serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

[Alan Illeman]

Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
somewhere?

Regards,
Alan
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[David Dorward]

Alan Illeman wrote:

Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
somewhere?

A complete one? No.

What purpose did you have in mind for such a list?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Alan Illeman]

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Alan Illeman wrote:

Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
somewhere?

A complete one? No.

What purpose did you have in mind for such a list?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
....
}

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

Alan

[Neal]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Alan Illeman wrote:

> Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
> somewhere?

A complete one? No.

What purpose did you have in mind for such a list?

body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
....
}

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

Arial and Helvetica are sans-serif. Verdana, however, is unsuited for
general body text unless you like goofy-big letters. I'd omit Verdana and
the above is fine.

[Alan Illeman]

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Alan Illeman wrote:

> Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
> somewhere?

A complete one? No.

What purpose did you have in mind for such a list?

body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
....
}

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

Arial and Helvetica are sans-serif. Verdana, however, is unsuited for
general body text unless you like goofy-big letters. I'd omit Verdana and
the above is fine.

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

[Neal]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:30:26 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

Arial and Helvetica are sans-serif. Verdana, however, is unsuited for
general body text unless you like goofy-big letters. I'd omit Verdana
and
the above is fine.

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

I'm waiting for someone who can provide more detail than I have available,
but seriously, there's not much more you can count on, aside from the
common variants like Arial Bold and such.

Realize that most browsers have as their default sans-serif font either
Arial or Helvetica anyhow. The few remaining browsers are probably
misconfigured. Add to this the fact that the chances another font is
actually on the user's computer are low, and the result is that whatever
you specify, the end result for many users is Arial or Helvetica anyhow.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Alan Illeman wrote:

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

The one that the user has purchased, installed and configured on their
browser for preference. You don't, in general, know what that is.

Which is just the one which likely *won't* get used if you insist on
specifying some laundry list of Microsoft lowest-common font families.
Unless the user has gone to the trouble of writing an !important
user stylesheet...

It's a hard choice to make. IMNSHO it depends whether you think
you're writing for discerning readers, or trying to appeal to the
unthinking masses. There's a market for either (you might be able to
work out which I prefer, but that's by the by).

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

[Andrew Thompson]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:30:26 -0400, Alan Illeman wrote:

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

OK. assuming you follow the (sensible) advice
to drop Verdana from the list, we have..

Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

That must cover (at a crude guess) 99% of
available browsers, the browsers that would have
either Arial (read Windows) or Helvetica (read Mac?)
or 'a default sans-serif' font defined..

What more do you want?

If the user fails to fall into any of those categories,
they are probably using IE4 and expect to see 'Times New Roman'
consistently.

Do not make the mistake (that I myself have
fallen into) of assuming your visitor gives a toss
about the font you use to display your site...

Odds on, it matters far more to the designer,
(AKA 'not at all, really') than the visitor..

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[David Dorward]

Alan Illeman wrote:

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

Take a look at the descriptions of the font families in the specification.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html...-font-families

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Alan Illeman]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:10*************@news.supernews.com...

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
> Alan Illeman wrote:
>
> > Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
> > somewhere?
>
> A complete one? No.
>
> What purpose did you have in mind for such a list?
body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
....
}

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

Arial and Helvetica are sans-serif. Verdana, however, is unsuited for
general body text unless you like goofy-big letters. I'd omit Verdana and the above is fine.

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

Thanks for the illuminating replies.

[Brian]

Alan Illeman wrote:

Thanks for the illuminating replies.

I hope you got your money's worth, at least.

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

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:
[...]

...I don't know if e.g. Arial is of the "sans-serif" family
of fonts, and I don't know what alternatives I could use,
if I wished to.

Then maybe you should stay on the outside of CSS until you have learned
/at least/ the differences between a "serif" and a "sans-serif"
character type?

Let's have a clue pointer: The word "sans" is of French origin and it's
probably best translated as "without" in this particular context.

Now that should trigger some response from you, where you go on to
realize that the word "serif" might be able to stand on its own, still
in the same context.

So now, what is a "serif" ?

