Re:Grandparent is NOT a troll, proof!
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Please. This just shows your lack of understanding of the entire issue. The reason that your examples appear under each other is because display is not inherited. Therefore the divs inside test and test2 have a display:block - the breaks caused by such a block level element cause them to be displayed on a new line.
Basic CSS, confused by the fact you have nested it in another div.
Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 4, Informative
0.9 will FIX the extension system in Firefox, which has been one of it's weakest points thus far. After 0.9 there will be no further major shifts in the way extensions are handled, and so this is the first and only time that extensions have been broken in this way.
It's a necessary change.
Re:How about we fix the more important things firs
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Firefox CSS rendering, but it's fairly clear you have little idea how the box model works.
display:block and display:inline have nothing to do with how elements are aligned. They control the behavior of an element within the document flow. An inline element, such as an anchor, does not disrupt the flow. A block level element has breaks before and after; as such, it will interrupt the flow.
Your perceived alignment comes fromt this. When three inline elements follow each other, the act line words in a sentence and flow one after the other. When three block level elements follow each other, the breaks before and after the element cause each block to appear under the preceeding one.
Just a quick lesson. If I were you, I'd read up on CSS and prepare some testcases with a well written bug report before you talk about rendering issues. From your post you appear to be fairly ignorant of what's really going on.
Ben Goodger is not simply a software engineer. Look at his CV on his website and you will see that he has a great deal of UI experience.
Re:for actually using a computer (writing document
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"Notice the capital "N" at the start of this sentence."
Yeah I see it. You're surely not suggesting that you used the caps lock key for that little "N" are you? If you are then not on is that a truly awful example of why caps lock is useful, it also shows that you have no idea of how to efficiently use your keyboard.
Re:Firefox is OK, but...
on
The GNOME Roadmap
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ben just ripped the profile UI out of Firefox, it's a lot more hidden now I believe. I suspect more stuff along these lines will occur - the profile stuff in Firefox is useful only for testing and network deployment.
To the best of my knowledge you cannot place bookmark toolbar, navigation and menus in a single toolbar. Therefore Opera is always going to take up more screen real estate for me than Firefox.
One of the reasons that IE is so susceptible to this sort of thing is because of ActiveX - an inherent security hole. While xpinstall is similar, it will always require clear user input to get the extension installed.
And lets not forget the obvious - IE6 is always going to be bad for this. Mozilla gets updated each and every day and has a regular release schedule.
I know who I'd rely on for the latest and greatest security tech.
This is one of the things that people don't understand about MS. The X-Box and the Tablet PC are the tip of the iceberg in two vast new markets, and the losses which MS may have had to absorb thus far are still not seen as failure. They are now in the market, and can only go upwards.
Totally. That can be confirmed by the fact that none of those three sites I mentioned actually validate, and that goes a way to proving that these sites are CSS based for practical reasons rather than some abstract ideological one.
I found it interesting that MP3.com is the third large site to relaunch recently with a CSS-based layout. Fileshack and Blogger (with Blogger being an education for all web designers) have also used CSS in their new layout.
The point? Interesting to see that MP3.com are forward thinking - in their web side anyway.
This is fairly selfless. This stance could be interpreted as Microsoft putting aside its own interests in order to improve the current state of home computer security and the poor security levels on the net. Even though they caused those problems in the first place, this move is one which should be met with approval.
I don't disagree with that. I believe there was a fairly recent article on either mezzoblue or a list apart dealing with flexible layouts and varying font sizes. This is pretty much a designer knowledge issue though, as with many things in CSS, the facility is there, it's just a bastard to work out how to use it.
If you have DIVs nested 24 levels deep then you shouldn't be designing web pages.
Re:CSS is crap for layout
on
Core CSS (2nd ed.)
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But that's the problem - there *is* something wrong with using tables. It's a bastardisation of the entire concept of the semantic web, you're using a data container for something it wasn't designed for.
Those sites I showed you are examples of well marked up sites - their HTML is clean and fast (mostly:). Yeah, you could do them in a table stylee, but they would all be heavier, harder to maintain and sematically poor. Those negative points are important to me - important enough that I would be prepare to aquire the skill necessary to create a CSS layout which bypasses them.
