Text wrap and image position questions
in [CSS]
|
From: dorayme on 27 Feb 2010 01:44 In article <3838184.bqXVLH7GnM(a)PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > First of all, how did you get the idea that stylesheets would be off-topic > in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.*stylesheets*? Your change of Subject is > inappropriate. As is your multi-part posting; the e-sig, if any, belongs > elsewhere, preferably in the header where users with non-PGP/GPG-able UAs > would not be bothered. > > BootNic wrote: Since you have been on a forceful campaign lately to irritably tell everyone what is what, including advice about how to quote and how to say things, please learn to quote. Quote what you are responding to first, be it all in a block or just a particular bit. Here is a url that will give you some more detailed guidelines: <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> -- dorayme
From: BootNic on 27 Feb 2010 15:37 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:59:22 +0100 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > First of all, how did you get the idea that stylesheets would be > off-topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.*stylesheets*? You are so correct! How did I conclude that the thread was drifting off to IE 8 compatibility views? As I am now on bended knee, will you please, please forgive me? I thank you for pointing out that this is completely on topic, not only for this newsgroup, but also for this thread. > Your change of Subject is inappropriate. As is your multi-part > posting; the e-sig, if any, belongs elsewhere, preferably in the > header where users with non-PGP/GPG-able UAs would not be > bothered. The Media Types "multipart/mixed", "multipart/parallel" and "multipart/signed" may be used freely in news articles. However, except where policy or custom so allows, the Media Type "multipart/alternative" SHOULD NOT be used, on account of the extra bandwidth consumed and the difficulty of quoting in followups. In no way is a mutipart/signed message inappropriate. Any user may choose to deal with messages as s/he sees fit, as their chosen UA provides. > BootNic wrote: [snip] >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: [snip] >>>> Perhaps because its degree of compatibility is questionable. >>>> Last I checked, not even IE/MSHTML 8 supported it. [snip] >> IE8 supports inline-block > > Perhaps when not in Compatibility Mode. Perhaps? IE 8 has a few compatibility modes. IE=EmulateIE8 being the default mode. Putting IE 8 in a backwards mode means the page should be displayed as if it were in IE 7. Depending on the mode selected would also determine if IE 8 would use <!DOCTYPE> to determine how to render the content. It is totally unreasonable to expect IE 8 to render an inline-block correctly when it is put in a backwards compatible mode. The best that can be hoped for is to render it as IE 7. ⢠IE=5 IE5 mode renders content as if it were displayed by IE 7 Quirks mode. ⢠IE=7 IE7 mode renders content in IE 7 Standards mode, whether or not the page contains a <!DOCTYPE> directive. ⢠IE=EmulateIE7 EmulateIE7 mode tells IE to use the <!DOCTYPE> directive to determine how to render content. ⢠IE=8 IE8 mode provides the highest support available for industry standards. ⢠IE=EmulateIE8 EmulateIE8 mode is similar to EmulateIE7 mode; IE uses the <!DOCTYPE> directive to determine how to render content; however, standards mode directives are displayed in Internet Explorer 8 Standards mode. Quirks mode directives are displayed in IE5 mode. By default, IE 8 uses EmulateIE8 mode to display pages loaded from the Internet Zone. ⢠IE=edge Edge mode tells IE to display content in the highest mode available. > And IE 8 is so borken that you often need Compatibility Mode to > get things done in a standards-compliant way that no other UAs > have a problem with (for example, child elements overlapping > ancestors' sibling elements with z-index). (I may have been > testing inline-block with a beta version, or in Compatibility > Mode.) Indeed, IE 8 is broken, just to make sure let us run it in a backwards compatibility mode so IE 8 will render the content as if it were IE 7. > Microsoft's description of the behavior of inline-block and the > different standards-compliant outcome in Firefox does not bode well > for inline-block being properly implemented in IE 8 either: What is wrong with Firefox? Testing in a beta version? Not testing in the latest version? Viewing the page in an IE Tab? > <http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20100127/html4/display-005.htm> > (notice the "author" metadata) Not the best example for testing. Perhaps even misleading. Font size may wrap the text in the inline-block to more then one line. Anyone that does not understand what they are looking for may incorrectly conclude the test has failed. > > PointedEars Missing signature delimiter? -- BootNic Sat Feb 27, 2010 03:37 pm People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is built. *Eleanor Roosevelt* â 135 days remaining
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 27 Feb 2010 17:58 dorayme wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> First of all, how did you get the idea that stylesheets would be >> off-topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.*stylesheets*? Your change >> of Subject is inappropriate. As is your multi-part posting; the e-sig, >> if any, belongs elsewhere, preferably in the header where users with >> non-PGP/GPG-able UAs would not be bothered. >> >> BootNic wrote: > > [...] please learn to quote. Quote what you are responding to first, be it > all in a block or just a particular bit. Here is a url that will give you > some more detailed guidelines: > > <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> Some day you might understand that this part of my posting referred to something that was not in the message body. Score adjusted PointedEars
From: dorayme on 27 Feb 2010 18:14 In article <1565931.LQephzt8Nx(a)PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> First of all, how did you get the idea that stylesheets would be > >> off-topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.*stylesheets*? Your change > >> of Subject is inappropriate. As is your multi-part posting; the e-sig, > >> if any, belongs elsewhere, preferably in the header where users with > >> non-PGP/GPG-able UAs would not be bothered. > >> > >> BootNic wrote: > > > > [...] please learn to quote. Quote what you are responding to first, be it > > all in a block or just a particular bit. Here is a url that will give you > > some more detailed guidelines: > > > > <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > > Some day you might understand that this part of my posting > referred to something that was not in the message body. > > > Score adjusted What is the score? Am I a long way behind or within striking distance? What is your argument? Is it that I am so simple minded that I saw you launching into a speech at the beginning of a post in the middle of a thread as criterial of improper top posting? In this speech, let me remind you, you used the word "you" and I for one had no idea who you were replying to. Yes, I could have bothered to work it out. But I should not have to. You should have made some effort to find the thing you were responding to or type something indicating what it was. I don't know how you are scoring this thing, but along with your patronising remarks to me (I always bring a bloke back to zero for this at the point he makes his remark, anything sensible afterwards can build points again), I reckon you are certainly not in front. Please don't go away, I like a few awkward bastards on the group. -- dorayme
From: GTalbot on 27 Feb 2010 20:15
On 27 fév, 00:59, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: [...snipped...] > And IE 8 is so borken that you > often need Compatibility Mode to get things done in a standards-compliant > way that no other UAs have a problem with (for example, child elements > overlapping ancestors' sibling elements with z-index). Can you elaborate on your example? Or even better, could you provide a reduced testcase demonstrating this "child elements overlapping ancestors' sibling elements with z-index" issue? Web authors can contribute their own testcases to the CSS 2.1 test suite: Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html [...snipped...] > Microsoft's description of the behavior of inline-block and the different > standards-compliant outcome in Firefox does not bode well for inline-block > being properly implemented in IE 8 either: > > <http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20100127/html4/display-005.htm> That testcase seems like a bad testcase - test assertion is definitely autological, self-referring ("x" should behave in layout as an "x") - the testcase assumes that "Filler Text Filler Text" when use with any font with a font-size of 16px will all fit inside a width of 150px... and this is where the testcase is wrong. The CSS 2.1 test suite (20100127 snapshot) is an alpha 1 staus. There is a lot of reviewing, scrutinizing and approving to do on all the testcases before we can start to safely (blindly?) rely on the whole test suite. Gérard -- Internet Explorer 8 bugs: 60 bugs so far http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/ Internet Explorer 7 bugs: 185 bugs so far http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/ Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ |