File input problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Help with a Table Wanted
Next: background shorthand
From: dorayme on 7 Dec 2009 14:30 In article <153dc4bd-bdd8-46d7-8489-0a7d6ffb2431(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Mark Smith <marksmith5555(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > I don't want to change the layout or behavior, I just want to make the > > > "Browse" button look the same as all the other buttons on the page. It > > > looks weird otherwise. > > > > No, the other ones look weird. ;) > > > > So, you are in favor of getting rid of CSS styling of any buttons? > > Nice. Are you playing some sort of weird game in your posts, not quoting who you are replying to etc? Even in Google Groups you can quote properly, perhaps you don't know this. Go to alt.html where pretty well anything can be discussed and I will help you on this. -- dorayme
From: David Mark on 7 Dec 2009 14:55 On Dec 7, 8:39 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > Border and outline have no effect (in FF) > > * Meant to say borders and padding don't work. - outline does. Best not to change any of those for inputs. Their characteristic borders (however defined by the UA/OS) identify them as inputs. Changing their padding can be a usability concern (think mobile devices). Removing outlines (fairly common flourish) breaks accessibility (think keyboard users).
From: David Mark on 7 Dec 2009 14:58 On Dec 7, 8:51 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 8:31 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 1:16 pm, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If it's doable in jQuery, as jQuery is just a framework, it must be > > > > > possible to do with pure JavaScript also. > > > > > And just what do you think jQuery is? Not pure javascript? Just what do you > > > > think jQuery is? > > > > Yes it is just javascript, a framework not liked round these parts, > > > but it is just javascript - that was my point. > > > It's not a framework. It's around 70-100K (depending on version) of > > badly designed and implemented JS, largely centering on a CSS selector > > query engine. The idea is that it is somehow simpler (and cooler) to > > replace:- > > > var el = document.getElementById('d'); > > doSomething(el); > > doSomethingElse(el); > > > ...with this sort of gobbledygook:- > > > $('#d').doSomething().doSomethingElse(); > > > Now, if you are trying to save keystrokes (assuming you haven't heard > > of macros), this might seem appealing, until you find out it requires > > 100K of shifty JS to (almost) work, complicates debugging, arbitrarily > > excludes users, etc. Not to mention the pattern creates a new jQuery > > object on every line. Look at the code in that object and you'll find > > it's a horror show. But the typical jQuery-indoctrinated Web > > developer is not a programmer, so they never look at the code (and > > wouldn't be able to spot its shortcomings anyway). > > > It's all based on blind faith, which has never been rewarded. > > Requiring constant upgrades just to tread water in the very latest > > browsers is hardly an indication of cross-browser success, nor is it > > practical as unit testing starts over with each revision. For those > > who don't know, I guess any result can seem like a reward. > > That's nice. > > Tell it to someone who is advocating jquery. This is a discussion group. You may well view the messages in your mail client, but they are not posted exclusively for you. ;)
From: Mark Smith on 8 Dec 2009 03:53 On Dec 7, 7:58 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:51 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 8:31 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 1:16 pm, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If it's doable in jQuery, as jQuery is just a framework, it must be > > > > > > possible to do with pure JavaScript also. > > > > > > And just what do you think jQuery is? Not pure javascript? Just what do you > > > > > think jQuery is? > > > > > Yes it is just javascript, a framework not liked round these parts, > > > > but it is just javascript - that was my point. > > > > It's not a framework. It's around 70-100K (depending on version) of > > > badly designed and implemented JS, largely centering on a CSS selector > > > query engine. The idea is that it is somehow simpler (and cooler) to > > > replace:- > > > > var el = document.getElementById('d'); > > > doSomething(el); > > > doSomethingElse(el); > > > > ...with this sort of gobbledygook:- > > > > $('#d').doSomething().doSomethingElse(); > > > > Now, if you are trying to save keystrokes (assuming you haven't heard > > > of macros), this might seem appealing, until you find out it requires > > > 100K of shifty JS to (almost) work, complicates debugging, arbitrarily > > > excludes users, etc. Not to mention the pattern creates a new jQuery > > > object on every line. Look at the code in that object and you'll find > > > it's a horror show. But the typical jQuery-indoctrinated Web > > > developer is not a programmer, so they never look at the code (and > > > wouldn't be able to spot its shortcomings anyway). > > > > It's all based on blind faith, which has never been rewarded. > > > Requiring constant upgrades just to tread water in the very latest > > > browsers is hardly an indication of cross-browser success, nor is it > > > practical as unit testing starts over with each revision. For those > > > who don't know, I guess any result can seem like a reward. > > > That's nice. > > > Tell it to someone who is advocating jquery. > > This is a discussion group. You may well view the messages in your > mail client, but they are not posted exclusively for you. ;) I didn't see anyone advocate jQuery, your anti jquery rant just seemed out of context. Glad you got it off your chest though. ;)
From: Mark Smith on 8 Dec 2009 03:57
On Dec 7, 7:55 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:39 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > > Border and outline have no effect (in FF) > > > * Meant to say borders and padding don't work. - outline does. > > Best not to change any of those for inputs. Their characteristic > borders (however defined by the UA/OS) identify them as inputs. > Changing their padding can be a usability concern (think mobile > devices). Removing outlines (fairly common flourish) breaks > accessibility (think keyboard users). Oh yeah, and WIDTH can't be set either.... Best not to use border and padding to style my inputs? Ha, thats funny, you must have very undemanding clients. My iphone handles these attributes fine btw. |