Deprecated, shmeprecated - at least it works!

puzzled

Okay, so my subject sounds a bit crass. As much as I'd like to
totally embrace css and avoid "deprecated" usage, sometimes the
deprecated stuff is so much easier and more effective. Plus, it at
least does what I want it to, while I'm left puzzled trying to make a
css implementation do the same thing.

Here is a simple example.

I want to have four identical-sized images displayed in a two-by-two
arrangement, wtih room for a centered photo caption beneath them. I
also DON'T want the images touching, which they do in Mozilla unless I
explicitly make other arragements.

Hold your noses; here's the way I'd do it:

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
div.photofloat { float: left; vertical-align: text-top }
div.photofloat p { text-align: center; }

.withspace { padding: 14px }
</style>
</head>

<body>

<div class="photofloat">
<p>
<img hspace="14" vspace="14" src="img1.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img vspace="14" src="img2.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
<img hspace="14" src="img3.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img src="img4.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
And a caption here!
</p>
</div>

</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
div.photofloat { float: left; vertical-align: text-top }
div.photofloat p { text-align: center; }

.withspace { padding: 14px }
</style>
</head>

Okay, no live puppies were destroyed in this implementation and
nothing bad happened, EXCEPT that I used the deprecated hspace and
vspace to position my images where I wanted them.

Now, trying it using css (obviously, incorrect css, because it's not
working), here's what I do:

<body>

<div class="photofloat">
<p>
<img class="withspace" src="img1.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img class="withspace" src="img2.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
<img class="withspace" src="img3.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img class="withspace" src="img4.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
And a caption here!
</p>
</div>

</body>
</html>

It doesn't work! Why not?

I have many other examples of stuff I'm trying in css (mostly using
divs to position image elements) and failing. I can never find
exactly what I'm looking for on the web, so I just try and miss the
mark.

So my general question is why are hspace and vspace and a lot of other
useful features of html deprecated when they seem to work well for
what they were intended, while no equally-staightforward css
equivalent exists?

And secondly, please offer some suggestions to me to implement the
above in css.

Jul 20 '05 #1

Subscribe Post Reply

3736

brucie

in post <news:9h********************************@4ax.com >
puzzled said:

I want to have four identical-sized images displayed in a two-by-two
arrangement, wtih room for a centered photo caption beneath them. I
also DON'T want the images touching,

http://stuff.bruciesusenetshit.info/...ge-thingy.html

f'ups alt.html

--
brucie
29/November/2003 05:09:18 am

Jul 20 '05 #2

Steve Pugh

puzzled <pu*****@puzzled.com> wrote:

I want to have four identical-sized images displayed in a two-by-two
arrangement, wtih room for a centered photo caption beneath them. I
also DON'T want the images touching, which they do in Mozilla unless I
explicitly make other arragements.
No doctype. So you're automatically going into quirks mode in browsers
that perform doctype sniffing.
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
div.photofloat { float: left; vertical-align: text-top }
floated elements need an explicit width. In this case the float is
pointless as there's nothing following the div to be floated alongside
It. Is this an abstraction of a larger page?

vertica-align doesn't apply to block level elements like div. So
that's pointless.
div.photofloat p { text-align: center; }
Why bother with the p at all? Why just apply text-align to the div?
.withspace { padding: 14px }
Not used in this example.
</style>
</head>

<body>

<div class="photofloat">
<p>
<img hspace="14" vspace="14" src="img1.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img vspace="14" src="img2.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
<img hspace="14" src="img3.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img src="img4.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
Missing the required alt atrribute on all four images.
And a caption here!
</p>
</div>

</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
div.photofloat { float: left; vertical-align: text-top }
div.photofloat p { text-align: center; }

.withspace { padding: 14px }
</style>
</head>

Okay, no live puppies were destroyed in this implementation and
nothing bad happened, EXCEPT that I used the deprecated hspace and
vspace to position my images where I wanted them.

