«

"Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
news:%MuIc.80081$WB5.51621@pd7tw2no...
> rf wrote:
> > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
> > news:QirIc.77217$WB5.36619@pd7tw2no...
> > rf wrote:
>
> > My advice still stands. Throw away all of those things that are not
actually
> > *required* to make your page work. Then start again.
>
> I've already done that. Everything you have bitched about has been torn
> out and the page checked. Every time the problem remained. I have
> reversed-engineered until there was almost nothing left, but the problem
> remained.

Then you are not a real programmer. You still have something left. Delete
that.

Goodbye.

--
Cheers
Richard.

"Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
news:_AuIc.1012215$Pk3.830752@pd7tw1no...
> rf wrote:
>
> > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
> > news:NKtIc.79091$P7.65837@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >
> >>So shoot me. These days, I recycle the entire META section between web
> >>projects.
> >
> >
> > So that is why you have collected so much cargo cult baggage in there?
> >
>
> I said I recycle the meta material between projects. I didn't say that I
> keep old stuff in there that isn't kosher anymore.

Point out each meta element you have in your current collection that is
kosher or actually means someting to either a browser or a SE bot.

> I mean, when was the
> last time you saw multiple body tags with different color attributes
> just to cause Netscape 2.0 to load the page up with a colour show??

What has that got to do with carrying meta element baggage?

> I
> did that back in the early 90's, but it was obvious pretty fast that it
> was a no-no. I drop or modify anything that isn't W3C compliant to match
> compliancy, and *any* browser-specific stuff

No idea what this means.

> cleartype is the first
> browser-specific thing I've done in AGES)

As discussed elsewhere with your cleartype foolishness you are intentionally
****ing up other peoples systems, without
their permission.

How bloody arrogant is that!

<rant rant>

> There is no cargo-cult baggage in there. Just because you don't
> understand what you are looking at (the material surrounding the inline
> css), doesn't mean that it's cargo-cult baggage.

Oh my, how sad.

--
Cheers
Richard.

"Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
news:%MuIc.80081$WB5.51621@pd7tw2no...
> rf wrote:

I have absolutely nothing to add at this point other than <plonk>

--
Cheers
Richard.

Neo Geshel wrote:

> What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
> sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy *******s it is.

<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

Perfectly valid XHTML.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Neo Geshel wrote:

> Just because you don't understand what you are looking at (the material
> surrounding the inline css), doesn't mean that it's cargo-cult baggage.

Correct. The fact that rf doesn't understand it does not make it
cargo-cult baggage. The fact that it's cargo-cult baggage makes it
cargo-cult baggage.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>
>
>>What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
>>sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules
>
>
> Big hairy *******s it is.
>
> <style type="text/css">
> body {
> background: #ccc;
> color: #000;
> }
> </style>
>
> Perfectly valid XHTML.
>


Oh, really?

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8

Straight from the horse's mouth, too. Problem is, the raw usage of it
causes embedded style sheets to break in older browsers. Hence the
complicated arrangement of regular <!-- --> and css /* */ comments.

As I said, I do my homework. As such, I seem to me a majority of one in
this NG. Next time, try learning XHTML from the source (the W3C), and
not from the back of a Crackerjack box. Trust me, it's for your own good.

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Neo Geshel wrote:

> As I said, I do my homework.

In that case, what are you doing here?!
If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the point
in coming in to ask a question?
Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*, could
just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must be somewhere
with the rest of your homework.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Els wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>
>
>>As I said, I do my homework.
>
>
> In that case, what are you doing here?!
> If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the point
> in coming in to ask a question?
> Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*, could
> just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must be somewhere
> with the rest of your homework.
>

I might be an XHTML *guru*, but I am only a CSS *expert*. I am not a CSS
*genius* or a CSS *guru*. Hence my appeal to help when apparently
identical CSS works in one page but not in another. I didn't find when I
required on the net, so I was hoping a CSS *genius* or *guru* could take
a quick look at my CSS, and in a potential "a-ha!" moment, be able to
point out where I went wrong.

Not much to ask for, is it? So far everyone has bitched about my XHTML.
No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

So, as I have said, since everyone keeps focusing on the XHTML, I can
say that I've done my homework. Because with XHTML, I have.

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Neo Geshel wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>
>>> What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
>>> sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules
>>
>> Big hairy *******s it is.
>
> Oh, really?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8
> As I said, I do my homework.

If you had done your homework you would have noticed that Chapter 4 of the
XHTML 1 spec isn't normative. (And you would know what "normative" meant.)

I repeat:
<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

is valid XHTML and will give you far fewer problems than that cargo-cult
nonsense you posted.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Neo Geshel wrote:

> Els wrote:
>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>
>>>As I said, I do my homework.
>>
>> In that case, what are you doing here?!
>> If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the
>> point in coming in to ask a question?
>> Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*,
>> could just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must
>> be somewhere with the rest of your homework.
>
> I might be an XHTML *guru*, but I am only a CSS *expert*.

Hey, me too (the CSS part, not XHTML)

> I
> am not a CSS *genius* or a CSS *guru*. Hence my appeal to
> help when apparently identical CSS works in one page but
> not in another. I didn't find when I required on the net,
> so I was hoping a CSS *genius* or *guru* could take a quick
> look at my CSS, and in a potential "a-ha!" moment, be able
> to point out where I went wrong.

Then make a simple page, which reflects the CSS problem
without being obstructed by stuff like difficult XHTML and/or
scripts.

> Not much to ask for, is it? So far everyone has bitched
> about my XHTML. No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

Maybe 'cause CSS can't work correctly with bad XHTML?
(not saying your XHTML is bad per se, I don't know that)

> So, as I have said, since everyone keeps focusing on the
> XHTML, I can say that I've done my homework. Because with
> XHTML, I have.

I won't comment on that myself, as my XHTML knowledge doesn't
go beyond HTML too much. That's not what I can say of quite a
few regulars here though.
But: I do know, that alt.html is not about CSS.
CSS is over at the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
group.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -