Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: centering image for all monitors

Expand Messages
  • Cary
    Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so hover comes before active. a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;} a:visited
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
      Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so
      hover comes before active.

      a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
      a:visited {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
      a:hover {color: red; text-decoration: bold}
      a:active {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
      a.other:link {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
      a.other:visited {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
      a.other:hover {color: pink; text-decoration: bold}
      a.other:active {color: red; text-decoration: none}


      --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
      >
      > I am having trouble getting an image to center after putting a table
      with the links ot other pages on the left side of the page...
    • loro
      ... Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said, that XHTML is treated as XML if it s served with an XHTML content-type. But it can t be,
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
        Greg Chapman wrote:
        >I understand that no modern browser actually renders true XHTML and
        >simply converts the code to HTML and renders that. In consequence,
        >there is little point in writing XHTML markup for web sites.

        Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said,
        that XHTML is treated as XML if it's served with an XHTML
        content-type. But it can't be, partly because of IE and partly
        because many (most?) XHTML pages wouldn't display in any browser if
        they were served with the correct content-type.

        XML has few requirements, but one of them is that a page that isn't
        well-formed shouldn't be displayed by the browser. All browsers
        conform to this. Since many XHTML pages aren't as well-written as
        their authors think when they plaster that XHTML button on, there
        would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most authors would
        quickly revert to HTML and the blessings of the error handling HTML
        parsers are so richly equipped with.

        This requirement makes me think XML isn't really suited to be used on
        this side of the server. Generated on the server, validated and
        foolproofed on the server, maybe. But how often does that happen? Can
        you imagine a site of any importance to its users or to the owner
        that goes blank until someone has found the tiny little error that
        maybe originates deep down in some server side program?

        Strict instead of Transitional is much more important. The fact that
        there even exists a Transitional version of XHTML and that it's
        widely used say everything about what the XHTML hype is about. I
        think the expression is "blowing smoke". ;-)

        Lotta
      • Axel Berger
        ... I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn t displayed, people blame
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 9, 2009
          loro wrote:
          > there would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most
          > authors would quickly revert to HTML and the blessings
          > of the error handling HTML parsers are so richly equipped
          > with.

          I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now
          there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn't
          displayed, people blame their browser. More importantly and worse,
          if you go and complain to the junk merchants, they have the gall to
          tell you everyone else was satisfied and that it must be your fault.
          And of course, if all browsers gave error messages instead of
          guessed at approximate renderings our life would be easier and we'd
          not need to employ all those extra validating tools and would not
          get caught out by those easily overlooked little mistakes, that
          happen not to show up when trying things out in the few browsers and
          versions we happen to have at our disposal.

          Life would become harder for all thise idiots out there refusing to
          take care and not trying to do a good rather than botched job, but I
          don't see how that would be bad.

          Axel
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.