"SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
>"Thibault" <> wrote in message
>news:c7o7ej$k7e$...
>>
>> Ok so I finally succeed in creating a geographical map with points on it,
>> whom coordinates come from a MySql database (I used PHP). There is a last
>> thing I don't understand : in the html page that is displayed, only some
>> of the links I made on my points work, the other don't. Here is the
>> beginning of the file, for you to understand (in fact there is 62 points,
>> but it is always the same thing) :
>>
>> <HTML>
>>
>> <HEAD>
>> <STYLE TYPE="text/css">
>> .pixel1 {
>> position:absolute;
>> padding-left:100;
>> padding-top:100;
>> }
If you're setting position to absolute then why aren't you setting any
of left, right, top or bottom as well?
Those padding values are wrong (all non-zero lengths must have units)
and so will be ignored by some browsers.
>> .pixel2 {
>> position:absolute;
>> padding-left:150;
>> padding-top:200;
>> }
>> </STYLE>
>> </HEAD>
>>
>> <BODY>
>> <TABLE>
What's the point of the table?
>> <TR>
>> <TD valign="top">
>> <span class="pixel1"><A href="sable.php?id=1" TITLE="Awbari"><img
>> src="point.gif"></A></span>
You're missing the required alt attribute.
>> <span class="pixel2"><A href="sable.php?id=2" TITLE="Frederikshavn"><img
>> src="point.gif"></A></span>
>> </TD>
>> </TR>
>> </TABLE>
>> </BODY>
>> </HTML>
>>
>> Now the question is : why in the hell the second hyperlink works and the
>> first one don't !?
They're both clickable for me in IE6 but behave as you describe in
Opera 7.23 and Mozilla 1.6.
Add some borders to pixel1 and pixel2 and you will see that pixel1 is
completely contained within the boundaries of pixel2. As pixel2 comes
later in the source code and as z-index as not been set this means
that pixel1 is 'under' pixel2. Now, it turns out that pixel1 is under
the padding of pixel2 and this is presumably what makes the first one
clickable in IE.
Changing padding-left to left and passing-top to top would solve the
problem (assuming that the images are small enough not to overlap.
This will also let you get rid of the spans and apply the styles to
the anchors or images themselves.
So you would end up with something like this:
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
.pixel1 {
position:absolute;
left:100px;
top:100px;
}
.pixel2 {
position:absolute;
left:150px;
top:200px;
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<A href="sable.php?id=1" TITLE="Awbari" class="pixel1"><img
src="point.gif" ALT="Awbari"></A>
<A href="sable.php?id=2" TITLE="Frederikshavn" class="pixel2"><img
src="point.gif" ALT="Frederikshavn"></A>
</BODY>
</HTML>
>Why all the uppercase tags?
Maybe because it's easier to see at a glance what's HTML and what's
content if the HTML is all uppercase? Certainly that is why I got into
the habit of using uppercase tags back when I learnt HTML (long before
I ever saw an editor that colour coded different parts of the code).
It's equally valid either way so is entirely down to personal choice.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Similar Threads
