By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
426,034 Members | 1,777 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 426,034 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

My messy stylesheets just ain't got no style....

P: n/a
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets, so I'm hoping that the way I'm
going about things can be seriously improved upon, i.e . I just
haven't undersood something obvious about the 'cascading' nature of
the coding, which I believe concerns the way attributes relate to one
another when 'nested'...

I think I can illustrate the nature of the beast with this example,
using just two text styles:
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif; font-size:
80%; color=#ff0000; font-weight: normal; text-align: justify;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}

..subHead {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif;
font-size: 80%; color=#0000ff; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.

Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),
#2 or the subHead style used within the text paragraph using <span
class="subHead">include</span>

Then, of course, the subHead text will inherit the <p></p> paragraph's
attributes: i.e. it will be smaller and, in the case of the
line-break, will be further inset because the margin will be
incremental, and if it meets the right-hand edge of the allocated area
(say a table cell) will also be justified.
The only ways I can see to get round some of this are:
#1 to have 'relative' and 'absolute' versions of the two specified
styles,
#2 or to use more inline <span style="lots of style specs";></span>
specifying.

Of course, both methods would increase the amount of coding
tremendously. The first would require creating many alternative
'relative' styles to match every combination found within the
documents, and the second approach would negate any advantage
conferred by css over html, with html's need to specify fully each and
every occurrence of 'non-standard' text.

Sorry this is long-winded, and if it's not very clear! It's taken me
quite a while just to identify where my inability lies in this regard.

Thanks for reading this far. Comments welcome...

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
72 Replies


P: n/a
Herbert wrote:
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets
I suggest you read this group for a while. Some of your questions will
be answered in other threads, and you'll learn to avoid certain things
along the way.
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana",
Don't specify verdana.
font-size: 80%;


Don't specify a font-size of 80% for paragraph text. Let users decide
which font-size is right for them. Please refer to the scores of
threads on these matters (use Google to search for them).

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples and might go on to actually provide some
useful information, but I guess it's just too difficult to resist, eh?

Unless I'd specified some deviation from 100%, there'd have been no
relative size-difference to describe, now, would there?

FYI I have been reading this NG, and studying numerous CSS guides, for
some time now. And I am well aware of the kind of advice given as to
allowing the 'user decide' (which in my experience is almost
invariably provided by people who couldn't construct an engaging
website if they tried). I know just one person who intentionally
changes their browser's font-size setting. Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.

I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.

I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.

Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'? But bear in mind
that since Brian snipped the relevant bits of my original posting,
there ain't much to be missed down there...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:53:31 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Herbert wrote:
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets


I suggest you read this group for a while. Some of your questions will
be answered in other threads, and you'll learn to avoid certain things
along the way.
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana",


Don't specify verdana.
font-size: 80%;


Don't specify a font-size of 80% for paragraph text. Let users decide
which font-size is right for them. Please refer to the scores of
threads on these matters (use Google to search for them).


Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Herbert <do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'?


Nobody, hopefully. Please keep posting cluelessly, until you have
something useful or interesting to say. Please also keep using a forged
E-mail address until you have a clue. HTH. HAND.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples and might go on to actually provide some
useful information, but I guess it's just too difficult to resist, eh?
Are you trying to piss off the people that might help you?
When posting examples, try to be as generic and subservient as
possible. Then you won't have to worry about criticism of your coding
and might get the response you are looking for.
Your example was quite long and featured a number of oddities, such as
the use of quotes around the font names and the use of an equals sign
for color. This makes it look like code taken directly from your page
and also makes it look like you just dove into it.
Diving in is admirable, but you can see why Brian might think you
haven't been reading along....
FYI I have been reading this NG, and studying numerous CSS guides, for
some time now. And I am well aware of the kind of advice given as to
allowing the 'user decide' (which in my experience is almost
invariably provided by people who couldn't construct an engaging
website if they tried). I know just one person who intentionally
changes their browser's font-size setting. Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
I tend to agree with this outlook. Many here do not. Why rock the boat
when you're begging for a solution to a problem that has nothing to do
with text size?
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.
Heh. I guess I fall into the latter category. I just wanted to address
this post before the full wrath of the group fell upon you. I think
Jukka may have already added you to his killfile....
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.
Verdana renders itself larger than most other similar fonts. So when
you ask it to render Arial at 80% and your fallback is Verdana, if the
user doesn't have Arial, s/he is going to see a font that looks to be
about 90%. Try it for yourself. Look at your page, study it, memorize
it. Then delete Arial from your style sheet and look at your page
again. If you think layout is a bitch now, try making it conform to
your desires in both Arial and Verdana.
Personally, I enjoy the Verdana font. But when I use it, it is the
only one I use (save for the generic fallback), so I know how big to
make it - which is always smaller than anything else.
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'? But bear in mind
that since Brian snipped the relevant bits of my original posting,
there ain't much to be missed down there...


Top-posting doesn't bother me, though apparently it is frowned upon
round these parts.

Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:

Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.


It would be even more convenient, not to mention symantically more
meaningful, if you used the right markup for the job. Headings deserve
<hx> markup, using the appropriate levels.

h1
h2
h3
h3
h2

etc. and style each heading level as you see fit.

You really should learn some HTML before trying CSS.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.".
Which would have exactly 0 effect. What do you think this is, your
personal help desk?
However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples and might go on to actually provide some
useful information, but I guess it's just too difficult to resist, eh?
I did provide useful information. You're just too thick to realize it.
Unless I'd specified some deviation from 100%, there'd have been no
relative size-difference to describe, now, would there?
problem solved.
And I am well aware of the kind of advice given as to
allowing the 'user decide' (which in my experience is almost
invariably provided by people who couldn't construct an engaging
website if they tried).
Yeah, insult the group. That'll get you more help.
Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books.
On your browser, perhaps. (Don't know how to set a font-size?) Not
on mine.
Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks)
More insults! Don't stop now, you're on a roll.
don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
And you determine this how?
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.
rotf,l
Was this meant to goad me into helping you break another web site?
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'?


