«

I am wondering how I could position some links as a circle.
I thought that I could define the position of each <li> by defining its
margins
and letting float some of these links on the left or on the right but it
did not seem to work...

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
www.om-italien.eu
她是澳大利亚人

In article <HmFQg.17387$>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

> I am wondering how I could position some links as a circle.
> I thought that I could define the position of each <li> by defining its
> margins
> and letting float some of these links on the left or on the right but it
> did not seem to work...

Luigi, remember what I told you? About your site being best with
all your CSS completely off? You are going in completely the
opposite direction. Using your freedom wilfully. You are going to
now have even more complex CSS.- when someone obliges you as they
might on this interesting question.

What is it with you and CSS, you seem quite infatuated with it.
It is a styling method, not an object of irrational love and
fixation.

If you want a circle, you can make a very economically sized
image map with links. If you want it to scale, it may be possible
with em based dimensioning, this sounds like fun, no?

--
dorayme

"dorayme" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:doraymeRidThis-...
> In article <HmFQg.17387$>,
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering how I could position some links as a circle.
> > I thought that I could define the position of each <li> by defining its
> > margins
> > and letting float some of these links on the left or on the right but
it
> > did not seem to work...
>
> Luigi, remember what I told you? About your site being best with
> all your CSS completely off? You are going in completely the
> opposite direction. Using your freedom wilfully. You are going to
> now have even more complex CSS.- when someone obliges you as they
> might on this interesting question.
>
> What is it with you and CSS, you seem quite infatuated with it.
> It is a styling method, not an object of irrational love and
> fixation.
>
> If you want a circle, you can make a very economically sized
> image map with links. If you want it to scale, it may be possible
> with em based dimensioning, this sounds like fun, no?
>
> --
> dorayme

An image is usually larger in terms of kilobytes and a table should not be
used for layout purposes...
Anyway, I find quite surprising that you do not like CSS, because I thought
that you used to do it.
I also noticed that you started liking the page
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
when it was not ranked well on Google any longer...
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
www.om-italien.eu
她是澳大利亚人

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

> Anyway, I find quite surprising that you do not like CSS, because I
> thought that you used to do it.

She didn't say she doesn't like CSS. She said *your use* of it is .. um
... how can I say .. politely .. um .. CONVOLUTED!

Convoluted. Yeah, that's the ticket.

She said your page looks better with CSS turned off, and I agree.

> I also noticed that you started liking the page

liking the page? Heh.

> https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
> when it was not ranked well on Google any longer...

I understand why Google has given up.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> I am wondering how I could position some links as a circle.
> I thought that I could define the position of each <li> by defining its
> margins
> and letting float some of these links on the left or on the right but it
> did not seem to work...
>

<sigh.....> [in the tone and manner of Lieutenant Kiff Croaker]

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:UeGQg.87146$...
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> > I also noticed that you started liking the page
>
> liking the page? Heh.

Does she it not?
Fine.

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
www.om-italien.eu
她是澳大利亚人

In article <APFQg.17388$>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

>
> An image is usually larger in terms of kilobytes and a table should not be
> used for layout purposes...
> Anyway, I find quite surprising that you do not like CSS, because I thought
> that you used to do it.
> I also noticed that you started liking the page

First, if something is a bit larger in bandwidth, it may be worth
it. Second, I am not sure that tables has to do with this issue.
And third, you make a leap like the mightiest of frogs to
conclude I do not like CSS. This is not true. And fourth, I do
not think tables should never be used for layout at all in any
circumstances.

--
dorayme

In article <yjGQg.17390$>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> skrev i meddelandet
> news:UeGQg.87146$...
> > Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> > > I also noticed that you started liking the page
> >
> > liking the page? Heh.
>
> Does she it not?
> Fine.
>

Ah Luigi, I know when you are getting a bit huffy, you start to
talk about freedom and nice days and throw the word "fine" about.
But there is no need. Do not concentrate on the negatives like
that some increasingly feminised (it seems) Martian thinks your
page improves with your CSS turned off. Think of it instead as a
compliment to your HTML. Well... er... you could think that...
why not? Cheer yourself up.

Seriously, about the links in a circle, it is not that hard to do
it with an image map. I used to do this a bit to make something
nice for little cost. You can make such tiny KB-wise pics if the
content is mainly nothing, an invisible, sort of almost data free
scaffolding for some pictures of text. I tend to be a bit more
austere these days but I might come back to it. There is not that
much wrong with the occasional use of such things and you will
know to provide alternative plain text HTML nav to the same
somewhere.

For example, I had a banner once with image map and links. But
the links were duplicated in a more normal nav ul underneath,
plain to see. Left it in for ages and then tired of it, leaving
only the pic on which it was based, removing the text pics and
associated controls. But I can't post it because it was tables
based and had fancy js for rollover on the text/pic bits and
Jonathan would start screaming and why create a fuss? But the JS
was not strictly necessary, the hand cursor mostly comes up
natural anyway. In this case too, the table can be dispensed with.

Try it Luigi, take a break from all this CSS. You might find you
feel more comfortable with a different path to doing things.

--
dorayme

"dorayme" <> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-...
> In article <APFQg.17388$>,
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
>
>>
>> An image is usually larger in terms of kilobytes and a table should not
>> be
>> used for layout purposes...
>> Anyway, I find quite surprising that you do not like CSS, because I
>> thought
>> that you used to do it.
>> I also noticed that you started liking the page
>
> First, if something is a bit larger in bandwidth, it may be worth
> it. Second, I am not sure that tables has to do with this issue.
> And third, you make a leap like the mightiest of frogs to
> conclude I do not like CSS. This is not true. And fourth, I do
> not think tables should never be used for layout at all in any
> circumstances.


Here we go with the age old discussion that tables are for tabular data.
Well dear boy, those of us who were around long before CSS, had nothing else
to work with.
While I do agree to an extent that tables are a poor excuse for content, if
that is how one wishes to work, then that is one's opinion and choice.
Now the new question is, should flash replace CSS?
Of course, given enough time, another new development will soon come along
and CSS will be obsolete.
Until then, it is a matter of preference.

In article <>,
"richard" <> wrote:

> > First, if something is a bit larger in bandwidth, it may be worth
> > it. Second, I am not sure that tables has to do with this issue.
> > And third, you make a leap like the mightiest of frogs to
> > conclude I do not like CSS. This is not true. And fourth, I do
> > not think tables should never be used for layout at all in any
> > circumstances.
>
>
> Here we go with the age old discussion that tables are for tabular data.
> Well dear boy, those of us who were around long before CSS, had nothing else
> to work with.

Had not meant to raise any debate on this. Not initiated a table
for any layout purpose for quite a while... On the other hand, I
have not rushed to change long established sites that use some
either. I do when I have time. And it is even longer in time that
I used tables for laying out in anything but the most rudimentary
way, left nav col and right content, maybe a third "features"
col. Big skeleton stuff.


> While I do agree to an extent that tables are a poor excuse for content, if
> that is how one wishes to work, then that is one's opinion and choice.

Who would make a table the content of their site? Perhaps a
teacher of html tables technology? No, it's ok, no need to
explain - I am typing to distract myself from work.

--
dorayme