(hint; I can guarantee you that you do see it everywhere in your
everyday life :-)

--
Rex

[Stan Brown]

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

The word "sans" is of French origin and it's
probably best translated as "without" in this particular context.

Indeed, in pretty much _any_ context. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:
[...]

...I don't know if e.g. Arial is of the "sans-serif" family
of fonts, and I don't know what alternatives I could use,
if I wished to.

Then maybe you should stay on the outside of CSS until you have learned
/at least/ the differences between a "serif" and a "sans-serif"
character type?

Let's have a clue pointer: The word "sans" is of French origin and it's
probably best translated as "without" in this particular context.

Now that should trigger some response from you, where you go on to
realize that the word "serif" might be able to stand on its own, still
in the same context.

So now, what is a "serif" ?

(hint; I can guarantee you that you do see it everywhere in your
everyday life :-)

A street sign?
Matthias

[Alan Wood]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote in message news:<10*************@news.supernews.com>...

Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
somewhere?

My lists of Unicode fonts include this information:

<http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html>

--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)

[kchayka]

Neal wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:19:55 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;

I'd omit Verdana and the above is fine.

Except I'd tend to omit Helvetica, too. There are several different
versions of it floating around on both Linux and Mac. No two are created
equally, particularly where it comes to aspect ratio, i.e. IIRC, Adobe
Helvetica is rather different from URW Helvetica.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Stan Brown]

"Matthias Gutfeldt" <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

So now, what is a "serif" ?

(hint; I can guarantee you that you do see it everywhere in your
everyday life :-)

A street sign?

A type of angel?

(Okay, _I_ don't see angels, but I understand some people [think
they] do.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Alan Illeman]

"Alan Wood" <al*******@context.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93**************************@posting.google.c om...

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote in message

news:<10*************@news.supernews.com>...

Is there a listing of serif fonts and san-serif fonts
somewhere?

My lists of Unicode fonts include this information:

<http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html>

--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)

Thanks Alan

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

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

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

An unusual page of bullshit by a usually excellent author.

[Tim]

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

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

wo****************@yahoo.com.au (Wolfgang Wildeblood) posted:
An unusual page of bullshit by a usually excellent author.

Your ignorance is hindering the public. The page is completely correct,
and is probably the most concise one I've seen describing the matter.
There's quite a few much more wordy ones that are less effective at
explaining and demonstrating the problem.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Neal]

On 14 Aug 2004 01:32:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

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

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

An unusual page of bullshit by a usually excellent author.

I'd be interested in hearing your case as to why this is bullshit... to my
eye it's dead nuts on.

[Brian]

Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

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

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

An unusual page of bullshit by a usually excellent author.

If you're going to troll, at least put some bait on the hook first.

*plonk*

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

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

to my eye it's dead nuts on.

"dead nuts on"? Well, that's a new one. I'd chalk it up to something
regional, but you and I are from the same region!

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

[Neal]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:04:37 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Neal wrote:

to my eye it's dead nuts on.

"dead nuts on"? Well, that's a new one. I'd chalk it up to something
regional, but you and I are from the same region!

Come on, everyone says "dead nuts" around here :) Grinders, sodas and
sprinkles too. Though a few do say jimmies, come to think of it...

[Alan Illeman]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Alan Illeman wrote:

Thanks, but what other alternative sans-serif fonts are usable?

The one that the user has purchased, installed and configured on their
browser for preference. You don't, in general, know what that is.

Which is just the one which likely *won't* get used if you insist on
specifying some laundry list of Microsoft lowest-common font families.
Unless the user has gone to the trouble of writing an !important
user stylesheet...

It's a hard choice to make. IMNSHO it depends whether you think
you're writing for discerning readers, or trying to appeal to the
unthinking masses. There's a market for either (you might be able to
work out which I prefer, but that's by the by).

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

Alan, do you have a website? I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

Thanks,
Alan
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Neal]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:22:36 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

Alan, do you have a website? I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

Thanks,
Alan

I'm no heavy (certainly not in the same sentence as Alan Flavell!) but
this is a site I did: http://www.opro.org/ - there are things about it I
wish to change when the time comes, and it's due for an update, but you'll
get the idea.

