Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: A question about css

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: A question about css

 
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
In article <mgn7ai1jpucf$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>What? You've never heard of the font sizing using numbers alone as in the
>"200" I showed?


That's not valid CSS.

>As you know, there are 8 levels of text size. In CSS these 8 levels are
>represented by the numbers 100,200,300..........800.


Wrong.
http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font-size.asp

>There is nothing else to include such as em, px, or %.


Wrong again.

>THe OP was using size="2". The valid numbers for "size" are 1 through 8.


Those are valid values for the size attribute of the <font> element in *HTML*.
They are *not* valid values for the the font-size property in CSS.

>Migration into CSS just changed this value to include "00".


Wrong yet again.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gus Richter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
On 3/8/2010 1:25 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<mgn7ai1jpucf$(E-Mail Removed) >, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> What? You've never heard of the font sizing using numbers alone as in the
>> "200" I showed?

>
> That's not valid CSS.
>
>> As you know, there are 8 levels of text size. In CSS these 8 levels are
>> represented by the numbers 100,200,300..........800.

>
> Wrong.
> http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font-size.asp
>
>> There is nothing else to include such as em, px, or %.

>
> Wrong again.
>
>> THe OP was using size="2". The valid numbers for "size" are 1 through 8.

>
> Those are valid values for the size attribute of the<font> element in *HTML*.
> They are *not* valid values for the the font-size property in CSS.
>
>> Migration into CSS just changed this value to include "00".

>
> Wrong yet again.



Please don't quote any source other than W3C as a voice of authority.
The source you quoted has been known to make mistakes and/or omit
things, although I have not, nor will I, go and check in this instance.
For this instance you should use this as a reference:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font-size>

From the horse's mouth, so to speak - the whole enchilada - and from
where your source will take its information.

--
Gus
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says
W T F ............

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:25:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <mgn7ai1jpucf$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>What? You've never heard of the font sizing using numbers alone as in the
>>"200" I showed?

>
> That's not valid CSS.
>
>>As you know, there are 8 levels of text size. In CSS these 8 levels are
>>represented by the numbers 100,200,300..........800.

>
> Wrong.
> http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font-size.asp
>
>>There is nothing else to include such as em, px, or %.

>
> Wrong again.
>
>>THe OP was using size="2". The valid numbers for "size" are 1 through 8.

>
> Those are valid values for the size attribute of the <font> element in *HTML*.
> They are *not* valid values for the the font-size property in CSS.
>
>>Migration into CSS just changed this value to include "00".

>
> Wrong yet again.


http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_font.asp

Have a look here.
Scroll to the bottom and look at font-weight.
Where I show font-size, it should be font-weight.
with the actual values ranging from 100 to 900.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
richard wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:15:30 GMT, rf wrote:
>
>> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:7wd4x5qq8f8p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:29:24 -0500, C A Upsdell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-03-08 1:21, richard wrote:


>>>>> td.cellstyle="font-size:200; font-family:Verdana; text-align:center;"

^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^
1 2 3

> What? You've never heard of the font sizing using numbers alone as in the
> "200" I showed?
> As you know, there are 8 levels of text size. In CSS these 8 levels are
> represented by the numbers 100,200,300..........800.
> There is nothing else to include such as em, px, or %.
> THe OP was using size="2". The valid numbers for "size" are 1 through 8.
> Migration into CSS just changed this value to include "00".
> So as not to confuse the number notation used like with "H2".


No, incorrect, you are confusing property font-size with font-weight.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html...ef-font-weight

Unfortunately your advise us usually so riddled with errors that your
posts are more detrimental for newbies than helpful. Since you asked for
specifics on your errors more than once, here.

Noted errors above:

1) Proper syntax is: selector { property: value; property: value; ... }

2) Property font-size valid values are either named values:
xx-small, x-small, small, medium, large, x-large, xx-large
or numeric that requires units, e.g., 1.5em;

3) Property font-family although not error per se, listing a font
family name without also listing a generic family as a fallback
is very bad practice and is discouraged. As the W3 puts it:

"Style sheet designers are encouraged to offer a generic font family as
a last alternative."