As Jukka said, continue to top-post. Makes it easier to ignore you.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets, so I'm hoping that the way I'm
going about things can be seriously improved upon, i.e . I just
haven't undersood something obvious about the 'cascading' nature of
Umm.. I don't want to sound rude, but you should really focus on
perfecting your HTML markup before rushing to prefecting the rendering
with CSS. In long run that's the best approach even though the learning
curve is rather steep.
I think I can illustrate the nature of the beast with this example,
using just two text styles:
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif; font-size:
80%; color=#ff0000; font-weight: normal; text-align: justify;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}
Check out <URL:http://validator.w3.org/>. Even for an example CSS code,
stuff like "color=#ff0000" is unacceptable. Also, if you don't have a
good reason to add a specific declaration you should drop it. For
example, I cannot think of any valid reason for the need of
"font-weight: normal" in the above example. Especially if you target to
fully utilize the "nesting", you should always use bare minimum CSS
styles for each selector.

Also consider using 'em' unit for all stuff that has anything to do with
text.
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.
Always, I repeat, always markup headers as headers, not as paragraphs,
divs or spans with some "special" class. CSS is supposed to only *hint*
default presentation and all the content should be fully readable
without any support for CSS.
Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),
#2 or the subHead style used within the text paragraph using <span
class="subHead">include</span>


If you have markup like:

<h1>Heading</h1>
<p>text text text</p>

and you want rendering like

HEADING
text text text

you just apply style
h1 { font-size: 100%; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 0;
padding-bottom: 0; }
p { margin-top: 0; padding-top: 0; }

If you want rendering like

HEADING text text text

you shouldn't modify the markup. I repeat, the content is still exactly
the same and there's no reason not to modify anything else but CSS
which controls the presentation. So you just add next rule to above
stylesheet:

h1 { display: run-in; }

The fact that you add this rule with is own selector, after the above
style declarations means that all the old rules are first applied, then
the nesting takes place and this rule appends and overrides (if
required) the properties that I define here. If I don't want all headers
to run-in with the following paragraph, I just use a class for those
headers I want to run in, like this:

<h1 class="notice">Run-in header</h1>
<p>and the text that follows it</p>

and you replace the above style with

h1.notice { display: run-in; }

Now, only the 1st level headers with class notice are rendered run-in,
and also those 1st level headers use all the declarations defined for
all 1st level headers (h1) defined above. Again, nesting in the work.

Unfortunately, MSIE or Mozilla do not support display: run-in, so you
need to use some hacks instead if the actual presentation is so
important enough for the extra work; usually float property is abused to
achieve similar effect.

Happy hacking!

--
Mikko

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
In article <cm********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.
Convenient, but IMHO wrong. Subheadings should be specified using
<h2> or <h3> or ... or <h6> whatever level is appropriate. Style
_that_; don't create a separate class and apply it to paragraphs.

Remember, you should always write your HTML so that as far as
possible it degrades gracefully if CSS is not supported. That means
headings should be headings, not paragraphs.
Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),


"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Then don't."

Seriously, A paragraph of text can't logically be "within" a
heading. Code the heading with its proper h number, and then code
the paragraph with a class that has margin-top:0.

Other folks will probably comment on your CSS; in particular it
usually doesn't sense to specify the text margin in pixels.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
In article <v3********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples
Examples of what? If you wrote "80%" rather than "100%" then
presumably you had some reason for doing so. Brian is helping you by
pointing out that it's a bad idea. If you already knew it was a bad
idea, why did you include it? If you didn't know it was a bad idea
then you should thank Brian for pointing it out.
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


Then google for it: it's been discussed here numerous times and
there's no reason for us to rehash it again -- particularly with
your attitude.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people
find their default settings acceptable or not?

FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five
different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default
text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your
monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the
browser settings.
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.
I think others have addressed the problems. In some cases one simply
can't avoid having a font or colour used in several different styles.
Updates then need to be done via a 'global replace' on the CSS file.
Alternatively one could have a look at preprocessing.
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


See http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:02:45 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Herbert <do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'?


Nobody, hopefully. Please keep posting cluelessly, until you have
something useful or interesting to say. Please also keep using a forged
E-mail address until you have a clue. HTH. HAND.


Ah... this is an example of 'useful or interesting'?

No. But is is an example of someone keener to bust balls than be
useful or interesting.

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Ho hum...

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:32:37 GMT, Jane Withnolastname
<Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples and might go on to actually provide some
useful information, but I guess it's just too difficult to resist, eh?
Are you trying to piss off the people that might help you?
When posting examples, try to be as generic and subservient as
possible. Then you won't have to worry about criticism of your coding
and might get the response you are looking for.


My original post was polite and modest.
Your example was quite long and featured a number of oddities, such as
the use of quotes around the font names and the use of an equals sign
for color. This makes it look like code taken directly from your page
and also makes it look like you just dove into it.
Diving in is admirable, but you can see why Brian might think you
haven't been reading along....
Thanks for pointing out the = typo. No it wasn't stright from the
page, I just included a number of elements which could be used.

As to 'reading along', with haughty admonitions like "don't use
verdana" without explanation, one is unlikely to actully learn
anything by reading that, except - if susceptible and parrot-like - to
repeat such mantras without understanding.
FYI I have been reading this NG, and studying numerous CSS guides, for
some time now. And I am well aware of the kind of advice given as to
allowing the 'user decide' (which in my experience is almost
invariably provided by people who couldn't construct an engaging
website if they tried). I know just one person who intentionally
changes their browser's font-size setting. Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
I tend to agree with this outlook. Many here do not. Why rock the boat
when you're begging for a solution to a problem that has nothing to do
with text size?


The boat wasn't rocking until Brian jumped in with both feet wearing
his captain's hat and expecting me to be 'subservient'.

