Can't achive the same margins for <a> and (inline) <p> in CSS

[Philip Herlihy]

I'm creating a common navigation bar of text "buttons" using CSS. On each
page, I want the corresponding button to be "inert" (no hover, etc) as a
visual clue to where you are.

I thought I'd include simple <p> tags, and style them the same way as the
<a> tags, but I can't get it to work - I get different margins in each case.

I've reduced the situation to the essentials here:
http://philipherlihy.members.beeb.net/CssMargins/

Is there a fix, or am I swimming against the current? Suggestions very
welcome - it's driving me mad!

--
############### #####
## PH, London
############### #####

[Philip Herlihy]

Nicely put - made me smile. See my other post on the subject.

--
############### #####
## PH, London
############### #####
"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www .invalid> wrote

(in reference to top-posting)

Lets keep content and presentation separate, shall we?

You can if you wish, but you might end up being the only one
appreciating your presentation or assimilating your content.

[Andrew Urquhart]

*Philip Herlihy* wrote in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets:

I've one friendly and courteous encouragement to change my posting style,
and one scolding. Posting styles are a personal preference, and my
preference is as valid as the opposite view - I find top-posting more
natural and time-saving, and so do countless others. For every link to a
rant against top-posting I've seen a corresponding one bemoaning the
thought-police who want everything tidied up their way. My view is that
top-posting will become the norm eventually, and that those who howl with
protest meanwhile should find something more important to care about. It's
certainly true that editing quotes to a minimum is a courtesy, and I'll
bottom-post when joining an established discussion where that's been the
style so far. Otherwise, we live in a diverse world, and I'll vote with my
posts. If you don't like it, put me in your kill file if you care that much
about it.

[snip]

Perhaps you can see the funny side of:

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on USENET?
--
Andrew Urquhart
- FAQ: http://www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
- Archive: http://andrewu.co.uk/r/?4 (Google Groups)
- Contact me: http://andrewu.co.uk/contact/

[Philip Herlihy]

Yes, of course it's witty, but top-down isn't always the way people read
text. There are many situations in which folk want the most recent addition
to be seen first, and that's often at the top. Of course it depends on what
newsreader you use. The last time I failed to resist temptation to get into
this debate (more than a year ago) someone helpfully suggested it was more
important to avoid injudicious bulk quoting. If you get that right, the
posting style becomes much less important, I think.

There is an enhanced version of Outlook Express available which gives you
the option of giving "OE" a default bottom-posting style. I tried it for a
good period, but in the end I still preferred top-posting! If you're
prepared to give it a stab, try using OE on some of the groups at
news.microsoft. com, where top-posting is the norm. Once you got over the
initial shudders you'd find it quite natural. Mind you, I rather suspect
that a general loathing of Microsoft and everything they produce underlies
some folk's dislike of top-posting. I earn my living supporting MS
software, so I tend just to go with the flow, like the majority.

My own view is that the most annoying thing on Usenet is when folk pay more
attention to the presentation than the core issue and get all uppity about
it. You didn't do this, and neatly separated your comments on CSS and
posting into separate replies. Courteous comment is always worth a
considered reply. On the other hand, lunch seems a much more rewarding
prospect right now than banging on with religious wars over newsgroup styles
....

--
############### #####
## PH, London
############### #####

Perhaps you can see the funny side of:

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on USENET?
--
Andrew Urquhart

[Philip Herlihy]

My own conclusions:

1) Yes, it's an IE quirk, even in "standards" mode (although you can see
subtle variations between any two browsers on very many sites).

2) Mixing inline and block elements (even when set to display inline) is
probably asking for trouble.

3) I tried using an Unordered list, but this has a similar problem in IE6
(but not in Opera), see:
http://philipherlihy.members.beeb.net/CssMargins/ul.htm

4) I tried using unadorned <a> tags, picking out non-link text with a
<span>, which works consistently in both: see:
http://philipherlihy.members.beeb.ne...gins/spans.htm

Thanks to those who contributed. Any further comments still very welcome.

