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
72  4756 
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:01:53 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote: 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.
Diddums.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:50:09 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote: "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 ...
Like several others, Tina makes high-handed spiteful comments without
explaining in particular why, and offers no other contribution.
The intent to dominate and humiliate and dismiss people 'not up to
scratch' on this NG appears casual and habitual.
Quote from this thread (not too selectively) where I failed to thank
respondents who actually addressed the aspect I asked about.
I think you'll find that because of one typo 'color=', and because I
named one class 'subheading' - when it could have been 'peguin' or
'irrelevant' - and had the temerity to include 'Verdana', I got a lot
of arrogant aggro.
When someone says 'do this, don't do that', as though their word is
law, they need to understand that this is confrontational, and not go
blubbing or get snotty when they are answered back without the respect
to which they evidently feel is their appointed due.
Your problem is having someone answer back, and unable to engage in
rational discourse, you make cheap, glib insults.
I think it's you who haven't left the junior playground.
More spiteful dross, all allusion, no evidence.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:36:52 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: In message <mh********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writesOn 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...
'Plainly'? Andy still won't justify this aspersion.
I didn't say you did. 'Thick' was from one of your peers.
the Lords of CIWAS reveal their colors (#000000).
<yawn>
Look, you're tired. Why not take a nap.
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.
Ok, let's run through it again for the terminally slow on the uptake:
there was no advice, just admonition without explanation (upon
something off-topic and in fact significantly subjective).
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.
No, this isn't a debate, this is just a series of unsubstantiated
allegations.
You're just being thoughtlessly petty and spiteful.
Liar.
Well, I'll let the above reveal the further fatuity of that one.
I find people like you amusing, but pathetic.
Your loss.
Aha? Can't for the life of me imagine how. I'm trying to avoid
conceit, not invite it.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:01 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: In message <5u********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
[...]
(neither do I have any grudge against jews).
So why mention them?
You predictably dull witted idle grunt.
To quote from the link I posted (which you snipped from your
response): http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk
Third definition: "Berk - a stupid jew".
You see, when you hinted to me that I didn't know something, I
listened, investigated, learned, and admitted my ignorance.
I provide you with a similar hint, _and_ the URL to review, but you're
too full of yourself to follow it. You can lead a horse, etc...
Which demonstrates (as if the point needed making) for all to see that
it is you who is the "liar", not me, about my being willing to learn.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:48 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: 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.
More gratuitous cynical spite. You're drowning in bile.
The Captain indulged himself, strutting onto the stage to declaim an
attempted few scene-stealing lines, expoiting my naivity as an
opportunity to enjoy ticking me off for my ignorance, and completely
ignoring my actual query.
Well, I got plenty ticked off, and thus far, have 0 reason to respect
Brian, and even less so, you.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:45 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote: 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.
Good grief! Really? I'm so sorry to hear that.
I can't imagine how you've managed it. If you provide some URLs, I
may be able to help - though I'm afraid you may get a lot of sneering
from the perfect ones in this NG.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:21:33 GMT, "Jonathan Snook"
<go***************@snook.ca> wrote:
"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
Well not me, for starters, I'm sorry to say ('cos I'm the bad guy
here).
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:42:41 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: In message <5b********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writesOn 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.
ROFLMHO
You started it. But can't take it like a man.
Your aspersions upon my html-ability are baseless, conjured out of
thin air by your febrile imagination in otrder to justify your
habitually cynical perspective.
You have no evidence
Other than your posts in this thread, that is.
Once again, which were (as in 'quote')?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.
var fat_ass = new Image(); fat_ass.src = "thread/You only think you
do.txt";
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]
Thank you. Excellent!
First Captain Brian, and now Andy 'Ad Hominem' Mabbett.
I acknowledge your mastery of the technique. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:35:01 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net>
wrote: 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.
Ok... I'll need to reread that again a few times, and try out some
test examples. Thank you!
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:13:11 +0200, "The Plankmeister"
<pl******************@hotmail.com> wrote: 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.