In any case, when the posts nit-picking over whether one is toing the
line outnumber those trying to actuall help, it's safe to say there's
a valency for boat-rocking.
..
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.
Heh. I guess I fall into the latter category. I just wanted to address
this post before the full wrath of the group fell upon you. I think
Jukka may have already added you to his killfile....


The "full wrath"? Oh come on. This isn't Iraq. And I'll be happy to
be kill-filed by anyone who can't converse. I've never kill-filed
anyone - it's such an infantile response.
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


Verdana renders itself larger than most other similar fonts. So when
you ask it to render Arial at 80% and your fallback is Verdana, if the
user doesn't have Arial, s/he is going to see a font that looks to be
about 90%. Try it for yourself. Look at your page, study it, memorize
it. Then delete Arial from your style sheet and look at your page
again. If you think layout is a bitch now, try making it conform to
your desires in both Arial and Verdana.
Personally, I enjoy the Verdana font. But when I use it, it is the
only one I use (save for the generic fallback), so I know how big to
make it - which is always smaller than anything else.


Thank you for that most informative answer! You're absolutely right,
that when I typed out the samples, I put them in the 'wrong order'.
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'? But bear in mind
that since Brian snipped the relevant bits of my original posting,
there ain't much to be missed down there...


Top-posting doesn't bother me, though apparently it is frowned upon
round these parts.


For amazing pettiness, you should try the BBC Radio 2 NG... you can
almost smell the damp cardigans.

Thank you for the Verdana input!
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 13:02:08 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Herbert wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.".
Which would have exactly 0 effect. What do you think this is, your
personal help desk?


What on Earth are you beefing about? I'm 100% open to advice. A
help-desk might actually answer the query, not critise the context.
However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples and might go on to actually provide some
useful information, but I guess it's just too difficult to resist, eh?
I did provide useful information. You're just too thick to realize it.


Actually, I'm startlingly intelligent. You didn't provide info, you
told me what to do. And 100% ignored the actual query.
Unless I'd specified some deviation from 100%, there'd have been no
relative size-difference to describe, now, would there?
problem solved.

Do you actually have a website, Brian?
And I am well aware of the kind of advice given as to
allowing the 'user decide' (which in my experience is almost
invariably provided by people who couldn't construct an engaging
website if they tried).


Yeah, insult the group. That'll get you more help.


It's not an insult, it's e x p e r i e n c e, Brian.
Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books.
On your browser, perhaps. (Don't know how to set a font-size?) Not
on mine.


yawn. Yes, I do know how. Just use the one browser do you? Are the
settings at default.
Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks)
More insults! Don't stop now, you're on a roll.


No, 'coding-geek' isn't an insult (unless you are a coding geek under
the impression you're representative of the world at large and
resistant to acknowledging how anal-retentive one can appear). A
'coding geek' would be someone who endeavours to comprehend and
implement website design within the paramters of - say - the W3C, and
whose efforts signifcantly constrain the more flamboyant tweaking of
the browser-creators. However, the essence of the web is very much
based in freedom, and when a coding geek forgets this, and that people
are in fact messy, they become tedious.

"you're too thick" would be an insult, Brian.
don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
And you determine this how?


E x p e r i e n c e, Brian.
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.
rotf,l
Was this meant to goad me into helping you break another web site?


Brian, my interest in 'goading' you is 0. Why bother, when you
obviously goad yourself to your heart's content.
Now who wants to be first to say 'don't top post'?


As Jukka said, continue to top-post. Makes it easier to ignore you.


Ooo! Ouch. You've ruined my day, now, Captain Brian, you hero you..

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:29:50 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
In article <v3********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples
Examples of what? If you wrote "80%" rather than "100%" then
presumably you had some reason for doing so. Brian is helping you by
pointing out that it's a bad idea. If you already knew it was a bad
idea, why did you include it? If you didn't know it was a bad idea
then you should thank Brian for pointing it out.


Because, you hasty berk, I was asking about how specified font sizes
relate to one another.

I was trying to find out more about it, ok?

And really, honestly, truly, if you asked your doctor for advice about
bad breath, and he just said "don't wear green socks" without
explanation, what would you think?
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


Then google for it: it's been discussed here numerous times and
there's no reason for us to rehash it again -- particularly with
your attitude.


Oooh, snooty! Look, I don't need or want your 'help'. And you can
stick your exemplary attitude right back up where you produced it.

Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:11:55 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
Herbert wrote:

Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.


It would be even more convenient, not to mention symantically more
meaningful, if you used the right markup for the job. Headings deserve
<hx> markup, using the appropriate levels.

h1
h2
h3
h3
h2

etc. and style each heading level as you see fit.

You really should learn some HTML before trying CSS.


I know HTML very well, thank you. Enough to know that if you only
want a line break under a heading, rather than a paragraph break, you
don't use <h#></h#>, but have to codge it with font size and maybe
<bold> tags. Which was the salient point of my original post.

You might try being less impertinent.

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:25:05 +0300, Mikko Rantalainen <mi**@st.jyu.fi>
wrote:
Herbert wrote:
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets, so I'm hoping that the way I'm
going about things can be seriously improved upon, i.e . I just
haven't undersood something obvious about the 'cascading' nature of
Umm.. I don't want to sound rude, but you should really focus on
perfecting your HTML markup before rushing to prefecting the rendering
with CSS. In long run that's the best approach even though the learning
curve is rather steep.


Not rude, just somewhat patronising! I can handle it...
I think I can illustrate the nature of the beast with this example,
using just two text styles:
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif; font-size:
80%; color=#ff0000; font-weight: normal; text-align: justify;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}
Check out <URL:http://validator.w3.org/>. Even for an example CSS code,
stuff like "color=#ff0000" is unacceptable. Also, if you don't have a
good reason to add a specific declaration you should drop it. For
example, I cannot think of any valid reason for the need of
"font-weight: normal" in the above example. Especially if you target to
fully utilize the "nesting", you should always use bare minimum CSS
styles for each selector.


The = was a typo, brought about by too many years of html hand coding.
Sorry for the hiccup.