And you'll note there is Verdana on the site, but I've used it for
headings so a replacement will still be legible. Not everyone likes the
look of Verdana in headings, but it seems to do well on this page.

[Keith Bowes]

Alan Illeman wrote:

body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
....
}
Just be sure to use a better alternate to Arial than Helvetica. I'm
sure it's logical to want non-Windows users to view text in this
widespread font, but it's so hideous.

I copied this from someone, but I don't know if e.g. Arial is
of the "sans-serif" family of fonts, and I don't know what
alternatives I could use, if I wished to.

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:22:36 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk...
[...informative input...]
Alan, do you have a website? I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

There are no 'heavies' here, some of us are just old(timers), but since
you ask...

On topic for 'ciwas', has been around since 1998...

<http://www.css.nu>

Off topic for 'ciwas' as it's a front face (in production) for a
"commercially operated hobby", still built as per recommendations
though...

<http://www.fantasywoman.nu>

--
Rex

[Spartanicus]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

<g> I'm no heavy, I'm your brother.

Decent: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/
Semi decent: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/
Old, no longer supported and badly broken: http://users.dna.ie/dnetjVTs/

--
Spartanicus

[Andreas Prilop]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Keith Bowes wrote:

font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;

Just be sure to use a better alternate to Arial than Helvetica. I'm
sure it's logical to want non-Windows users to view text in this
widespread font, but it's so hideous.

¿Qué? Arial is one of the ugliest typefaces in the universe.
I invite you to discuss this matter in <news:comp.publish.prepress>
or <news:comp.fonts> .
You should rather write

font-family: Helvetica, Arial ...

because people who actually have both typefaces most certainly
prefer Helvetica to Arial.

(All of the above applies to West European Latin-1 text.)

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

[Noel]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:33:42 +0200, Andreas Prilop
<nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

You should rather write

font-family: Helvetica, Arial ...

because people who actually have both typefaces most certainly
prefer Helvetica to Arial.

Both are pretty damn ugly, IMHO.

[Brian]

Alan Illeman wrote:

Alan, do you have a website?
Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?q=alan%20flavell
(first listing when I checked)
I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

http://www.google.com/search?q=spartanicus
(3rd listing when I checked)

Neal would be a bit harder, since he goes on a first name only.

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

[Paul Wake]

In article <ux***************************@40tude.net> Tim,
ti*@mail.localhost.invalid writes:

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

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

wo****************@yahoo.com.au (Wolfgang Wildeblood) posted:

An unusual page of bullshit by a usually excellent author.

Your ignorance is hindering the public. The page is completely correct,
and is probably the most concise one I've seen describing the matter.
There's quite a few much more wordy ones that are less effective at
explaining and demonstrating the problem.

The http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html page above is
a good one for providing a caution about a popular but flawed font; it is
interesting and telling that there has been no defense to the slam on it.

To look at for the question that started this thread (a query about where
one would find a list of serif and sans-serif fonts), look at
http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/text/webtypography.html for a clear
explanation of the difference;, then at
http://www.angelfire.com/a14/rcollins/style/fonts.html for a good and
up-to-date list of fonts for the web available on Mac and Windows
platforms; then at http://www.webstyleguid.com/type/face.html ,
http://www.webstyleguid.com/type/cross.html , and
http://www.webstyleguide.com/type/size.html for some tips on how to use
such fonts (and maybe at http://www.webstyleguid.com/type/case.html for
more opinion on legibility); at
http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa..._Cursive.shtml and
http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa..._Fantasy.shtml if you're
interested in the difference between the cursive and fantasy families;
and finally at http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.scgi?tbart=05284 for a
reminder that people have different monitors, and using the wrong size
typeface can be a drag.

--
Pull MYFINGER to e-mail me
http://www.xmission.com/~wake/

[Alan Illeman]

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:22:36 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

Oh, and http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html "Why you
should avoid Verdana".

Alan, do you have a website? I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

Thanks,
Alan

I'm no heavy (certainly not in the same sentence as Alan Flavell!) but
this is a site I did: http://www.opro.org/ - there are things about it I
wish to change when the time comes, and it's due for an update, but you'll
get the idea.

