«

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:38:37 -0500, Jenn writ:

> freemont wrote:

>> /This/ I want to hear. Enlighten us.

> I did this to see if it would work:
>
> In order to test it, I created a class that would apply only to the
> margin and padding so I could test them separately.

This accomplished nothing at all, can't you understand that?

Jenn from Oklahoma, read slowly: You could have JUST AS EASILY tested
your paddings and margins by adding them to #article.

Creating a new class was utterly unnecessary.

Try to stop arguing for a minute and understand.

> The #article ID deals with the div container .. like the border of a
> table, so I kept that separate from the class that deals with the
> padding and margins.

That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

The styles weren't separated. They were applied to the SAME DIV. Think!

> I then resized the window width until it wouldn't get any smaller and
> then I gave the class a 4px left and right padding and then adjusted the
> % in the width of the #article until the blah blah blah blah blah blah

Play-by-play narration is unnecessary and unwanted.

> I'm
> thinking in order to take care of that issue, the body style may need a
> static pixel width, but not sure since I haven't looked at it too
> closely yet.

Then you're thinking wrong, again. Pixel widths go against what the OP is
shooting for. You should realize that.

You want everything to stay put, no matter how narrow you make that
window? Comment out all the borders and see how it behaves.

I could tell earlier that you've no idea what a css comment looks like,
so here's a hint:

/*border: yellow 1px solid;*/
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:42:42 -0500, Jenn writ:

> I put * in front of the 2 items that were to be removed to mark them..
> it wasn't meant to be comment markers.

And we are supposed to know that how?
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

On 11 May 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:

> freemont wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:28:11 -0500, Jenn writ:
>>>
>>> If you want to add padding this will work:
>>>
>>>
>>> #article
>>> {
>>> border: green solid 1px;
>>> width: 60%;
>>> float:left;
>>> border-collapse: collapse;
>>> }
>>>
>>> .article
>>> {
>>> margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
>>> padding: 0 8px 0 8px;
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> <div id="article" class="article"> //add this class to this div
>
>
>> Ahem.
>>
>> I will try to be nice(er).
>>
>> Please explain for all of us the difference between what you have
>> above, and the css that exists on the page now. Other than the
>> obvious difference in padding values and units.
>>
>> Why, WHY? create a new class just to put a couple of values into?
>> What does it accomplish?
>
>> For those not following along, the advantage of using the markup
>> above, as opposed to:
>>
>> #article
>> {
>> border: green solid 1px;
>> width: 65%;
>> float: left;
>> margin: 0 auto 0 auto;
>> padding: 0 2% 0 2%;
>> border-collapse: collapse;
>> }
>> <div id="article">
>>
>> /This/ I want to hear. Enlighten us.
>
>
>
> I did this to see if it would work:
>
> In order to test it, I created a class that would apply only to the
> margin and padding so I could test them separately.
>
> The #article ID deals with the div container .. like the border of a
> table, so I kept that separate from the class that deals with the
> padding and margins.
>
> I then resized the window width until it wouldn't get any smaller and
> then I gave the class a 4px left and right padding and then adjusted
> the % in the width of the #article until the right nav went into it's
> proper place. I got that to work.. then raised the pixels to 8px
> padding both left and right, and adjusted the #article width to 60%.
> If you want more padding, you will need to adjust the width. Keeping
> them separate gives you the option of using the class of that padding
> elsewhere.
>
> It works ok in IE, but if you resize the window in Firefox, which
> allows it to get even smaller than IE does the boxes on either sides
> move. I'm thinking in order to take care of that issue, the body
> style may need a static pixel width, but not sure since I haven't
> looked at it too closely yet.

The easy way to do this is wrap whatever div(s) is/are involved in
another div(s) and sizing each outer div while putting padding or
margins on the inner ones.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

freemont wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:42:42 -0500, Jenn writ:
>
>> I put * in front of the 2 items that were to be removed to mark
>> them.. it wasn't meant to be comment markers.
>
> And we are supposed to know that how?