Also consider using 'em' unit for all stuff that has anything to do with
text.
Ok... I'll do more reading and think about it...
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.
Always, I repeat, always markup headers as headers, not as paragraphs,
divs or spans with some "special" class. CSS is supposed to only *hint*
default presentation and all the content should be fully readable
without any support for CSS.


Yes, I really really really do appreciate that, but in doing so, one
apparently forfeits the ability to follow a heading with text on the
'next line', and this was the nub of my query, to illustrate a
particular aspect of inheritance of text styles which evades me in its
implementation.
Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),
#2 or the subHead style used within the text paragraph using <span
class="subHead">include</span>
If you have markup like:

<h1>Heading</h1>
<p>text text text</p>

and you want rendering like

HEADING
text text text

you just apply style
h1 { font-size: 100%; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 0;
padding-bottom: 0; }
p { margin-top: 0; padding-top: 0; }


Ah!!! At last, something which looks like it could be the information
I was looking for. Thank you. I don't want the uppercase, but the
margin and padding aspects look promising.
If you want rendering like

HEADING text text text
Not really, but I'm reading on...
you shouldn't modify the markup. I repeat, the content is still exactly
the same and there's no reason not to modify anything else but CSS
which controls the presentation. So you just add next rule to above
stylesheet:

h1 { display: run-in; }
Ok... do go on...
The fact that you add this rule with is own selector, after the above
style declarations means that all the old rules are first applied, then
the nesting takes place and this rule appends and overrides (if
required) the properties that I define here. If I don't want all headers
to run-in with the following paragraph, I just use a class for those
headers I want to run in, like this:

<h1 class="notice">Run-in header</h1>
<p>and the text that follows it</p>

and you replace the above style with

h1.notice { display: run-in; }

Now, only the 1st level headers with class notice are rendered run-in,
and also those 1st level headers use all the declarations defined for
all 1st level headers (h1) defined above. Again, nesting in the work.

Unfortunately, MSIE or Mozilla do not support display: run-in, so you
need to use some hacks instead if the actual presentation is so
important enough for the extra work; usually float property is abused to
achieve similar effect.

Happy hacking!


Sounds Brilliant! Thank you. Didn't understand it (at first reading)
but will study it until I do.

If only I hadn't had to wade through so much bile from other posters
on the way here. But one decent follow-up is all anyone could want.

Thanks again.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:26:48 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
In article <cm********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.
Convenient, but IMHO wrong. Subheadings should be specified using
<h2> or <h3> or ... or <h6> whatever level is appropriate. Style
_that_; don't create a separate class and apply it to paragraphs.


I appreciate the theory, but was trying to illustrate an area of
ignorance on my part over inherited styles, not to recommend 'faking'
headings!

Remember, you should always write your HTML so that as far as
possible it degrades gracefully if CSS is not supported. That means
headings should be headings, not paragraphs.
Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Then don't."


Quoting Tommy Cooper at me, eh?

Seriously, A paragraph of text can't logically be "within" a
heading. Code the heading with its proper h number, and then code
the paragraph with a class that has margin-top:0.
Well, I wouldn't do that, html or css. The 'subheading' aspect really
was more misleading (and inciting) than I anticipated. I could
equally well have said 'penguin'.

Other folks will probably comment on your CSS; in particular it
usually doesn't sense to specify the text margin in pixels.


Well (at risk of incurring the ire of any anti-tables denizens) I
might use it when trying to keep text at a specific distance from
other content in certain cells a borderless table, and it seems to do
what I want just fine. I'll review the options again, but I'm open to
alternatives recommendations.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Stan. A measured,
informative approach is always appreciated (as much as snappish
"don't do that" arrogance is to be deplored).

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people
find their default settings acceptable or not?


Suppose you tell me? On the whole, I do, but I think it's arrogant to
assume that what suits me suits the majority. When I do anything for
public consumption, I can only do what initially appears to me to be
the most attractive presentation, and attend to and try to accomodate
feedback. I certainly wouldn't do something just because the rules
dictate, or insist that my clients accept the results because that's
"the way things should be" (or because "Brian says so" :-) ).

Whatever, like several others, you're missing the point of my original
post, when I made it quite clear I was proposing examples to
illustrate a particular aspect of CSS inheritance I find awkward

FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five
different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default
text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your
monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the
browser settings.
And maybe you learned to be less patronising.

I don't think it's appropriate to expect that users should adjust
anything to view any website. But since you come to hark back to
this point, yes, I do think that an information (i.e. text) rich web
page looks pretty ghastly when the font size is 100%. Dismount from
your elevated perspective and imagine printing a novel at the same
relative font-size.

I'm using Agent here, at its default font settings. I reckon the text
is about half the height of 100% arial in IE. And I've been persuaded
against using Times New Roman, though that, I accept, looks reasonably
ok at 100%. However, it seems commonly accepted that the sans-serif
fonts are just a little easier on the eye on screen, and convey a less
archaic impression (I gather that such an aesthetic consideration is a
moot point for people who put coding above content).
I know you are capable of providing helpful guidance. But come on,
this follow-up was 90% lame. I know this is presented as 'won't
help', but it could equally well be masking 'can't help'.


I think others have addressed the problems. In some cases one simply
can't avoid having a font or colour used in several different styles.
Updates then need to be done via a 'global replace' on the CSS file.
Alternatively one could have a look at preprocessing.
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


See http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html


Thank you. If Captain Brian had posted this URL instead of being
uninformatively bossy, I'd have understood - and accepted the point -
immediately.

I appreciate the time you've given in writing, Stephen (or at least
most of it ;-) ).
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:
I know HTML very well, thank you. Enough to know that if you only
want a line break under a heading, rather than a paragraph break
A what? Never heard of it. Or when you say "paragraph break" do you mean
margin?
, you don't use <h#></h#>, but have to codge it with font size and maybe
<bold> tags.


Or you could just alter the margin-bottom of the heading, and the margin-top
of whatever element follows it.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Hmmm, can this be the same Stan Brown who actually responded in a
civil - if not particularly revelant - fashion but three minutes
earlier?