Hello Neal,

You nicely format your CSS but I have to scroll the file
to see it all, for example the H2 rule is 261 characters
wide. This line and others are imo is unnecessarily bloated
by e.g. defining padding separately for all 4 quadrants
even though the value in each case is the same, whereas
a simple "padding: 2px;" would have sufficed.

In order to study how content is implemented, I've
had to edit the HTML source, so I can match up where,
for example, a DIV and its closing /DIV, occur.
e.g.

<DIV class=content>
<H1 id=skipnav>The Old Post Road Orchestra</H1>
<DIV class=twocol>
<DIV class=ccontent>
<H2>Welcome!</H2>
.. . .

edited version:

<DIV class=content>
<H1 id=skipnav>
The Old Post Road Orchestra
</H1>
<DIV class=twocol>
<DIV class=ccontent>
<H2>
Welcome!
</H2>
. . .

You do, however, offset your your text for lists!

<UL>
<LI class=event><A href="http://www.opro.org/currprog.html#summer04"
title="Summer Pops 04">Summer Pops Concert</A>
<LI class=date>Monday, July 5, 2004
<LI class=time>12:30 PM
<LI class=location>Monson Town Hall, Monson, MA
</LI></UL></DIV></DIV></DIV>

but all those /DIV's in the last row are difficult to match up,
unless I reformat everything.

Thanks,
Alan

[Alan Illeman]

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <re*@css.nu> wrote in message
news:v1********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:22:36 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk...

[...informative input...]

Alan, do you have a website? I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

There are no 'heavies' here, some of us are just old(timers), but since
you ask...

On topic for 'ciwas', has been around since 1998...

<http://www.css.nu>

Hello Jan,

Bravo - you're the only one that has added some
comments to your CSS file.

I've had to edit the HTML source, so I can match up where,
for example, a DIV and its closing /DIV, occur, to better
understand how the CSS controls the content . . .

( ..\about rex.htm )

<P class=pagehead><IMG alt="The CSS Pointers Group" class=logo height=68
src="about rex_files/csspg-logo-117x68.gif" title="The CSS Pointers Group"
width=117><BR><STRONG>&nbsp;for practical use of CSS</STRONG></P>

This is not a particularly difficult section to understand
and I offer it only as an example:

<P class=pagehead>
<IMG alt="The CSS Pointers Group"
class=logo
height=68
src="about rex_files/csspg-logo-117x68.gif"
title="The CSS Pointers Group"
width=117><BR>
<STRONG>
&nbsp;for practical use of CSS
</STRONG>
</P>

A question about the embedded class "logo" ...

from rex-rules.css
/* Style rule for the CSSPG logotype */
IMG.logo { float: left; margin: 0; }

It would seem that the ALT content is not in the
'logo' class? I would have written:

<P class=pagehead>
<IMG class=logo alt="The CSS Pointers Group"
height=68

Actually, I would have written parentheses around
each class name, e.g. <P class="pagehead"
Would you comment on the use of parentheses?

<P class=basic>Had an opportunity to work as an apprentice in a traditional
"lead" print shop in the beginning of the 70'ies. Learned the basics of
typography there, which is the base for an interest in CSS today. </P>

Why don't you use &quot;lead&quot; ?

and again . . .

<P class=basic>In the beginning of the 90'ies, when rest of Sweden went
"golf
crazy" I started riding horses instead. Cat's and horses are my favorite
animals
as a fact. </P>

&quot;golf-crazy&quot; ?

/* Style rule for Håkon Lies "space out container layer" */
P.space-line { clear: left; font-size: 0.5em; margin: 0; }

HTML: <P class=space-line>&nbsp;</P>

I'm puzzled by this one - why the font-size change ?

Thanks,
Alan

[Alan Illeman]

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:3l********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

I would also like to see those of other
'heavies' in this ng i.e. Neal, Spartanicus, etc

<g> I'm no heavy, I'm your brother.

Decent: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/

Top of the morning Spartanicus.

I've studied http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/
and had some difficulty with both the HTML and
main.css, in that I have to scroll to see it all.