Now, trying it using css (obviously, incorrect css, because it's not
working), here's what I do:
Presumably using the CSS as above? You seem to have inserted your
comments in an odd palce.
<body>

<div class="photofloat">
<p>
<img class="withspace" src="img1.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img class="withspace" src="img2.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
<img class="withspace" src="img3.gif" width="110" height="70">
<img class="withspace" src="img4.gif" width="110" height="70"><br>
And a caption here!
</p>
</div>

</body>
</html>

It doesn't work! Why not?
Images don't have padding they have margins.
So my general question is why are hspace and vspace and a lot of other
useful features of html deprecated when they seem to work well for
what they were intended, while no equally-staightforward css
equivalent exists?
They're deprecated so that the HTML can focus on structure and
sematntics and leave all the presentation to CSS.
And secondly, please offer some suggestions to me to implement the
above in css.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
div.photofloat { text-align: center; width: 300px; float: left;}
div.photofloat img { margin: 14px; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="photofloat">
<img src="img1.gif" width="110" height="70" alt="1">
<img src="img2.gif" width="110" height="70" alt="2"><br>
<img src="img3.gif" width="110" height="70" alt="3">
<img src="img4.gif" width="110" height="70" alt="4"><br>
And a caption here!
</div>
</body>
</html>

cheers,
Steve

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

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

Jul 20 '05 #3

puzzled

Thanks Steve and Brucie for the helpful tips. All worked great. I'm
embarrassed about confusing "padding" and "margin" - that was too
simple.

Okay, another one. If I have two photos next to each other in a div
or paragraph, I believe they default to lining up with their bottom
edges even. How do I, using css, make them default to lining up with
their TOP edges even?

Jul 20 '05 #4

Stan Brown

In article <r7********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Steve Pugh
<st***@pugh.net> wrote:

floated elements need an explicit width.

My heart skipped a beat when I read this, but you're right according
to the spec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

Here's my problem: I've been floating tables left or right. Since
they're not replaced elements I now see that I should be specifying
a width, according to the spec; but I haven't been. An example:
http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruc...tat/listpr.htm
Both the table of numbers and the screen shots are floated. As I
read the spec I'm okay for the latter (because an IMG is a replaced
element) but not for the table of numbers.

How do I know what width to specify for a floated table or other
block element? And what's the rationale for requiring an explicit
width anyway? Maybe for a paragraph it's not too burdensome, but for
a table it seems it would require me to change the CSS every time we
edit the content of the floated element. After all, don't I want the
table to be as big as it needs to be, but no bigger; and isn't the
browser better than I at calculating that?

--
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 #5

Stan Brown

In article <r4********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, puzzled
<pu*****@puzzled.com> wrote:

If I have two photos next to each other in a div
or paragraph, I believe they default to lining up with their bottom
edges even. How do I, using css, make them default to lining up with
their TOP edges even?

Style them with vertical-align:top.

--
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 #6

Steve Pugh

puzzled <pu*****@puzzled.com> wrote:

Thanks Steve and Brucie for the helpful tips. All worked great. I'm
embarrassed about confusing "padding" and "margin" - that was too
simple.

Okay, another one. If I have two photos next to each other in a div
or paragraph, I believe they default to lining up with their bottom
edges even. How do I, using css, make them default to lining up with
their TOP edges even?

Remember when I said that vertical-align didn't apply to block level
elements? Well it does apply to inline elements like images.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Image alignment</title>
<style type="text/css">
img {border: 2px solid red;}
p.two img {vertical-align: top;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="one">some text <img width="50" height="50" src="foo"
alt="1"><img width="50" height="100" src="bar" alt="2"> some text</p>
<p class="two">some text <img width="50" height="20" src="foo"
alt="1"><img width="50" height="100" src="bar" alt="2"> some text</p>
</body>
</html>

cheers,
Steve

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

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

Jul 20 '05 #7

Christoph Paeper

*puzzled* <pu*****@puzzled.com>:

If I have two photos next to each other in a div or paragraph,
I believe they default to lining up with their bottom edges even.
The initial value for 'vertical-align' is 'baseline', but user agent
stylesheets for HTML may differ for 'img'.
How do I, using css, make them default to lining up with
their TOP edges even?

Depends, either

img {vertical-align: top;}

or

img {vertical-align: text-top;}.