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:29:50 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
In article <v3********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
Well Brian, it did occur to me to add "please don't bother commenting
on whether specifying 80% or any particular font is a good idea,
etc.". However, I'd hoped follow-ups might be from people who
realised these were examples


Examples of what? If you wrote "80%" rather than "100%" then
presumably you had some reason for doing so. Brian is helping you by
pointing out that it's a bad idea. If you already knew it was a bad
idea, why did you include it? If you didn't know it was a bad idea
then you should thank Brian for pointing it out.
I am pessimistically curious as to the verdana verboten.


Then google for it: it's been discussed here numerous times and
there's no reason for us to rehash it again -- particularly with
your attitude.


Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Top marks to Mikko, who not actually realised that when I gave my post
the subject line "My messy stylesheets just ain't got no style...." I
was acknowledging my shortcomings, but who ALSO appreciated and
responded to my specific query.

But so many examples of self-righteous squawking from others with too
much time on their hands... Will they forgive Mikko, I wonder?

And would it matter if they didn't?
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:11:16 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
I'm still relativey new to stylesheets, so I'm hoping that the way I'm
going about things can be seriously improved upon, i.e . I just
haven't undersood something obvious about the 'cascading' nature of
the coding, which I believe concerns the way attributes relate to one
another when 'nested'...

I think I can illustrate the nature of the beast with this example,
using just two text styles:
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif; font-size:
80%; color=#ff0000; font-weight: normal; text-align: justify;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}

.subHead {font-family: "arial", "verdana","helvetica", sans-serif;
font-size: 80%; color=#0000ff; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;
margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px;}
Obviously it's very convenient to be able to specify such a lot over
and over just by using <p>Text</p>, and subheadings with <p
class="subHead">Heading</p>.

Where I find things get awkward is if I occasionally want to have:
#1 the text follow the subheading after only a <br> line-break (i.e.
within the <p></p>),
#2 or the subHead style used within the text paragraph using <span
class="subHead">include</span>

Then, of course, the subHead text will inherit the <p></p> paragraph's
attributes: i.e. it will be smaller and, in the case of the
line-break, will be further inset because the margin will be
incremental, and if it meets the right-hand edge of the allocated area
(say a table cell) will also be justified.
The only ways I can see to get round some of this are:
#1 to have 'relative' and 'absolute' versions of the two specified
styles,
#2 or to use more inline <span style="lots of style specs";></span>
specifying.

Of course, both methods would increase the amount of coding
tremendously. The first would require creating many alternative
'relative' styles to match every combination found within the
documents, and the second approach would negate any advantage
conferred by css over html, with html's need to specify fully each and
every occurrence of 'non-standard' text.

Sorry this is long-winded, and if it's not very clear! It's taken me
quite a while just to identify where my inability lies in this regard.

Thanks for reading this far. Comments welcome...


Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:44:49 +0100, David Dorward <do*****@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Herbert wrote:
I know HTML very well, thank you. Enough to know that if you only
want a line break under a heading, rather than a paragraph break
A what? Never heard of it. Or when you say "paragraph break" do you mean
margin?


Maybe it's the wrong term, but I meant the sort of break which follows
a paragraph as in <p></p>, a linebreak being <br>.
, you don't use <h#></h#>, but have to codge it with font size and maybe
<bold> tags.


Or you could just alter the margin-bottom of the heading, and the margin-top
of whatever element follows it.


Yes, Mikko just pointed that out, and it is exactly the sort of info I
was looking for, thank you!

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:

Ooo! Ouch. You've ruined my day, now, Captain Brian, you hero you..


Welcome to the killfiles. HAND.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
In message <li********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I'm 100% open to advice.


Liar.
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
In message <6h********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
Because, you hasty berk,


I have yet to understand why calling someone a female sexual organ is
supposed to be an insult.

Perhaps you have some issues about them..?
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
In message <bt********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I know HTML very well, thank you.


You only think you do.
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
In article <6h********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
And really, honestly, truly, if you asked your doctor for advice about
bad breath, and he just said "don't wear green socks" without
explanation, what would you think?
You were given explanations, you just chose not to benefit from
them.
Oooh, snooty! Look, I don't need or want your 'help'.


Funny, I thought you posted here asking for exactly that.

But I will respect your wishes and not burden you with any more
help. I'm sure at least some others have already reached a similar
conclusion.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:13:37 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
In message <bt********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I know HTML very well, thank you.


You only think you do.


You pompous ignoramous. You have no evidence upon which to base your
fatuous assertion, which reveals more about your petty, prejudiced,
conceited perception of the world and the other people in it. Which
is a hugely greater deficiency than any lack of knowledge of html or
css.

If I'd known that creating a 'subheading' class would have created so
much excitement (only exceeded by my 'color=' typo caused by many
years of hand-coding html), I'd have called it 'penguin' or something.

You sad, sad man. Troll me no more.

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:11:56 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
In message <6h********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
Because, you hasty berk,


I have yet to understand why calling someone a female sexual organ is
supposed to be an insult.

Perhaps you have some issues about them..?


Absolutely not (neither do I have any grudge against jews). It's
Cockney rhying slang I didn't know about, but I took a look around and
found this page:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk

so thank you for actually enlightening me about something.

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:11:17 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
In article <6h********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> wrote:
And really, honestly, truly, if you asked your doctor for advice about
bad breath, and he just said "don't wear green socks" without
explanation, what would you think?
You were given explanations, you just chose not to benefit from
them.


Quote:
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana",
Don't specify verdana.
font-size: 80%;
Where's the explanation? When someone posted subsequently the URL of
an explanatory page, I immediately reviewed it and thanked them for
it. However, Captain Brian completely ignored my actual question in
favour of nit-picking, which seems to be a damn-near habitual
knee-jerk response around here.
Oooh, snooty! Look, I don't need or want your 'help'.
Funny, I thought you posted here asking for exactly that.