.... you know that because it isn't a COMMENT ... it's an asterisk which is
often used to mark something you are notating to other people.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

freemont wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:38:37 -0500, Jenn writ:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>
>>> /This/ I want to hear. Enlighten us.
>
>> I did this to see if it would work:
>>
>> In order to test it, I created a class that would apply only to the
>> margin and padding so I could test them separately.
>
> This accomplished nothing at all, can't you understand that?
>
> Jenn from Oklahoma, read slowly: You could have JUST AS EASILY tested
> your paddings and margins by adding them to #article.
>
> Creating a new class was utterly unnecessary.
>
> Try to stop arguing for a minute and understand.
>
>> The #article ID deals with the div container .. like the border of a
>> table, so I kept that separate from the class that deals with the
>> padding and margins.
>
> That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
>
> The styles weren't separated. They were applied to the SAME DIV.
> Think!
>
>> I then resized the window width until it wouldn't get any smaller and
>> then I gave the class a 4px left and right padding and then adjusted
>> the % in the width of the #article until the blah blah blah blah
>> blah blah
>
> Play-by-play narration is unnecessary and unwanted.
>
>> I'm
>> thinking in order to take care of that issue, the body style may
>> need a static pixel width, but not sure since I haven't looked at it
>> too closely yet.
>
> Then you're thinking wrong, again. Pixel widths go against what the
> OP is shooting for. You should realize that.
>
> You want everything to stay put, no matter how narrow you make that
> window? Comment out all the borders and see how it behaves.
>
> I could tell earlier that you've no idea what a css comment looks
> like, so here's a hint:
>
> /*border: yellow 1px solid;*/

I know what a comment looks like ... I wasn't using a comment. I was using
an asterisk to mark the two items that I was talking about leaving out of
the style.

ya know.. you and some of the other people here are so rude and egotistical
that there is just no talking to you about anything. You have no idea how
to discuss a topic with someone who has a different point of view, or even a
different background.

There is more than one way to write any style sheet and it depends on what
the author is wanting to do with it. I'm just playing around with it for
fun to see if I can figure it out, and you suck all the fun out of it.

Why can't you just be nice? huh? Have you ever heard the word before, or do
you just have some sort of neanderthol inner need to put other people down
so you can feel good about who you are and that's the only way you can get
there?

Despite you playing the part of a leach and attempting to suck all the joy
and fun out of this exercise .. I ENJOYED giving it a try despite your
efforts.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

Jenn wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:42:42 -0500, Jenn writ:
>>
>>> I put * in front of the 2 items that were to be removed to mark
>>> them.. it wasn't meant to be comment markers.
>>
>> And we are supposed to know that how?
>
> ... you know that because it isn't a COMMENT ... it's an asterisk which is
> often used to mark something you are notating to other people.
>

<I am going to regret this>

Except an asterisk does mean something in CSS, and it is something
completely different:

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....ersal-selector

--
Take care,

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

"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:hsda88$la3$...
> Jenn wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:42:42 -0500, Jenn writ:
>>>
>>>> I put * in front of the 2 items that were to be removed to mark
>>>> them.. it wasn't meant to be comment markers.
>>>
>>> And we are supposed to know that how?
>>
>> ... you know that because it isn't a COMMENT ... it's an asterisk which
>> is
>> often used to mark something you are notating to other people.
>>
>
> <I am going to regret this>
>
> Except an asterisk does mean something in CSS, and it is something
> completely different:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....ersal-selector

Now, Jonathan, just how would you expect her to know *that*? She has never
ever been anywhere *near* that site

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:42:42 -0500, Jenn writ:
>>>
>>>> I put * in front of the 2 items that were to be removed to mark
>>>> them.. it wasn't meant to be comment markers.
>>>
>>> And we are supposed to know that how?
>>
>> ... you know that because it isn't a COMMENT ... it's an asterisk
>> which is often used to mark something you are notating to other
>> people.
>
> <I am going to regret this>
>
> Except an asterisk does mean something in CSS, and it is something
> completely different:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....ersal-selector

.... freemont compared it to a COMMENT ... nothing else.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

"Lewis" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <7fb0e$4be9dce3$6216f0ea$>
> freemont <> wrote:
>> That said, just replace the float:lefts with float:rights and they
>> swap.
>
> I've ended up with this:
>
> <http://home.kreme.com/logo-demo.html>

A five megabyte background image?

Tell me you are going to compress this down to less than 50K very very
shortly

"rf" <> wrote in message
news:uouGn.24345$...
>
> "Lewis" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In message <7fb0e$4be9dce3$6216f0ea$>
>> freemont <> wrote:
>>> That said, just replace the float:lefts with float:rights and they
>>> swap.
>>
>> I've ended up with this:
>>
>> <http://home.kreme.com/logo-demo.html>
>
> A five megabyte background image?
>
> Tell me you are going to compress this down to less than 50K very very
> shortly

Ah, I see, it's a bmp.

A bmp is *not* a suitable image format for the web.