Talking about CSS as a poor layout device is becoming increasingly lazy - there are some very clever people out there replicating the old ways of doing things, if that floats your boat.
I personally don't feel that tables are that intuitive when you start using colspan and rowspan. The sheer complexity of the nested structure makes the markup confusing.
Re:CSS is crap for layout
on
Core CSS (2nd ed.)
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sorry, but you're stuck in the past. Think outside the box (model) and cast off your ideas of table based layouts. It's amazing how the web has become so inflexible in terms of design in such a short time.
There are loadsofgoodexamples of CSS layouts that would have required huge nested tables to reproduce.
I put it to you that table-based designs are holding back the imaginations of web-designers. The web-programmers are probably going to realise that soon. The reason why corporate sites are yet to realise that (but they are realising it - slowly but surely) is because - and this may be a shock - the majority of web people, like programmers, and many other professions simply do what they know; the easy stuff. The good ones learn new tricks and make the best end-products.
No way man, I used to have a tv (sans remote!) connected to a Commodore 16, then a Spectrum of some variety, and then a Commodore 64. My mate and I used to argue about which was best - the 64 or the Plus4, but then we always were sad bastards. br/?
Anyway, my first monitor was for the PC - just before that I had an Amiga which had a weird device called a TV modulator.
Is it a new Sony? Like a HDTV/Digital (I believe digital is the terminology in the UK, it's well confusing) capable one? I was under the impression that these have higher resolution and refresh rates so they would be better for computer stuff...
Do you have Teletext in the US? The text on that is very readable... I'd like the equivalent on the TV I suppose, just for the web. Also, what are games like on a TV like that?
Is it possible/practical to use a standard 32inch or so TV as a computer monitor? I'm not talking about intensive use, just maybe web surfing with the text size turned up and then a custom interface for media playing....
Prepare examples of your work. Qualifications and experience are of course important but if an employer is able to access examples of your work somehow then you manage to cross from the theoretical to the practical.
Plus, you'd be amazed at the number of people who just like something pretty to play with...
Slashdot Mirror
Please. This just shows your lack of understanding of the entire issue. The reason that your examples appear under each other is because display is not inherited. Therefore the divs inside test and test2 have a display:block - the breaks caused by such a block level element cause them to be displayed on a new line.
Basic CSS, confused by the fact you have nested it in another div.
0.9 will FIX the extension system in Firefox, which has been one of it's weakest points thus far. After 0.9 there will be no further major shifts in the way extensions are handled, and so this is the first and only time that extensions have been broken in this way.
It's a necessary change.
I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Firefox CSS rendering, but it's fairly clear you have little idea how the box model works.
display:block and display:inline have nothing to do with how elements are aligned. They control the behavior of an element within the document flow. An inline element, such as an anchor, does not disrupt the flow. A block level element has breaks before and after; as such, it will interrupt the flow.
Your perceived alignment comes fromt this. When three inline elements follow each other, the act line words in a sentence and flow one after the other. When three block level elements follow each other, the breaks before and after the element cause each block to appear under the preceeding one.
Just a quick lesson. If I were you, I'd read up on CSS and prepare some testcases with a well written bug report before you talk about rendering issues. From your post you appear to be fairly ignorant of what's really going on.
Ben Goodger is not simply a software engineer. Look at his CV on his website and you will see that he has a great deal of UI experience.
"Notice the capital "N" at the start of this sentence."
Yeah I see it. You're surely not suggesting that you used the caps lock key for that little "N" are you? If you are then not on is that a truly awful example of why caps lock is useful, it also shows that you have no idea of how to efficiently use your keyboard.
Ben just ripped the profile UI out of Firefox, it's a lot more hidden now I believe. I suspect more stuff along these lines will occur - the profile stuff in Firefox is useful only for testing and network deployment.
Links? Oh no, you have none.
To the best of my knowledge you cannot place bookmark toolbar, navigation and menus in a single toolbar. Therefore Opera is always going to take up more screen real estate for me than Firefox.