Further main.css is totally undocumented, which may
be ok for you, but makes study difficult.

It's a pity that you don't format your HTML, so
that I can see at a glance where e.g. a <DIV and
its corresponding </DIV lineup, to better see
how the CSS controls the content.

[1]
<h1 id="header"><span></span>Spartanicus' Web tips</h1>

Removing <span></span> makes no difference, as far as I
can see, so why use it?

[2]
I thought CSS was all about layout, not content, yet
e.g.

div#title span{width:74px;background:url(../img/globes.jpg)}

seems to break that idiom.

If it's any consolation, neither Neal or Jan, format
their HTML.

Thanks,
Alan

[Spartanicus]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

I've studied http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/
and had some difficulty with both the HTML and
main.css, in that I have to scroll to see it all.
Just like my browser window, my editor's window width changes, most
editors have a wrap at right viewport edge option which allows usage of
the full editor window width, regardless of it's width.
Further main.css is totally undocumented, which may
be ok for you, but makes study difficult.
Dive into the code and you enter my world, <spooky
cry>mwhohahaha</spooky cry>, not much light enters the dungeon where I
live. If dark surroundings spook you, don't enter.
It's a pity that you don't format your HTML, so
that I can see at a glance where e.g. a <DIV and
its corresponding </DIV lineup, to better see
how the CSS controls the content.
My eyes are used to the darkness.
[1]
<h1 id="header"><span></span>Spartanicus' Web tips</h1>

Removing <span></span> makes no difference, as far as I
can see, so why use it?
It's part of the Gilder/Levin image replacement technique:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revis...e-replacement/
[2]
I thought CSS was all about layout, not content
CSS is about presentation.
, yet
e.g.

div#title span{width:74px;background:url(../img/globes.jpg)}

seems to break that idiom.
I presume you meant:
div#title span:before{content:url(../img/globes.png)}
It's a decorative foreground image, for the why:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...s_with_css.htm
If it's any consolation, neither Neal or Jan, format
their HTML.

Phew, that's a relief. For a moment I was getting worried that those two
were about to challenge me for the Ciwas Heavy title ;-)

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.

--
Spartanicus

[Neal]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:08:28 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

Hello Neal,
Hi.
You nicely format your CSS but I have to scroll the file
to see it all, for example the H2 rule is 261 characters
wide.
Odd. I wrote it with separate lines for each property. I'm now viewing it
off the server and it appears the way I expect. What are you using to view
it?
This line and others are imo is unnecessarily bloated
by e.g. defining padding separately for all 4 quadrants
even though the value in each case is the same, whereas
a simple "padding: 2px;" would have sufficed.
Hmm? In the H2 line?

h2 {

color: #e0e0ff;
background-color: #000080;
font-size: 110%;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: Verdana, 'Arial Bold', 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-align: left;
margin-top: 0;
padding: 2px;

}

Are you talking about a different line?
In order to study how content is implemented, I've
had to edit the HTML source, so I can match up where,
for example, a DIV and its closing /DIV, occur.
e.g.
<DIV class=content>
<H1 id=skipnav>
The Old Post Road Orchestra
</H1>
<DIV class=twocol>
<DIV class=ccontent>
<H2>
Welcome!
</H2>
. . .
No, I don't do that normally. And I quoted those values! You took out my
little quote marks :(
You do, however, offset your your text for lists!

<UL>
<LI class=event><A href="http://www.opro.org/currprog.html#summer04"
title="Summer Pops 04">Summer Pops Concert</A>
<LI class=date>Monday, July 5, 2004
<LI class=time>12:30 PM
<LI class=location>Monson Town Hall, Monson, MA
</LI></UL></DIV></DIV></DIV>

but all those /DIV's in the last row are difficult to match up,
unless I reformat everything.

Oddly, I didn't format even the list like that. Wonder why you see it that
way.

You're right, this code wasn't designed to be read by humans, aside from
me ;) I find indentation to be a bother, especially when you change things
and some things are one level deeper. Then you have to fix it all. I just
leave it.

I use Crimson Editor now, though, and maybe it would be easier with that.
But once I've come up with a page design, I set up a template and I'm done
with it. So probably not going to be on my list of things to do real soon!