--
############### #####
## PH, London
############### #####
"Philip Herlihy" <fo******@herli hy.eu.veil.com> wrote :

I thought I'd include simple <p> tags, and style them the same way as the
<a> tags, but I can't get it to work - I get different margins in each case.
I've reduced the situation to the essentials here:
http://philipherlihy.members.beeb.net/CssMargins/

[Neal]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:08:09 +0000 (UTC), Philip Herlihy
<fo******@herli hy.eu.veil.com> wrote:

I've one friendly and courteous encouragement to change my posting style,
and one scolding. Posting styles are a personal preference, and my
preference is as valid as the opposite view

.... except in this case you want to know something, and the ones who can
help you prefer conversational posting, eh?

If you're a doctor and you refer to everything by a cute toddler's word
instead of a more specific anatomic term, or you submit reports to the
NEJM without an appropriate format or construction, you won't earn the
respect of other doctors very easily. Not to compare ciwas to the NEJM but
you will see a similar phenomenon here.

[Brian]

Philip Herlihy wrote:

See my other post on the subject.

No thanks. I won't bother trying to follow the conversation when you
insist on putting the answer before the question.

*plonk*

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Harlan Messinger]

"Philip Herlihy" <fo******@herli hy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
news:ci******** **@sparta.btint ernet.com...

I've one friendly and courteous encouragement to change my posting style,
and one scolding. Posting styles are a personal preference, and my
preference is as valid as the opposite view -
My personal preference is for comprehensibili ty. Do you disagree?

When each part of a person's latest contribution directly follows the
portion of the previous thread to which it relates, the flow is natural and
clear. Otherwise, as a message grows with more people's contributions, it
becomes impossible to see who is responding to what in which order. Do you
prefer that?
I find top-posting more
natural and time-saving, and so do countless others.

Natural and time-saving for you to write it. You can save even more time by
not responding at all, but that really isn't the goal, is it? It's unnatural
and ultimately opaque for those who have to read it, especially as the
thread develops and the various writers' contributions become thickly
enmeshed.

[Eric Jarvis]

Harlan Messinger h.*********@com cast.net wrote:

"Philip Herlihy" <fo******@herli hy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
news:ci******** **@sparta.btint ernet.com...

I find top-posting more
natural and time-saving, and so do countless others.

Natural and time-saving for you to write it. You can save even more time by
not responding at all, but that really isn't the goal, is it? It's unnatural
and ultimately opaque for those who have to read it, especially as the
thread develops and the various writers' contributions become thickly
enmeshed.

And one person writes the post, but a large number read it. Which is why
the reader's convenience takes precedence.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Philip Herlihy]

Absolutely. But my preference for TP is precisely because I find it easier
to read threads that way (just as my email is sorted with the most recent
arrivals at the top).

I realise some people feel strongly about the subject, but do consider this:
Outlook Express has a larger installed base than any other newsreader by
several orders of magnitude worldwide, as it comes with Windows. (Of course
many only use it for email.) If News becomes more popular, then you're
likely to see many more people top-posting. There are relatively few
newsgroups which I've used (and I've been using News since 1987) where I get
these protests - in many you see a mix of TP and BP, and in very many TP is
almost universal. So, despite documents which purport to be standards, OE
is tantamount to a de-facto standard - and I happen to like it. Usenet
belongs equally to those who use it, and one person's preference is as valid
as anyone else's. I respect your preference even though I don't share it.
I have to say I find it harder to respect the self-appointed Mullahs who
howl in indignation about it. Let's disagree with courtesy, as you've done
in your post below (oops!).

That's quite enough from me on the subject.

--
############### #####
## PH, London
############### #####
"Eric Jarvis" <we*@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote

And one person writes the post, but a large number read it. Which is why
the reader's convenience takes precedence.

[Eric Jarvis]

Philip Herlihy fo******@herlih y.eu.veil.com wrote:

That's quite enough from me on the subject.

Yes, you've conclusively proved your suitability for the killfile by
assuming that with a couple of minutes thinking entirely from your own
perspective and without one second of considering other people, you will
come up with a better idea than a huge number of people have managed with
intense discussion over many years. Frankly I can't be bothered dealing
with that level of stupidity and arrogance which is why I'm grateful that
I can simply tell my newsreader to ignore you for a month (or in
perpetuity if you haven't learned that you aren't a superhuman genius
around whom the entire universe revolves).

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"