Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > CSS Link styling and Layout Problem

Reply
Thread Tools

CSS Link styling and Layout Problem

 
 
Tim Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Hello all,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp

Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
is styled.

Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
outer container be fluid.

Thanks everyone for the help.

--
-Tim Gill
The The Tim Gill Orchestra & Trio
http://www.timgillmusic.com/trio

PS: Yes, I know that the layout is fixed-width.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Tim Gill wrote
> Hello all,
> Please take a look at this:
> http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp
>
> Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked

right
> now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
> and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
> browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
> specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular

link
> is styled.


Are you talking about the navigation bar, with it navlinks? Well you don't
have a visited rule for that. In your style sheet you have

#navlinks a:link, a:visited

This means any a:link inside something with ID navelinks plus any a:visited.
Note, a:visited, not within anything.

What you mean is

#navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited

This happens all through the style sheet. The last rule that includes
a:visited is the one that applies.

Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.


> Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it

looks
> perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
> to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that

this
> outer container be fluid.


You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the browser
in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).

A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your mistakes.
You assume that because it renders that it is correct.

Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.

--
Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tim Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:8kGOc.24524$(E-Mail Removed)...
(snip)
> What you mean is
>
> #navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited


Thanks for the help on that!

(snip)
> Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
> its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.


I realized that comparing what my usual stylesheet looks like compared to
others' work. I have yet to learn the art of writing a fluid and concise
stylesheet, as everything I learned was bit-by-bit style from online
tutorials and individual experimentation. A pointer to any helpful online
articles or print references would be quite appreciated.

(snip)
> You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the

browser
> in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).


Ah, I see [newbie googles "quirks mode"].

(snip)
> A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
> whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
> more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your

mistakes.
> You assume that because it renders that it is correct.


I will have to figure out how to make what I have done work on those
platforms. The biggest thing that i have to conquer is the small visual
layout issues (netscape blows up the main nav menu, etc.).

(snip)
> Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.


Will do.

> --
> Cheers
> Richard.



-TG


 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Ronan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
On 31/7/04 5:07 am, Tim Gill wrote:

> Hello all,
> Please take a look at this:
> http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp
>
> Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
> now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
> and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
> browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
> specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
> is styled.


You should really ask about this in a css group.

But try changing "#navlinks a:link, a:visited" to "#navlinks a:link,
#navlinks a:visited", etc.

> Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
> perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
> to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
> outer container be fluid.


Then why is is specified with a fixed width of 605px?
>> #container {
>> width: 605px;
>> ...
>> }


Phil

--
Philip Ronan
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Philip Ronan wrote:

> You should really ask about this in a css group.


Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

--
Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Ronan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
On 31/7/04 10:41 am, rf wrote:

> Philip Ronan wrote:
>
>> You should really ask about this in a css group.

>
> Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.


I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

--
Philip Ronan
(E-Mail Removed)
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Philip Ronan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> You should really ask about this in a css group.

>>
>> Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

>
>I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s


You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,
and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
probably higher than in ciwas also.

His lordship of kink Brucie only hangs out here for one (when he's not
being forcibly sedated), and he's reasonably dapper with CSS

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Spartanicus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,


My experience (after reading both groups for years) is quite different.

You might get shorter lectures here, though. This typically means that
you will miss the vital information that something in what you asked for
was a wrong idea from the beginning, and would learn it (perhaps) after
years and after some painful experiences only.

(In this particular case, the lecture might have included an explanation,
or reference to an explanation that says why setting unvisited, visited,
and active link colors the same is a _very_ bad idea. Not to mention the
principle "when setting color, always set background too" - which is
easily regarded as irrelevant by authors who don't understand
the "C" in CSS.)

> and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
> probably higher than in ciwas also.


You are trolling, are you not?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
Philip Ronan wrote:
> On 31/7/04 10:41 am, rf wrote:
>
> > Philip Ronan wrote:
> >
> >> You should really ask about this in a css group.

> >
> > Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

>
> I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s


I don't.

ciw* are theoretical. That's why there are so many of them, one for HTML,
one for CSS, one for javascript and be damned anybody who posts something
off-topic. They get real anal about it.

Here we accept everything and can freely talk about how the CSS may interact
with the HTML and be influenced by javascript.

Crikey, we even talk about server side stuff and whether javascript is
better for floaty out menus than PSP. Would you get that over in a ciw*
group?

If you did not notice a suitable answer was given by me to the OP several
hours ago, at least 4 hours prior to your chirping in. Do you find that
answer lacking in any way? Do you think that somebody over at ciwas could
have given a better answer?

<find/> You have only been here for a month. Stick around and see what
happens. Read the FAQ (if you can find it) where it clearly says "almost
anything web related goes".

--
Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2004
"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
>> probably higher than in ciwas also.

>
>You are trolling, are you not?


Au contraire, not on balance of course, but amongst the best most
definitely.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Css-Layout vs Table-Layout Habib HTML 15 06-20-2006 05:11 AM
Choosing Layout: Css-Layout or Table-Layout hpourfard@gmail.com ASP .Net 1 06-19-2006 10:06 AM
Table-based layout to CSS layout Guybrush Threepwood HTML 20 06-11-2006 11:12 AM
Styling CSS - newbie question kriton Javascript 0 04-23-2005 04:55 PM
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM



Advertisments