«

JP. Baker wrote:
> In article < .com>,
> TC <> wrote:
> >C:\styles.css:
> >
> > .extlink {
> > background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat right middle;
>
> right center;

Right ** ON ** !

Thanks - that was the problem. It now works fine in IE6 and FF1.5. I
double-checked, but couldn't see it for looking!

I've answered nearly 10,000 usenet questions myself, mainly regarding
MS Access, over the past 12+ years or so. It's really good to get an
answer to one of my own problems! What an amazing resource, is usenet.

Thanks to you & Els,

Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

Els wrote:

> Can you put the example online?

Resolved per other post. Thanks for your help Yea usenet!

Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

TC wrote:

> JP. Baker wrote:
>> In article < .com>,
>> TC <> wrote:
>>>C:\styles.css:
>>>
>>> .extlink {
>>> background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat right middle;
>>
>> right center;
>
> Right ** ON ** !

That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Els wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
> > .extlink {
> > background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
> > right middle;
>
> Make that right center.

Els, I just realized, that I ignored your suggestion (above) because I
thought (when I read it) that you were just suggesting a cosmetic
change. (Ie. "it would look better centered, instead of where you
currently have it".)

I didn't see that you had noticed that my syntax was wrong. The other
responded said the same thing. But you saw it first! Thanks again,

TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

Els wrote:


> That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
> got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?

Yes. I just realized that, & replied above accordingly

Maybe the w3c html validator does not validate the referenced css? I'll
try validating the original error with a css validator & post back
here.

Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

TC wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> > That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
> > got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?
>
> Yes. I just realized that, & replied above accordingly
>
> Maybe the w3c html validator does not validate the referenced css? I'll
> try validating the original error with a css validator & post back here.

Geez I'm being enormously slow on the uptake here! (

You said, maybe I only validated the HTML !!

Exactamundo.

I just validated the orgnal (bad) CSS at
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator . It said:

"Invalid number : background Too many values or values are not
recognized : url(http://i.microsoft.com/h/en-us/i/msnlogo.gif)
no-repeat right middle"

Q.E.D.

Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

TC wrote:

> I just validated the orgnal (bad) CSS at
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator . It said:
>
> "Invalid number : background Too many values or values are not
> recognized : url(http://i.microsoft.com/h/en-us/i/msnlogo.gif)
> no-repeat right middle"
>
> Q.E.D.

np

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

TC wrote:
> Els wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>
>>> Problems:
>>>
>>> (1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
>>> declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
>>> image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
>>> style.
>> Usually that means that you've done something wrong in the code, which
>> IE will "forgive" if you have it in Quirksmode, since in Quirksmode it
>> doesn't "have to" follow the W3C guidelines.
>>
>> Add the doctype, then *validate your code*, and fix the errors. If
>> then still IE doesn't show your background, come asking and show an
>> online example of what it is that's not working.
>
> Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
> there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
> *work* online
>
>
>>> Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
>>> on this, one way or the other.
>> What *is* a mark of the web?
>
> IE executes local files (C:/blah.test) under the security restrictions
> of the Local zone.

When I load a on my hard drive into IE as a file without using http, the
security level indicator shows "My Computer", not Local zone.

> In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
> restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
> than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
> the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
> remote ones.

Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.

I think you may be misinterpreting the situation. The current security
level is based on the page currently in your browser. If the page in
your browser is external, a higher security level applies. A *link* is
subject to fewer restrictions (if any at all) than a *link* to a local
file, the whole point being that if an external page is trying to get
you to click a link to your own files, it might be because it's trying
to cause trouble.

Els wrote:

>
> What *is* a mark of the web?
>

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...rview/motw.asp

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Deja Goo: The feeling that you've stepped in this before.

"Ed Mullen" <> wrote in message
news:94qdnXP-...
> Els wrote:
>
> >
> > What *is* a mark of the web?
> >
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...rview/motw.asp
>

Interesting. I've seen those type of lines, primarily when emailing files
from an IE environment at work to my Firefox-based environment at home. I've
just deleted them.

Never heard of the term "mark of the web" before though.

--
Richard