Well, on the supposition your comments were addressed to me, the bad
guy, then I thank you sir for your kind words, and hope the batch I've
just despatched will further your pleasure - and that you do not
hereby incur the devastating opprobrium* of the gentry here.
....it's like swatting wasps, only much less demanding or risky.
Persistent little devils, though.
On the other hand, if you're backing the raucous majority, you'll have
to do a lot better than that to earn a swat :-)
*or whatever...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:01 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: In message <5u********************************@4ax.com>, Herbert
<do******@email.me.ok> writes
[...]
(neither do I have any grudge against jews).
So why mention them?
Re my previous follow-up to Andy Mabbett's query... I may have been
guilty of contradicting myself in an earlier post, when I said there's
usually at least one alternative - and quite different - explanation
to the one you first think of.
So when I said Andy Mabbett was a "predictably dull witted idle
grunt", this was because I had been confident he'd be unable to resist
jumping on the 'jew' reference, since his persistent conceit as to his
own perspicacity would eagerly seek to exploit such an emotive mote,
and blind him - as ever - to the full and inconvenient context (such
as the provided link, which explained all).
My unseemly haste was due to my unholy glee in believing Andy had
fallen so readily into the trap, demonstrating so vividly and
precisely his uniformly disdainful attitude (predicated upon his
as-yet unsubstantiated allegations as to _my_ willful ignorance), in
which he projects upon me his reluctance to learn.
However, I subsequently realised that I hadn't taken into account the
possibility that maybe Andy doesn't recognise or know what a 'link' or
'URL' is, or how to utilise such. In which case, I apologise, I
really have no excuse for slighting the naive.
For those joining the debacle late, but who know what this is, here it
is again: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk
<andy class="zero">On the supposition Andy discovers how to click on
or copy & paste it, what're the odds he has the character, or moral
fibre (or whatever.. is 'man enough' perhaps...), to address me with
the courtesy with which I previously addressed him on this side-issue,
and say "thank you for actually enlightening me about
something"?</andy>
Herbert wrote: ...
When someone says 'do this, don't do that', as though their word is
law, they need to understand that this is confrontational, and not go
blubbing or get snotty when they are answered back without the respect
to which they evidently feel is their appointed due.
The help-desk is just down the hall on your right - have your charge card
ready.
HTH HAND
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Herbert <do******@email.me.ok> wrote in
news:v6********************************@4ax.com: 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
That's the difference between a discussion group and a help desk. It's
that simple. And I think you're guessing at people's motivations and
picking the least favorable guesses. Plenty of times the reason someone
says "you shouldn't be doing that" is that they tried it themselves and
discovered that it resulted in far more pain than gain.
Or maybe they recognize what looks like an "XY" problem: someone has a goal
(end) of X, thinks the best implementation (means) to achieve that goal is
Y, and asks for help with Y. They may, through their own experience, know
that Y is an unreliable or difficult means of achieving X, whereas Z does
it easily. In that case, it would be rather silly to avoid mentioning Z
and try instead to "help" you kluge your way through Y.
Most people find sharing their experiences with another person to be far
more enjoyable and rewarding than simply reading a manual or specification
to another person. And in a public discussion group, people are there to
do what they find most rewarding and enjoyable. Someone working a help
desk is being paid to do things he finds boring and tedious; those things
aren't their own reward, so they require an external incentive.
Herbert wrote: On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:45 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote: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.
I can't imagine how you've managed it. If you provide some URLs, I
may be able to help
Thanks, but no thanks. I already know how to make a page that scales
nicely to the user's browsing environment, whatever that may be. You
see, my own environment is rather different from factory settings and I
imagine your solution would be for me to change it so it more closely
resembles WinIE at Medium text size on an 800x600 display. Then I'd be
more like "the masses" and your design philosophy would apply.
Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
- though I'm afraid you may get a lot of sneering
from the perfect ones in this NG.
Well, that's your own fault, you know. You have insulted almost
everybody that responded to your posts. It doesn't matter whether it
was the advice you were originally seeking, it was still good advice,
coming from those who have more knowledge and experience in the subject
than you. Biting the hand that feeds you is an odd way to try to win
friends and influence people...