--
Alcohol didn't cause the high crime rates of the '20s and '30s, Prohibition did.
And drugs do not cause today's alarming crime rates, but drug prohibition does.
(US District Judge James C. Paine, November 1991)

Jul 20 '05 #8

Sid Ismail

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:34:43 GMT, puzzled <pu*****@puzzled.com> wrote:

: Okay, another one. If I have two photos next to each other in a div
: or paragraph, I believe they default to lining up with their bottom
: edges even. How do I, using css, make them default to lining up with
: their TOP edges even?
http://www.w3schools.com/css/tryit.a...vertical-align

Sid

Jul 20 '05 #9

Sid Ismail

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:04:39 +0100, Christoph Paeper <cr***********@gmx.net>
wrote:

: Depends, either
:
: img {vertical-align: top;}
:
: or
:
: img {vertical-align: text-top;}.
Read up the CSS specs. :)

Sid

Jul 20 '05 #10

Christoph Paeper

*Sid Ismail* <el***@nospam.com>:

Christoph Paeper <cr***********@gmx.net>

: img {vertical-align: top;}
: img {vertical-align: text-top;}.

Read up the CSS specs. :)

Backwards this time or what did you want to tell me?

--
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly big place,
a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore."

Jul 20 '05 #11

Sid Ismail

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:46:54 +0200, Sid Ismail <el***@nospam.com> wrote:

: On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:04:39 +0100, Christoph Paeper <cr***********@gmx.net>
: wrote:
:
: : Depends, either
: :
: : img {vertical-align: top;}
: :
: : or
: :
: : img {vertical-align: text-top;}.
:
:
: Read up the CSS specs. :)
Sorry - braindead here - apologies. Was correct.

Sid

Jul 20 '05 #12

Anne van Kesteren

Stan Brown wrote:

In article <r7********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Steve Pugh
<st***@pugh.net> wrote:
floated elements need an explicit width.

My heart skipped a beat when I read this, but you're right according
to the spec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

Since user agents allow it without. It has been revised:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats>

--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

Jul 20 '05 #13

Christoph Paeper

*Anne van Kesteren* <ma**@annevankesteren.nl>:

Steve Pugh
floated elements need an explicit width.

Since user agents allow it without.

Mac IE 5 does not, AFAIK.
It has been revised:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats>

It is in the progress of being revised, but has not finally been yet.

--
FSK 6: Der Gute bekommt die Frau
FSK 16: Der Böse bekommt die Frau
FSK 18: Alle bekommen die Frau
Michael Fesser in de.alt.recovery.webauthor

Jul 20 '05 #14

Lauri Raittila

In article Stan Brown wrote:

In article <r7********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Steve Pugh
<st***@pugh.net> wrote:
floated elements need an explicit width.
My heart skipped a beat when I read this, but you're right according
to the spec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

Here's my problem: I've been floating tables left or right. Since
they're not replaced elements I now see that I should be specifying
a width, according to the spec; but I haven't been.

Why is table not replaced element?
Anyway, I can't find that requirement of width on
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats
anymore. (it was there on earlier draft, and it is defined somewhere how
width:auto for float is calculated.)

IIANM, only MacIE5 has problem with unspecified width on floats, and it
degredes usually acceptable way. (like if width would be 100%)
How do I know what width to specify for a floated table or other
block element?
You don't, unless you use percentages for floats.
And what's the rationale for requiring an explicit width anyway?
Easier to implement, I guess.
Maybe for a paragraph it's not too burdensome, but for
a table it seems it would require me to change the CSS every time we
edit the content of the floated element.
Yes. I would just hope that problem would go away. CSS2.1 could do that.
Most browsers already are doing like 2.1 says. (Or, CSS2.1 is telling
what browsers already do)
After all, don't I want the
table to be as big as it needs to be, but no bigger; and isn't the
browser better than I at calculating that?

Yes.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #15

Marek Mänd

Christoph Paeper wrote:

*Anne van Kesteren* <ma**@annevankesteren.nl>:
Steve Pugh
floated elements need an explicit width.

Since user agents allow it without.

Mac IE 5 does not, AFAIK.

I believe there are now other more popular browsers for Mac?

Whats the use of specifying a width to an floating element?
Maybe some user has put into CMS a long word such as
jödfpodufpquru89+w3ruajkfdüq9weruiqwe9irqwirüq9wir qiwerqwirqw9ier
and it makes the table anyway wider as initially meant, thus the width
attribute for float is just fake and a bare joke.
Explain me please.

Dankeschön!

Jul 20 '05 #16

Stan Brown

In article <MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:

In article Stan Brown wrote:
In article <r7********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Steve Pugh
<st***@pugh.net> wrote:
>floated elements need an explicit width.
My heart skipped a beat when I read this, but you're right according
to the spec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

Here's my problem: I've been floating tables left or right. Since
they're not replaced elements I now see that I should be specifying
a width, according to the spec; but I haven't been.

Why is table not replaced element?

It's not listed at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/confor...placed-element
or in the much shorter list at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.h...placed-element
And does it really have an "intrinsic width"?
Anyway, I can't find that requirement of width on
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats
anymore. (it was there on earlier draft, and it is defined somewhere how
width:auto for float is calculated.)

Yes, you're right. It's not a CSS2.1 requirement. (This change is
not listed at <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html#changes>.)

I was looking at CSS2, thinking browsers haven't got to 2.1 yet. But
as you and others suggest, in this matter most existing browsers
work okay even if I don't specify a width for my floated table.

Thanks (and to the others who posted too).

--
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 #17

Alan J. Flavell

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Stan Brown wrote:

I was looking at CSS2, thinking browsers haven't got to 2.1 yet.

It's CSS2 that they didn't get to! As I understand it, 2.1 is a
scaled-back version, with which the W3C are trying to codify the parts
that -have- been implemented in browsers.

(Might have been more informative to call it CSS1.95 or something.)

Jul 20 '05 #18

Christoph Paeper

*Marek Mänd* <ca********@mail.ee>:

Christoph Paeper wrote:
*Anne van Kesteren* <ma**@annevankesteren.nl>:
Steve Pugh floated elements need an explicit width.
Since user agents allow it without. Mac IE 5 does not, AFAIK.

I believe there are now other more popular browsers for Mac?

That's probably true, but doesn't change the fact that Mac IE 5 is one of
the few browsers, if not the only, that tries to follow the CSS 2.0 spec to
the point in this regard. And it keeps being used.
Whats the use of specifying a width to an floating element?

Else every box with more than one line of text would be at least 100% wide
and the float was thus useless.

--
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass has an appropriate reserve space.
To the economist, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Jul 20 '05 #19

Christoph Paeper

*Stan Brown* <th************@fastmail.fm>:

[<table/>]
And does it really have an "intrinsic width"?

At least for "table-layout: fixed" tables I'd say: "Yes".

--
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass has an appropriate reserve space.
To the economist, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Jul 20 '05 #20

Christoph Paeper

*Alan J. Flavell* <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>:

As I understand it, 2.1 is a scaled-back version, with which the W3C
are trying to codify the parts that -have- been implemented in browsers.
It's not only that. It also introduces some new stuff, like 'inline-block',
'pre-wrap' and 'orange', and incorporates the Errata.
<http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes>
(Might have been more informative to call it CSS1.95 or something.)

I would have preferred a "CSS 2.0 Second Edition" or "CSS 2.1" with only the
Errata and new features and simultanously a "Real World Desktop Profile"
based upon that new spec.

--
Useless Fact #3:
Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury.

Jul 20 '05 #21

kchayka

Christoph Paeper wrote:

*Marek Mänd* <ca********@mail.ee>:
Christoph Paeper wrote:
*Anne van Kesteren* <ma**@annevankesteren.nl>:
> Steve Pugh

>> floated elements need an explicit width.
Since user agents allow it without.
Mac IE 5 does not, AFAIK.

I believe there are now other more popular browsers for Mac?

That's probably true, but doesn't change the fact that Mac IE 5 is one of
the few browsers, if not the only, that tries to follow the CSS 2.0 spec to
the point in this regard. And it keeps being used.