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:10:11 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <re*@css.nu> wrote in message
news:v1********************************@4ax.com.. .

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:22:36 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote: On topic for 'ciwas', has been around since 1998...
<http://www.css.nu>

Bravo - you're the only one that has added some
comments to your CSS file.
Not to a level that I would like it to be though.
I've had to edit the HTML source, so I can match up where,
for example, a DIV and its closing /DIV, occur, to better
understand how the CSS controls the content . . .

( ..\about rex.htm )
Hmm... the URL is

<http://www.css.nu/persons/rex.html>

do you have a problem with your computer?
<P class=pagehead><IMG alt="The CSS Pointers Group" class=logo height=68
src="about rex_files/csspg-logo-117x68.gif" title="The CSS Pointers Group"
width=117><BR><STRONG>&nbsp;for practical use of CSS</STRONG></P>
I usually write block elements as separate units and then I put inline
content inside each block in a way where I...
1) do not introduce extra white space at the inline level
2) keep resulting line length below 80 characters.
This is not a particularly difficult section to understand
and I offer it only as an example:

<P class=pagehead>
<IMG alt="The CSS Pointers Group"
class=logo
height=68
src="about rex_files/csspg-logo-117x68.gif"
title="The CSS Pointers Group"
width=117><BR>
<STRONG>
&nbsp;for practical use of CSS
</STRONG>
</P>
I could almost accept that but to follow my rule 1) above it should look
like this... (as recut directly from the server)

<P CLASS="pagehead"<IMG CLASS="logo" SRC="http://css.nu/graphics/csspg-logo-117x68.gif"
WIDTH=117
HEIGHT=68
ALT="The CSS Pointers Group"
TITLE="The CSS Pointers Group"><BR<STRONG
&nbsp;for practical use of CSS</STRONG
</P> A question about the embedded class "logo" ...

from rex-rules.css
/* Style rule for the CSSPG logotype */
IMG.logo { float: left; margin: 0; }

It would seem that the ALT content is not in the
'logo' class? I would have written:

<P class=pagehead>
<IMG class=logo alt="The CSS Pointers Group"
height=68

Actually, I would have written parentheses around
each class name, e.g. <P class="pagehead"
Would you comment on the use of parentheses?
Seriously; I do not understand what you are talking about. I do have
quote marks around all relevant attribute values. See above...
<P class=basic>Had an opportunity to work as an apprentice in a traditional
"lead" print shop... Why don't you use &quot;lead&quot; ?
Why should I? The page is delivered with 'charset=iso-8859-1' so it
would lead to exactly the same result.

But you have a problem with how your system handles quotes in material
that you download. My source contains this...

<P class="basic">Had an...

....note that the class attribute value is quoted as it is stored on the
server.

/* Style rule for Håkon Lies "space out container layer" */
P.space-line { clear: left; font-size: 0.5em; margin: 0; }

HTML: <P class=space-line>&nbsp;</P>

I'm puzzled by this one - why the font-size change ?

Alan; that page (and the style sheet in question) was last updated in
1999. Those where the days when we still had to care for NS4x browsers.
Kludges was legio at that time if you wanted some kind of acceptable css
behavior from NS4x as well as other browsers.

You may want to know that all major stylesheets on css.nu was designed
with NS4x in mind and the site still "works" in that old browser, for
some acceptable level of "works".

--
Rex

[Alan Illeman]

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:jj********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...
[snip]

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.

That's certainly not the sort of reply I expected. You did after all offer
a url for my perusal.

[Alan Illeman]

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:lr********************************@4ax.com...
[snip]

I could almost accept that but to follow my rule 1) above it should look
like this... (as recut directly from the server)

<P CLASS="pagehead"

><IMG CLASS="logo"

SRC="http://css.nu/graphics/csspg-logo-117x68.gif"
WIDTH=117
HEIGHT=68
ALT="The CSS Pointers Group"
TITLE="The CSS Pointers Group"><BR

><STRONG
>&nbsp;for practical use of CSS</STRONG
></P>

All I can say is that I see something completely different
in any editor (notepad or pfe32).