No, I don't want YOUR help - or at least I don't think I want what you
consider help..
But I will respect your wishes and not burden you with any more
help. I'm sure at least some others have already reached a similar
conclusion.


Phew. Fine by me.
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:44:38 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people
find their default settings acceptable or not?


Suppose you tell me? On the whole, I do, but I think it's arrogant to
assume that what suits me suits the majority.


Exactly - that is the whole point. This problem is best addressed by
leaving the main body text at 100%. For those people who find their
default settings acceptable, this will be acceptable. For those who
don't, and have changed the settings to something they do like, it will
also be acceptable.

The only people who will be dissatisfied will be those who don't like
the default settings but don't know how to change them. And for them you
cannot know that 80% will be an improvement. (Maybe they would prefer
90%, or 120%.) If you are convinced that this last group is
significantly large, you can use the solution I use on my site - see
sig. (I'm not actually convinced this group is so large, but I'm
prepared to entertain the possibility.)
When I do anything for
public consumption, I can only do what initially appears to me to be
the most attractive presentation, and attend to and try to accomodate
feedback. I certainly wouldn't do something just because the rules
dictate, or insist that my clients accept the results because that's
"the way things should be" (or because "Brian says so" :-) ).
That matches with most people here. But it certainly makes sense to make
use of accumulated experience - and the assembled readership of this
group has a vast amount of experience.

Whatever, like several others, you're missing the point of my original
post, when I made it quite clear I was proposing examples to
illustrate a particular aspect of CSS inheritance I find awkward
I didn't miss the point completely; I tried to address it in the
sentence starting "In some cases one simply can't ..." However I now
understand your problem is solved by something else.

FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five
different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default
text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your
monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the
browser settings.


And maybe you learned to be less patronising.


That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of
100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it
much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that
you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings?

I don't think it's appropriate to expect that users should adjust
anything to view any website.
I agree entirely (with the exception of reducing window-size to a
convenient line-length). Users should adjust their browser once to their
preferred font-size, and should not have to change it again for any
website. So why do so many web-authors, including apparently yourself,
force them to readjust their settings by using main text sizes like 80%?

But since you come to hark back to
this point, yes, I do think that an information (i.e. text) rich web
page looks pretty ghastly when the font size is 100%. Dismount from
your elevated perspective and imagine printing a novel at the same
relative font-size.
No problem. 100% looks perfect to me. It would look perfect to you too,
if you would adjust your browser settings. But apparently even
suggesting that is "patronising".
I'm using Agent here, at its default font settings. I reckon the text
is about half the height of 100% arial in IE.
So adjust IE to a size where 100% looks acceptable to you.
And I've been persuaded
against using Times New Roman, though that, I accept, looks reasonably
ok at 100%. However, it seems commonly accepted that the sans-serif
fonts are just a little easier on the eye on screen,
This is a debatable point. I suspect that this claim is based on the
fact that the most common sans-serif font (Arial) is quite a bit wider
than the most common serif font (Times New Roman). So if you set them
both to the same smallish font-size, Arial will be more readable. But
I'm not convinced that this is a property of sans-serif fonts as such. I
use Georgia as my default serif font; it is about the same width as
Arial and I find it just as readable.
and convey a less
archaic impression (I gather that such an aesthetic consideration is a
moot point for people who put coding above content).
Which people would they be? You'll find that quite a few of the
discussions around here consist of the regulars trying to convince
people that content is the number 1 priority.

You could of course leave the font-family to default as well. Then those
people who consider serif fonts "archaic" (I don't think you'll find
many typographers among them, BTW) and have set a serif font as their
default will get the font they like.

I appreciate the time you've given in writing, Stephen (or at least
most of it ;-) ).


I am trying to help. Honest.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:08:09 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Herbert wrote:

Ooo! Ouch. You've ruined my day, now, Captain Brian, you hero you..


Welcome to the killfiles. HAND.


Oh I'm dead. Basically because I won't act 'subservient' (see above
in this thread if you're interested) or supine in the face of arrant
irrelevant smart-ass nit-picking.

Killfiles = "I'm not playing any more". Never used 'em.
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:10:32 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
In message <li********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I'm 100% open to advice.


Liar.


Oooh. "Too thick" "Liar"... the Lords of CIWAS reveal their colors
(#000000).

Quote me where someone gave me advice, as distinct from high-handed
admonition (i.e. no clue as to 'why'), particularly where it pertained
to my actual original query, and I failed to thank them for it.

You're just being thoughtlessly petty and spiteful. I find people
like you amusing, but pathetic.
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:01:52 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:44:38 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
some well-considered and sensible observations. Thank you!
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <do******@email.me.ok>
wrote:

Sites with 100% anything
tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct
from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a
thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people
find their default settings acceptable or not?
Suppose you tell me? On the whole, I do, but I think it's arrogant to
assume that what suits me suits the majority.


Exactly - that is the whole point. This problem is best addressed by
leaving the main body text at 100%. For those people who find their
default settings acceptable, this will be acceptable. For those who
don't, and have changed the settings to something they do like, it will
also be acceptable.

The only people who will be dissatisfied will be those who don't like
the default settings but don't know how to change them. And for them you
cannot know that 80% will be an improvement. (Maybe they would prefer
90%, or 120%.) If you are convinced that this last group is
significantly large, you can use the solution I use on my site - see
sig. (I'm not actually convinced this group is so large, but I'm
prepared to entertain the possibility.)


Ok. I assume when I visit a website that the layout is as the author
intended, and that if it looks unpleasant, that's a communication in
itself. Altering the size of the text in my browser may also throw
out some juxtaposed elements, so I simply put up with it and look at
the content. Since visiting sites, say, from a search engine summary,
can be like flipping through a book directory, stopping to adjust the
text sizes is more likely to cause problems: i.e. one site the text is
'too small', the next it's 'too big': adjusting for one will
exacerbate the problems in the next. Unless I'm going to be spending
some time reading a page, I just let it be.
When I do anything for
public consumption, I can only do what initially appears to me to be
the most attractive presentation, and attend to and try to accomodate
feedback. I certainly wouldn't do something just because the rules
dictate, or insist that my clients accept the results because that's
"the way things should be" (or because "Brian says so" :-) ).
That matches with most people here. But it certainly makes sense to make
use of accumulated experience - and the assembled readership of this
group has a vast amount of experience.