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:08:02 GMT, Tina Holmboe wrote: Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net> exclaimed in <v3********************************@4ax.com>:
From a Webster's dictionary:
ex-claim (ik sklaym') v. <-claimed, -claim-ing>
v.i.
1. to cry out or speak suddenly and
vehemently, as in surprise, strong
emotion, or protest.
v.t.
2. to cry out; say loudly or vehemently.
I don't see me having exclaimed anything it this newsgroup, really. I
try to stick to writing.
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 ?
I might even enjoy that, but I think it would lead us too far
off-topic here. If you know an applicable newsgroup that has humor as
one of its on-topic issues, I'd be happy to follow you there and
discuss my sense of humor with you.
Otherwise we might just as well assume that you simply think everything
YOU want to ask, or learn, is interesting and useful
You are of course free to assume anything you want, but I don't really
know why you would assume that I think that everything I want to ask,
or learn, is interesting and useful. (It is, obviously, for me, but,
just as obviously, not for everybody else.) I don't see either a
compelling reason for you to do so, nor an advantage for you or
anybody else.
I also don't see how this relates to my comment above. It was not
about what I think of what should or not be posted here or of what is
or not is interesting and useful, but about what somebody else
seemingly (derived by combining different posts of the same author)
thinks is interesting and useful.
I thought that the question how to create, with CSS, dotted or
otherwise broken underlines that reseble otherwise the standard
underlines, for whatever purpose of styling a page, was within the
issues that are considered on-topic in this newsgroup. I might be
mistaken here, and if so, would be glad if you could point me to a
relevant location where I can look up the rules I have missed so far.
Maybe we could create CIWA.philosophy or so... ?
and the rest of us should just do the Norwegian Blue routine.
Sorry, you lost me here. I don't know what the "Norwegian Blue
routine" is.
Gerhard Fiedler wrote: On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:08:02 GMT, Tina Holmboe wrote: ...
and the rest of us should just do the Norwegian Blue routine.
Sorry, you lost me here. I don't know what the "Norwegian Blue
routine" is.
then you haven't lived - but alas now I fear "this is an ex-thread" /with
apologies
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Herbert <do******@email.me.ok> wrote: Your aspersions upon my html-ability are baseless, conjured out of
thin air by your febrile imagination in otrder to justify your
habitually cynical perspective.
Your initial message touted markup like <p class="subHead">Heading</p> for
subheadings. IMHO, criticisms of your HTML ability are justified, and are
hardly mere aspersions.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"Nice is different than good." - Sondheim (LRRH, "Into the Woods")
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:50:18 +0100, Herbert wrote: You could start with the first response to your initial query, in this
thread.
Ok, let's run through it again for the terminally slow on the uptake:
there was no advice, just admonition without explanation (upon something
off-topic and in fact significantly subjective).
There was advice.
Hint: It was your replies that caused annoyance and subsequent hostility
not the original question.
When getting free support from a community that cares about the topic -
expect to get advice about how things should be done properly rather than
polishing turds.
I'll admit the first advice was a little terse but it was correct. Getting
peoples backs up isn't a good tactic when asking for their free help -
showing some humility will gain you a lot of latitude.
Eric did a great job explaining the difference between a discussion group
and a help desk - let it sink in a bit.
Cheers
Anton
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:41:18 +0100, Herbert 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?
I'd probably ask for clarification rather than criticising the advice or
the doctor.
But that's just me.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:17:07 +0100, William Tasso wrote: Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Sorry, you lost me here. I don't know what the "Norwegian Blue
routine" is.
then you haven't lived
Sounds like one of those radical assumptions (rather than a
conclusion) people here around like to make... :)
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:08:02 GMT, Tina Holmboe wrote: ... and the rest of us should just do the Norwegian Blue routine.
Now that Giles was so nice and enlightened me as to the "Norwegian
Blue routine" (which was not and still is not part of my own
repertoire), rest assured that I did not -- and probably will not --
recommend it to anyone. It seems a too radical solution to me. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
