
> RECENT EXPERIENCE:
> 
>
> 
> name,
> address (dates):
> 
>
> <UL TYPE=DISC>
> <LI>text</li>
> <LI>text
> <LI>text
> <LI>text
> <LI>text
> <LI>text
> <LI>text
> </UL>
>
>Superficially it appear as though the text in the first li element
>should be rendered the same as the text in the other li elements, but
>it isn't.[/color]

Not rendered the same in what respect?
What happens when you correct the CSS syntax as outlined above?
[color=blue]
> Also, if I try to include either of
>
> font: "Courier, serif";
> font-family: "Courier, serif";
>
>in my definition of .emp, then it no longer renders in bold. Please
>advise.[/color]

Could be a number of things. I'd suggest fixing the syntax errors and
validating your code, then coming back and posting a URL if the
problem's still there.

BTW makes me think that the purpose is emphasis? In
that case or would be more appropriate.
[color=blue]
>Note, this is not XHTML, so the missing ending tags (, )
>should be legitimate.[/color]

The end tag for font is not optional in HTML 4.
The end tag for p is optional in HTML 4.
When using CSS it helps to include all optional end tag as it limits
the number of browser bugs that can apply.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

#3 July 20th, 2005, 08:19 PM

In <ko7ue05p7ud688d9050el72v0qbg7q97gm@4ax.com>, on 07/09/2004
at 11:53 PM, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> said:
[color=blue]
>This means use a font called 'Courier, serif'.[/color]

Whoops! Thanks; It worked fine when I removed the extraneous quotes.

[color=blue]
>Note that if you use the font shorthand you must specify the size as
>well as the family.[/color]

Okay; I changed it to font-family.
[color=blue]
>Not rendered the same in what respect?[/color]

Font and font size.
[color=blue]
>What happens when you correct the CSS syntax as outlined above?[/color]

It works fine, as noted above.
[color=blue]
>BTW makes me think that the purpose is emphasis?[/color]

Indirectly; class=emp is for names of employers, and I did specify
emphasis. Which raises a stle question. Which is preferable?:


name,
address (dates):



name,
<address>address</address> (dates):



<address>name,
address</address> (dates):

[color=blue]
>The end tag for font is not optional in HTML 4.[/color]

I've been removing the font tags entirely.
[color=blue]
>The end tag for p is optional in HTML 4.[/color]

Understood, but I want to be able to easily move to XHTML when it
becomes a bit better supported.

BTW, I would have responded earlier, but your article isn't in my news
feed; I had to pull it from google. I suspect that it got hit by the
rogue cancels.

Again, thanks for the assistance.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

#4 July 20th, 2005, 08:19 PM

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> said:[color=green]
>>
>>BTW makes me think that the purpose is emphasis?[/color]
>
>Indirectly; class=emp is for names of employers, and I did specify
>emphasis. Which raises a stle question. Which is preferable?:
>
> 
> name,
> address (dates):
> [/color]

This one.
[color=blue]
> 
> name,
> <address>address</address> (dates):
> 
>
> 
> <address>name,
> address</address> (dates):
> [/color]

<address> is for marking up the contact details of the author of the
document, not for marking up any old address.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

What is Bytes?

Popular Articles