So I gather from reading this NG for some time. But that's no excuse
for being abrupt, patronising, or dismissive. Quite the contrary, in
fact.

Whatever, like several others, you're missing the point of my original
post, when I made it quite clear I was proposing examples to
illustrate a particular aspect of CSS inheritance I find awkward
I didn't miss the point completely; I tried to address it in the
sentence starting "In some cases one simply can't ..." However I now
understand your problem is solved by something else.

FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five
different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default
text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your
monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the
browser settings.


And maybe you learned to be less patronising.


That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of
100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it
much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that
you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings?


Oh come on. There's always the possibility of an alternative
explanation which one may not have considered. Such as the one above.
In any case, I think one should aim to match the look of one's page to
the default settings.

I don't think it's appropriate to expect that users should adjust
anything to view any website.
I agree entirely (with the exception of reducing window-size to a
convenient line-length). Users should adjust their browser once to their
preferred font-size, and should not have to change it again for any
website. So why do so many web-authors, including apparently yourself,
force them to readjust their settings by using main text sizes like 80%?


Personally, in the real world, where the situation is already mashed
up, I don't see how anyone can _permanently_ adjust their browser to
the font setting they want (that deviates from default). Conversely,
I have _never_ had anyone complain that a site I produced caused them
illegibility problems.

I think the clue is in your words "so many web-authors". Maybe they
do it because the audience expects it?

But since you come to hark back to
this point, yes, I do think that an information (i.e. text) rich web
page looks pretty ghastly when the font size is 100%. Dismount from
your elevated perspective and imagine printing a novel at the same
relative font-size.
No problem. 100% looks perfect to me. It would look perfect to you too,
if you would adjust your browser settings. But apparently even
suggesting that is "patronising".


No. Suggesting I adjust my browser settings would be impractical.
Declaring that I don't know how is patronising.

And you didn't actually acknowledge the complete context of that
point: books printed for adults do not have text equating to the
on-screen 100% font. But kiddies' books do.
I'm using Agent here, at its default font settings. I reckon the text
is about half the height of 100% arial in IE.
So adjust IE to a size where 100% looks acceptable to you.


Why, when only the very few pages where the font is 100% cause me a
little aesthetic distaste, and they are almost always either naively
primitive sites laden with garish animated gifs, or ones discussing
CSS. Most sites attempt, for better or worse, to define a style and
presentation appropriate to their content, and generally, the font
size is reduced from 100%.
And I've been persuaded
against using Times New Roman, though that, I accept, looks reasonably
ok at 100%. However, it seems commonly accepted that the sans-serif
fonts are just a little easier on the eye on screen,
This is a debatable point. I suspect that this claim is based on the
fact that the most common sans-serif font (Arial) is quite a bit wider
than the most common serif font (Times New Roman). So if you set them
both to the same smallish font-size, Arial will be more readable. But
I'm not convinced that this is a property of sans-serif fonts as such. I
use Georgia as my default serif font; it is about the same width as
Arial and I find it just as readable.


I shall look into Georgia.
and convey a less
archaic impression (I gather that such an aesthetic consideration is a
moot point for people who put coding above content).
Which people would they be? You'll find that quite a few of the
discussions around here consist of the regulars trying to convince
people that content is the number 1 priority.


Well, whenever I've entered into a debate about aesthetics and how
such subjective considerations are at odds with the rigours of coding
to 'established' datum lines, and have looked at pages produced by the
advocates of 'correct' coding, all too often they were dull as
concrete slabs. Even self-obsessed. The most interesting thing about
some of them was the 'validated' badge.

You could of course leave the font-family to default as well. Then those
people who consider serif fonts "archaic" (I don't think you'll find
many typographers among them, BTW) and have set a serif font as their
default will get the font they like.
What on Earth is the point of defining fonts on a web page for the
benefit of people who totally ignore it and choose their own anyway?
One might as well produce the page to suit oneself, one's client, and
the majority of their visitors: and if there's any adverse comment
(unknown to me), adjust as appropriate.

Anyway, apart from the analogy you ignored above, we're not talking
about publishing paper-based material, are we? Personally, I don't
like sans-serif fonts on the printed page, especially in a novel
(text-books are ok-ish), and wasn't advocating this. I meant
'archaic' in the on-screen context (how quickly things become
out-of-date in cyberspace... even that word!).

Some years ago I did a site using Times, but the observation was that
it looked like I hadn't bothered to specify a font (as in "don't know
how to adjust browser settings"). Not, I hastily mention, from the
'top dogs (and bitches)' of ciwas or ciwah, but from the client.

I appreciate the time you've given in writing, Stephen (or at least
most of it ;-) ).


I am trying to help. Honest.


I appreciate that! And your comments are well-based in the rational,
but life's just a bit more messy than that, I think...

Thanks again for offering some thought-provoking ideas, it often helps
to have one's ingrained approaches challenged.

Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a

"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:fs********************************@4ax.com...
That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of
100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it
much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that
you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings?


<devil's advocate>
Specifying a font-size smaller or larger than 100% should be allowed. They
are merely design "recommendations". Much like saying that the page should
use Arial. "How dare you say I use Arial? I want to use Times New Roman for
every page I view! You stoopid deeziners!"
</devil's advocate>

Let's see how many people I pissed off with that one. :)

Jonathan

--
http://www.snook.ca/
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
Herbert <do******@email.me.ok> exclaimed in <7c********************************@4ax.com>:
Oh I'm dead. Basically because I won't act 'subservient' (see above
in this thread if you're interested) or supine in the face of arrant
irrelevant smart-ass nit-picking.

Killfiles = "I'm not playing any more". Never used 'em.


I have. *plink*

A killfile, among the adult population, is somewhat comparable to the OFF
switch on a TV set or a radio. If what is being said is something you don't
care to listen to, you can turn it off.

It's a shame that too many parents see the TV, or the Internet, as a
babysitter and let people like Herbert loose on us.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:07:04 +0100, Herbert wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:02:45 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Nobody, hopefully. Please keep posting cluelessly, until you have
something useful or interesting to say. [...]


Ah... this is an example of 'useful or interesting'?


When I asked once about possibilities how to make a dotted underline,
I let myself draw into a strange discussion about why dotted
underlines are evil. That, seemingly, was somebody's image of what is
"useful or interesting"... :)
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
This whole thread has been absolutely entertaining. (Dare I say 100%
entertaining!) And also informative.

Keep it up for a bit longer... I look forward immensely to reading future
follow-ups : )

P.
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley wrote:
Alternatively one could have a look at preprocessing.


I've always felt that something like this (not exactly preprocessing,
but with a similar effect) is missing from CSS. It could be as simple
as constants or "style constants": definitions of certain values or
styles that get associated with a name and can then be invoked by
using the name. This could make many style sheets a lot cleaner.

Is anything like this being discussed for inclusion into CSS?
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:15:20 +0100, Herbert wrote:
Other folks will probably comment on your CSS; in particular it
usually doesn't sense to specify the text margin in pixels.


Well (at risk of incurring the ire of any anti-tables denizens) I
might use it when trying to keep text at a specific distance from
other content in certain cells a borderless table, and it seems to do
what I want just fine. I'll review the options again, but I'm open to
alternatives recommendations.


The relationship between font size (as measured in em) and pixels
varies between common displays as much as 1:2. Selecting a text margin
in em that is on your display as wide as you would specify it in
pixels makes sure that it is on my display just as wide -- compared to
the actual size of the font.
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
Herbert wrote:

In any case, I think one should aim to match the look of one's page to
the default settings.


Assuming you are referring to the out-of-the-box vendor settings, if I
followed your advice I probably wouldn't be able to read my own web pages.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net> exclaimed in <v3********************************@4ax.com>:
I let myself draw into a strange discussion about why dotted
underlines are evil. That, seemingly, was somebody's image of what is
"useful or interesting"... :)


Perhaps you'd enjoy extending this debate with an explanation of what
makes that so amusing ?

Otherwise we might just as well assume that you simply think everything
YOU want to ask, or learn, is interesting and useful and the rest of us
should just do the Norwegian Blue routine.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
In message <mh********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:10:32 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
In message <li********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I'm 100% open to advice.
Liar.


Oooh. "Too thick" "Liar"...


No. I called you a liar; because you plainly are. I made no comment
whatsoever about the "width" of your intellect. Still, if the cap
fits...
the Lords of CIWAS reveal their colors (#000000).
<yawn>
Quote me where someone gave me advice, as distinct from high-handed
admonition (i.e. no clue as to 'why'),
You could start with the first response to your initial query, in this
thread.
particularly where it pertained to my actual original query, and I
failed to thank them for it.
We were debating your fallacious claim to be open to advice, not whether
you said than k you.
You're just being thoughtlessly petty and spiteful.
Liar.
I find people like you amusing, but pathetic.


Your loss.
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
In message <5u********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes

[...]
(neither do I have any grudge against jews).


So why mention them?

--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a
In message <c3********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
However, Captain Brian completely ignored my actual question


I suggest you demand a refund.

--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a
In message <5b********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:13:37 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
In message <bt********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
I know HTML very well, thank you.
You only think you do.


You pompous ignoramous.


I note that your response to a valid criticism is baseless abuse.
You have no evidence
Other than your posts in this thread, that is.
upon which to base your
fatuous assertion,
In that case, I indeed have no such evidence - but since I posted no
fatuous assertion, I need none.
which reveals more about your petty, prejudiced,
conceited perception of the world and the other people in it.


Nonsense, but that comment speaks volumes about you.

[snip further ad hominem]
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
Tina Holmboe wrote:
...
It's a shame that too many parents see the TV, or the Internet, as a
babysitter and let people like Herbert loose on us.


not sure if it's what you intended, but that gets a good belly laugh here
/bg

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a
"William Tasso" <ne****@tbdata.com> exclaimed in <bl************@id-139074.news.uni-berlin.de>:
Tina Holmboe wrote:
...
It's a shame that too many parents see the TV, or the Internet, as a
babysitter and let people like Herbert loose on us.


not sure if it's what you intended, but that gets a good belly laugh here
/bg


If I can manage to amuse my fellow human beans; so much the better. After
all, those who do laugh at the above might be Good Guys, and since a good
laugh is supposed to help you live longer we'll simply win in the end out
of sheer tenacity ...

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:08:02 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote:
Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net> exclaimed in <v3********************************@4ax.com>:
I let myself draw into a strange discussion about why dotted
underlines are evil. That, seemingly, was somebody's image of what is
"useful or interesting"... :)


Perhaps you'd enjoy extending this debate with an explanation of what
makes that so amusing ?

Otherwise we might just as well assume that you simply think everything
YOU want to ask, or learn, is interesting and useful and the rest of us
should just do the Norwegian Blue routine.


It's really not that difficult to understand. I can explain in one
sentence.

When someone asks a straight-forward question to which the answer
could be brief, one finds that there's an apparently innate incapacity
with some respondents to avoid expressing their personal opinion as to
the validity or desireablity of implementing that measure, which all
too often dominates their perspective to such an extent that the
original question, asked with respect and modesty, becomes a secondary
issue to an interminable debate which frequently descends into dubious
personal assessments of that person's intelligence, experience,
motives, morals and so on, forcing them - unless they have either the
will to resist such insults or actually relish swatting wasps - into a
futile defence against these respondents with their exceedingly high
opinion of themselves, but who have forsaken any remnant of
pertinence.

Jul 20 '05 #50

72 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.