:)
But I'd like to be educated on this one
One of the reasons that IE is so susceptible to this sort of thing is because of ActiveX - an inherent security hole. While xpinstall is similar, it will always require clear user input to get the extension installed.
And lets not forget the obvious - IE6 is always going to be bad for this. Mozilla gets updated each and every day and has a regular release schedule.
I know who I'd rely on for the latest and greatest security tech.
Programs like Opera prove that you can't stuff 1000 features into a program without creating a total mess. Bloat isn't just about memory use you know.
This is one of the things that people don't understand about MS. The X-Box and the Tablet PC are the tip of the iceberg in two vast new markets, and the losses which MS may have had to absorb thus far are still not seen as failure. They are now in the market, and can only go upwards.
What Sony Tv would that be?
Yeah and how long has it taken people to take it up in real world applications?
Totally. That can be confirmed by the fact that none of those three sites I mentioned actually validate, and that goes a way to proving that these sites are CSS based for practical reasons rather than some abstract ideological one.
I found it interesting that MP3.com is the third large site to relaunch recently with a CSS-based layout. Fileshack and Blogger (with Blogger being an education for all web designers) have also used CSS in their new layout.
The point? Interesting to see that MP3.com are forward thinking - in their web side anyway.
This is fairly selfless. This stance could be interpreted as Microsoft putting aside its own interests in order to improve the current state of home computer security and the poor security levels on the net. Even though they caused those problems in the first place, this move is one which should be met with approval.
I don't disagree with that. I believe there was a fairly recent article on either mezzoblue or a list apart dealing with flexible layouts and varying font sizes. This is pretty much a designer knowledge issue though, as with many things in CSS, the facility is there, it's just a bastard to work out how to use it.
If you have DIVs nested 24 levels deep then you shouldn't be designing web pages.
But that's the problem - there *is* something wrong with using tables. It's a bastardisation of the entire concept of the semantic web, you're using a data container for something it wasn't designed for.
Those sites I showed you are examples of well marked up sites - their HTML is clean and fast (mostly:). Yeah, you could do them in a table stylee, but they would all be heavier, harder to maintain and sematically poor. Those negative points are important to me - important enough that I would be prepare to aquire the skill necessary to create a CSS layout which bypasses them.
Talking about CSS as a poor layout device is becoming increasingly lazy - there are some very clever people out there replicating the old ways of doing things, if that floats your boat.
I personally don't feel that tables are that intuitive when you start using colspan and rowspan. The sheer complexity of the nested structure makes the markup confusing.
Sorry, but you're stuck in the past. Think outside the box (model) and cast off your ideas of table based layouts. It's amazing how the web has become so inflexible in terms of design in such a short time.
There are loads of good examples of CSS layouts that would have required huge nested tables to reproduce.
I put it to you that table-based designs are holding back the imaginations of web-designers. The web-programmers are probably going to realise that soon. The reason why corporate sites are yet to realise that (but they are realising it - slowly but surely) is because - and this may be a shock - the majority of web people, like programmers, and many other professions simply do what they know; the easy stuff. The good ones learn new tricks and make the best end-products.
No way man, I used to have a tv (sans remote!) connected to a Commodore 16, then a Spectrum of some variety, and then a Commodore 64. My mate and I used to argue about which was best - the 64 or the Plus4, but then we always were sad bastards.
br/? Anyway, my first monitor was for the PC - just before that I had an Amiga which had a weird device called a TV modulator.
Is it a new Sony? Like a HDTV/Digital (I believe digital is the terminology in the UK, it's well confusing) capable one? I was under the impression that these have higher resolution and refresh rates so they would be better for computer stuff...
Do you have Teletext in the US? The text on that is very readable... I'd like the equivalent on the TV I suppose, just for the web. Also, what are games like on a TV like that?
Is it possible/practical to use a standard 32inch or so TV as a computer monitor? I'm not talking about intensive use, just maybe web surfing with the text size turned up and then a custom interface for media playing....
Any thoughts?
Prepare examples of your work. Qualifications and experience are of course important but if an employer is able to access examples of your work somehow then you manage to cross from the theoretical to the practical.
Plus, you'd be amazed at the number of people who just like something pretty to play with...