[Alan Illeman]

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:08:28 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

Hello Neal,
Hi.

You nicely format your CSS but I have to scroll the file
to see it all, for example the H2 rule is 261 characters
wide.

Odd. I wrote it with separate lines for each property. I'm now viewing it
off the server and it appears the way I expect. What are you using to view
it?

This line and others are imo is unnecessarily bloated
by e.g. defining padding separately for all 4 quadrants
even though the value in each case is the same, whereas
a simple "padding: 2px;" would have sufficed.

Hmm? In the H2 line?

h2 {

color: #e0e0ff;
background-color: #000080;
font-size: 110%;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: Verdana, 'Arial Bold', 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-align: left;
margin-top: 0;
padding: 2px;

}

default.css, in a text editor . . .

H2 {
BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000080; COLOR: #e0e0ff; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, 'Arial
Bold', 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 110%; FONT-WEIGHT: bold;
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; PADDING-RIGHT: 2px;
PADDING-TOP: 2px; TEXT-ALIGN: left
}

In order to study how content is implemented, I've
had to edit the HTML source, so I can match up where,
for example, a DIV and its closing /DIV, occur.
e.g.
<DIV class=content>
<H1 id=skipnav>
The Old Post Road Orchestra
</H1>
<DIV class=twocol>
<DIV class=ccontent>
<H2>
Welcome!
</H2>
. . .

No, I don't do that normally. And I quoted those values! You took out my
little quote marks :(

Do you want them back ;-)

You do, however, offset your your text for lists!

<UL>
<LI class=event><A href="http://www.opro.org/currprog.html#summer04"
title="Summer Pops 04">Summer Pops Concert</A>
<LI class=date>Monday, July 5, 2004
<LI class=time>12:30 PM
<LI class=location>Monson Town Hall, Monson, MA
</LI></UL></DIV></DIV></DIV>

but all those /DIV's in the last row are difficult to match up,
unless I reformat everything.

Oddly, I didn't format even the list like that. Wonder why you see it that
way.

You're right, this code wasn't designed to be read by humans, aside from
me ;)

That's pretty much what Spartanicus says. You offered the url, what am
I to think ;-)

[Spartanicus]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.

That's certainly not the sort of reply I expected. You did after all offer
a url for my perusal.

You asked if certain people had a website, you didn't mention that you
were looking for sites who's code you could learn from.

Very few websites are coded with that purpose in mind.

--
Spartanicus

[Andrew Thompson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:18:40 -0400, Alan Illeman wrote:

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
[snip]

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.
That's certainly not the sort of reply I expected.

LOL.. That was the sort of reply I expected
from *all* of them! I was more surprised
that any attempted to defend any aspect of
the code of their own sites, because..
..You did after all offer
a url for my perusal.

...these people offer their code ideas up
for everybody's perusal, in the single most
exacting/gruelling forum for that purpose.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

Any code that can pass without a single
negative comment when presented on his forum,
has to be pretty damn undisputably good.

In contrast their 'home sites' are intended
to provide mostly content, and specifically
designed 'self contained' examples.

[ I can tell you from my own experience preparing
Java code examples for others, it takes about 3 to
possibly 5 times as long to prepare an example
'for demonstration purposes', as it does to
'whip up a bit of code' for a page (or Java code)
you need for your own purposes. ]

So my point is, if you go from here, where they
display code publicly, every other day, to their
homesites where they might present specific
articles and examples.. give them a *break*
if you 'lift the corner of the rug and see
a little dust'! Shheeesh... ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:10:11 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

On topic for 'ciwas', has been around since 1998...
<http://www.css.nu>

Bravo - you're the only one that has added some
comments to your CSS file.

Not to a level that I would like it to be though.

"Join the club" ;-)

My CSS comments say:

/* Dear reader, if you're looking for a sample stylesheet, then
for heaven's sake don't take this one!

It was devised years ago, in the face of the poor CSS implementations
in NN4.* and IE4 versions, and is desperately in need of improvement.

and, at the moment, that's how it's likely to stay - until about
2007, at least.

Unless I'm retired prematurely ;-))

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Alan Illeman wrote:

Alan, do you have a website?

Do I have a web *site* ?

Not really. I'm server admin of a number of web servers, and I have a
miscellany of web *pages* of various ages and qualities, on topics
that happen to interest me - a few of which seem to have become the
canonical web resource on their various topics. But nothing coherent
and joined-up, and certainly nothing that I could put my hand on my
heart and say I couldn't do a great deal better if I had a free supply
of Round Tuits.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. If you really wanted the
answer to your question, you'd have used a search engine. So I'm
suspecting that you're just trying to make some of us look silly.
I'm sure that's easy enough to do, at any rate in my case.

You don't seriously expect to store Russets, do you? They're
excellent when new, but their keeping qualities are distinctly under
par.

best regards

[Alan Illeman]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:10*************@news.supernews.com...

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:08:28 -0400, Alan Illeman <il******@surfbest.net>
wrote:

Hello Neal,
Hi.

You nicely format your CSS but I have to scroll the file
to see it all, for example the H2 rule is 261 characters
wide.

Odd. I wrote it with separate lines for each property. I'm now viewing it off the server and it appears the way I expect. What are you using to view it?

This line and others are imo is unnecessarily bloated
by e.g. defining padding separately for all 4 quadrants
even though the value in each case is the same, whereas
a simple "padding: 2px;" would have sufficed.

Hmm? In the H2 line?

h2 {

color: #e0e0ff;
background-color: #000080;
font-size: 110%;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: Verdana, 'Arial Bold', 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-align: left;
margin-top: 0;
padding: 2px;

}

default.css, in a text editor . . .

H2 {
BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000080; COLOR: #e0e0ff; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, 'Arial
Bold', 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 110%; FONT-WEIGHT: bold;
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; PADDING-RIGHT:

2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; TEXT-ALIGN: left
}

My apologies please. I've been designing pages using Pad (www.hds-pad.com)
and when I 'view source' in Pad, Notepad, or Pfe32, for some unknown reason
it expands all the rules!

[Alan Illeman]

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:8v********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.

That's certainly not the sort of reply I expected. You did after all offera url for my perusal.

You asked if certain people had a website, you didn't mention that you
were looking for sites who's code you could learn from.

What did you expect? - that I was going to eat them ;-)

[Alan Illeman]

"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:1e******************************@40tude.net.. .

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:18:40 -0400, Alan Illeman wrote:

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
[snip]

It's meant for my eyes, not anyone else's. I don't recommend my code as
suitable for learning.

That's certainly not the sort of reply I expected.

LOL.. That was the sort of reply I expected
from *all* of them! I was more surprised
that any attempted to defend any aspect of
the code of their own sites, because..

..You did after all offer
a url for my perusal.

..these people offer their code ideas up
for everybody's perusal, in the single most
exacting/gruelling forum for that purpose.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

Any code that can pass without a single
negative comment when presented on his forum,
has to be pretty damn undisputably good.

In contrast their 'home sites' are intended
to provide mostly content, and specifically
designed 'self contained' examples.

I just expected them to practise what they preach,
I obviously expected too much.

The expansion of rules, when 'viewing source'
occurs with my pages too, I just hadn't
noticed it before - so my apologies to Neal, Jan
and Spart.

[Spartanicus]

"Alan Illeman" <il******@surfbest.net> wrote:

You asked if certain people had a website, you didn't mention that you
were looking for sites who's code you could learn from.

What did you expect? - that I was going to eat them ;-)

Look at them, stylesheets are after all for styling websites.

People who are starting out with CSS are often curious what can be
achieved with it by people who master CSS.

Paradoxically many of the people who are good with CSS have themselves
fairly bland looking web sites (mine are). This is the result of an
unfortunate situation: the problem of content/presentation separation
was identified by techies, the solution the techies devised has
unfortunately resulted in something highly technical. As a result
techies are best equipped to master it's usage. That's a real shame,
being a tool for styling web sites it should have been tailored for
designers.

Techies are almost always poor designers (I am), thus looking at the
websites the people in this group create is generally not a good way to
get an impression of what can be done with CSS design wise.

--
Spartanicus