«

Having taken advice here I constructed a css stylesheet for a table to hold
my page contents in position. Prior to that, those of you who have stayed
awake, may recall my tables were entirely in HTML.
It worked ok, but just out of interest I deleted the stylesheet and ran the
page without it. Apart from a wider column border, it did not make a blind
bit of difference. Was it the waste of time it seems to be?
For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
gallery are with css, the rest are not.
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

Jim Scott wrote:

> It worked ok, but just out of interest I deleted the stylesheet and ran
> the page without it. Apart from a wider column border, it did not make a
> blind bit of difference. Was it the waste of time it seems to be?

So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default rendering.
That does seem like something of a waste of time, although you never know
what the default stylesheet will look like in future browsers.

Of course you are still abusing tables for layout, so you don't get the
benefits of accurate markup, and your code is littered with inline style,
so you don't get the benefits of smaller pages that are easier to maintain
and faster to download.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

> So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default rendering.
> That does seem like something of a waste of time, although you never know
> what the default stylesheet will look like in future browsers.
>
> Of course you are still abusing tables for layout, so you don't get the
> benefits of accurate markup, and your code is littered with inline style,
> so you don't get the benefits of smaller pages that are easier to maintain
> and faster to download.

David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default
rendering": means nothing to me. I styled the pages to look the way I
wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).
I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
instead of 2.
I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
inline tables.
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

Jim Scott wrote:
> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
> gallery are with css, the rest are not.
> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.

--
Nico
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:39:16 +0200, Nico Schuyt wrote:

> Jim Scott wrote:
>> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
>> gallery are with css, the rest are not.
>> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
>
> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
> bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
> a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.

Yes I know that, but I would like to get the layout right before I go back
and do them.
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

Jim Scott wrote:

> David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
> your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser
> default rendering": means nothing to me.

There isn't any jargon there, its plain English. The browser renders the
markup with its default style if there is no CSS, and with your style if
there is. If they look the same, then your style and the browser default
are the same.

> I styled the pages to look the
> way I wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).

Which, if removing the style makes no difference, is the same as the browser
default.

> I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
> each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
> instead of 2.

I'd suggest three style sheets. One column, Two column, and Common. Where
the common includes all the style that doesn't change between layouts (such
as colour schemes and font styles).

> I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
> me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
> talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
> appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
> inline tables.

Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
and then post a specific question if you get stuck.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:40:16 +0100, David Dorward wrote:

> Jim Scott wrote:
>
>> David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
>> your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser
>> default rendering": means nothing to me.
>
> There isn't any jargon there, its plain English. The browser renders the
> markup with its default style if there is no CSS, and with your style if
> there is. If they look the same, then your style and the browser default
> are the same.
>
>> I styled the pages to look the
>> way I wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).
>
> Which, if removing the style makes no difference, is the same as the browser
> default.
>
>> I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
>> each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
>> instead of 2.
>
> I'd suggest three style sheets. One column, Two column, and Common. Where
> the common includes all the style that doesn't change between layouts (such
> as colour schemes and font styles).
>
>> I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
>> me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
>> talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
>> appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
>> inline tables.
>
> Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
> out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
> section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
> and then post a specific question if you get stuck.

This time I *am* with you. Must cut down on the ale.
I'll go off and do some searching, but I tried using css column layouts (2
and 3 as it happened). My problems seemed to arise with % widths and the
three main browsers. Off I go to try again.
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

Jim Scott wrote:

> I'll go off and do some searching, but I tried using css column layouts (2
> and 3 as it happened). My problems seemed to arise with % widths and the
> three main browsers.

The following should help somewhat:

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TwoColumnLayouts
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

> The following should help somewhat:
>
> http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TwoColumnLayouts
> http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

Ta
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

<snip>
> Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
> out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
> section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
> and then post a specific question if you get stuck.

Thanks David
You, of course, were right; there was a lot of excess markup. As a webmaker
beginner, it is difficult to understand the unnecessary/duplicate markup
that the various WYSIWYGs leave behind. For a start we don't know what is
necessary and what is not. Without the use of a WYSIWYG I would never have
got very far. It does what it says on the tin and if it doesn't do it very
well, at least it stimulates the interest to go further.

Anyhoo I have cleared most the crap out of my site markup without too much
tearing of hair. I have stayed with the tables route, but all are
controlled by stylesheets (although I believe I can combine all my
stylesheets into one, but I haven't gone there yet).
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/