In your example if a visitor did not have Verdana on their systems,
without the generic sans-serif specified then the browser default would
be used which is a serif times font switching from sans-serif to serif.

Lastly, although you could style table cells with a class on TD
elements, but if all the cells of a TABLE are to have the same style,
creating a class for the table using a descendant selector would be a
more efficient rule and save adding CLASS attributes to each TD element.

table.someStyle td { ... }


<table class="someStyle">
<tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr>
....


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
Doug Miller wrote:

> That's not valid CSS.
> Wrong.
> Wrong again.
> They are *not* valid values
> Wrong yet again.


<lol> That's a typical response to an RtS post!

--
-bts
-Could. Not. Resist.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
In article <hn3isr$rdq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In your example if a visitor did not have Verdana on their systems,
> without the generic sans-serif specified then the browser default would
> be used which is a serif times font switching from sans-serif to serif.


Which is OK if you are sure you are happy to allow user
preference if they have not got your favourite font...

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
In article <hn3isr$rdq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> richard wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:15:30 GMT, rf wrote:
> >
> >> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:7wd4x5qq8f8p$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:29:24 -0500, C A Upsdell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2010-03-08 1:21, richard wrote:

>
> >>>>> td.cellstyle="font-size:200; font-family:Verdana; text-align:center;"

> ^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^
> 1 2 3


If you quoted more of the context, you would have found a 4th for
your little diagram. Why do things by three quarter measure?

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
dorayme wrote:
> In article<hn3isr$rdq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:15:30 GMT, rf wrote:
>>>
>>>> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:7wd4x5qq8f8p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:29:24 -0500, C A Upsdell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-03-08 1:21, richard wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> td.cellstyle="font-size:200; font-family:Verdana; text-align:center;"

>> ^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> 1 2 3

>
> If you quoted more of the context, you would have found a 4th for
> your little diagram. Why do things by three quarter measure?
>


Not sure what you mean, but within the quoted section there is a 4th,
the quotes.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
dorayme wrote:
> In article<hn3isr$rdq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In your example if a visitor did not have Verdana on their systems,
>> without the generic sans-serif specified then the browser default would
>> be used which is a serif times font switching from sans-serif to serif.

>
> Which is OK if you are sure you are happy to allow user
> preference if they have not got your favourite font...
>


You have no choice, if they do not have the font that you specify it
will *not* display (font embedding not ready for prime-time). My point
was by not defining a generic family in this instance would mean a
substitution would be more divergent since it would shift from a
sans-serif font to a serif one. Better to at least define a fallback
generic family so the substitution would be of the same type.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010

"richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:mgn7ai1jpucf$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:15:30 GMT, rf wrote:

stupidity though.

> What? You've never heard of the font sizing using numbers alone as in the
> "200" I showed?
> As you know, there are 8 levels of text size. In CSS these 8 levels are
> represented by the numbers 100,200,300..........800.
> There is nothing else to include such as em, px, or %.
> THe OP was using size="2". The valid numbers for "size" are 1 through 8.
> Migration into CSS just changed this value to include "00".
> So as not to confuse the number notation used like with "H2".


What a load of complete rats droppings.

Please cite, from the W3 recomendations, a page that supports even *ONE* of
the above moronic statements. Especially that one in the last line. Must
come right out of your own tiny head, or perhaps your arse.




Waiting...




Didn't think you could, you blithering idiot.


 
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
Re: correction: A question about css (was: A question about css) richard HTML 12 03-09-2010 08:52 PM
Is this the newsgroup for CSS help? CSS Question Included AF HTML 17 08-09-2006 06:57 PM
CSS question - can I make CSS Cascade sideways? Bill_W_Stephens@yahoo.com HTML 6 03-18-2006 06:02 PM
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM
print.css and screen.css tom watson HTML 1 09-09-2003 02:48 PM



Advertisments