And don't forget that the new-fangled Mac browsers like Safari are
targeted for OSX, too. MacOS will be around for quite a while yet.
MacIE is the default on older platforms and is likely to stay there.

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

Jul 20 '05 #22

kchayka

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Stan Brown wrote:
I was looking at CSS2, thinking browsers haven't got to 2.1 yet.

It's CSS2 that they didn't get to! As I understand it, 2.1 is a
scaled-back version, with which the W3C are trying to codify the parts
that -have- been implemented in browsers.

If that were the case, then they completely missed how browsers actually
implemented px units.
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-length>

This is something they really _should_ revise.

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

Jul 20 '05 #23

Alan J. Flavell

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, kchayka wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
It's CSS2 that they didn't get to! As I understand it, 2.1 is a
scaled-back version, with which the W3C are trying to codify the parts
that -have- been implemented in browsers.
If that were the case,

Yes, the thread has shown that I over-simplified the story... sorry.
then they completely missed how browsers actually implemented px
units.
er, yes...
This is something they really _should_ revise.

Yes, but I'm really not very sure what I think they ought to do.

They can hardly define a new unit, the bogopix, to denote the scaled
px unit. But by continuing to call it the px unit, there's an
inevitable clash between those who insist that if it says "pixels" on
the tin, then it better _mean_ "pixels", and not some airy-fairy
scaled unit based not only on display dpi but also on expected viewing
distance.

Maybe they ought to introduce milliradians or minutes of arc as a CSS
unit, and deprecate the pixel unit. I really don't know. I had
always -thought- that the image size unit in *HTML* (height and width)
was -meant- to declare the actual size for a pixel-based image format
(i.e, that putting a different size into the HTML, rather than into
CSS, in order to get the image scaled, was a kludge that was not
supported by the specifications); but on reading the HTML4.01 spec
more carefully, I was surprised to see that it (the HTML4.01 spec)
defines the pixel unit by reference to the CSS1 specification. Which
brings this whole mess full-circle. Sigh.

Jul 20 '05 #24

kchayka

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, kchayka wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> It's CSS2 that they didn't get to! As I understand it, 2.1 is a
> scaled-back version, with which the W3C are trying to codify the parts
> that -have- been implemented in browsers.

then they completely missed how browsers actually implemented px
units.

Yes, but I'm really not very sure what I think they ought to do.

Since all browsers have implemented px units as screen pixels (and beats
me how they could (easily) do otherwise), and that is how they are used
by authors, it would follow that W3C should just give in and reflect
this in the specs. Makes perfect sense to me. :)

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

Jul 20 '05 #25

Alan J. Flavell

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Christoph Paeper wrote:

I would have preferred a "CSS 2.0 Second Edition" or "CSS 2.1" with only the
Errata and new features and simultanously a "Real World Desktop Profile"
based upon that new spec.

Yup, that makes sense. It's a bad idea to try to cover two bases
(backtracking on unimplemented features, and kite-flying on new ones)
in a single composite proposal.

[reinstated sig, just for fun]

|Useless Fact #3:
|Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury.

I read in an article a little while back (I think it was in the NZZ)
that there's more US dollars in circulation as banknotes outside the
USA than inside. But outside, the most popular is the $100 bill,
which is relatively rare inside the country.

Funny old world.

Jul 20 '05 #26

Rijk van Geijtenbeek

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:22:39 -0600, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote:

...

And don't forget that the new-fangled Mac browsers like Safari are
targeted for OSX, too. MacOS will be around for quite a while yet.
MacIE is the default on older platforms and is likely to stay there.

Note: Opera 4 and Opera 5 also require a specified width for floats and
positioned elements, following the letter of the spec, without the errata.
Opera 6 makes some improvements to overcome the most pathological side
effects, and Opera 7 uses the CSS 2.1 / CSS 2.0-errata methods. Opera 7 is
not yet available for the Mac, and for those who don't need Unicode
support, Opera 5 is the better browser on Mac...

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen

Jul 20 '05 #27

Deprecated, shmeprecated - at least it works!

Similar topics