>>> Hmm, so why doesn't the next heading tag get inlined into the previous
>>> paragraph?
>>
>> because paragraphs are display:block by default?
>
> True - but that still doesn't explain how the spacing is still correct.
> (I.e., there's more space around a heading than there is around a
> paragraph.)

Because both <h1>'s and <p>'s margin-top and margin-bottom are 1ex; in 
height, but since usually <h1> uses a bigger font, its margin will be 
bigger.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:33:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>> Is there some way I can style it so that it shows up more like
>>>
>>> Introduction
>>> (Show/hide)
>>>
>>>
>>> ...real content...
>>
>> .h1 {margin-bottom:0}
>
> Wouldn't that mean that the margin between the header and the real  
> content would now be incorrect?

Should still conform to line-height
<snip>

> I always try to design my pages so that if you totally disable all CSS,  
> it still displays sensibly. It might not be pretty, but it's readable.  
> Then I apply CSS to make it pretty.
>
> Not sure you need to use ".indent"; why not just "li ul" or something?

Because the first ul isn't indented and it allows you to create an extra  
indent for a third level if needed without messing with child indicators  
that IE doesn't understand.

> Anyway, absolute positioning seems to work fine, but for the minor  
> detail that I need to figure out how wide the columns are supposed to  
> be...

I try to avoid absolute positioning when possible, just because it takes  
things out of the flow. if I have to use it I ensure it's well-wrapped,  
but even then there can be some glitches where the positioning relates to  
the first parent that specifies a position rather than its container.

> Also, whenever I try to open an XHTML document in IE (v7), it asks me  
> what application I want to use it open it with, and defaults to Firefox.  
> I can't seem to convince it to open it. The best I can do is get it to  
> display a blank page.

Well I know they separated out online and offline content between two  
windows, perhaps its related to that?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> .h1 {margin-bottom:0}
>>
>> Wouldn't that mean that the margin between the header and the real
>> content would now be incorrect?
>
> Should still conform to line-height
> <snip>

I didn't think inline elements could have margins?

>> Not sure you need to use ".indent"; why not just "li ul" or something?
>
> Because the first ul isn't indented and it allows you to create an extra
> indent for a third level if needed without messing with child indicators
> that IE doesn't understand.

Ah. So the answer to "why not use child selectors" is simply "IE doesn't 
understand child selectors"? Oh I *so* don't give a damn. :-P

>> Anyway, absolute positioning seems to work fine, but for the minor
>> detail that I need to figure out how wide the columns are supposed to
>> be...
>
> I try to avoid absolute positioning when possible, just because it takes
> things out of the flow. if I have to use it I ensure it's well-wrapped,
> but even then there can be some glitches where the positioning relates
> to the first parent that specifies a position rather than its container.

Yeah, it looks like styling this correctly is going to be fun... Still, 
at this point, I'm still getting the page content to be generated 
correctly. Assuming I tag enough stuff, it should be possible to fiddle 
with the CSS later.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 13/09/2010 10:14 PM, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> You indeed can generate the tree server-side. What's the problem with
>> nested ul's again?
> 
> I want the other columns (e.g., timestamp, attributes, owner, etc.) to 
> line up vertically.

see Phill Cook's reply

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:22:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake thusly:

>>>> .h1 {margin-bottom:0}
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that mean that the margin between the header and the real
>>> content would now be incorrect?
>>
>> Should still conform to line-height
>> <snip>
>
> I didn't think inline elements could have margins?

No it's just that the default is 0 for inline elements but some differ.

>>> Not sure you need to use ".indent"; why not just "li ul" or something?
>>
>> Because the first ul isn't indented and it allows you to create an extra
>> indent for a third level if needed without messing with child indicators
>> that IE doesn't understand.
>
> Ah. So the answer to "why not use child selectors" is simply "IE doesn't  
> understand child selectors"? Oh I *so* don't give a damn. :-P

Ah well they do work for IE7 so ul>ul would have been neater.

>>> Anyway, absolute positioning seems to work fine, but for the minor
>>> detail that I need to figure out how wide the columns are supposed to
>>> be...
>>
>> I try to avoid absolute positioning when possible, just because it takes
>> things out of the flow. if I have to use it I ensure it's well-wrapped,
>> but even then there can be some glitches where the positioning relates
>> to the first parent that specifies a position rather than its container.
>
> Yeah, it looks like styling this correctly is going to be fun... Still,  
> at this point, I'm still getting the page content to be generated  
> correctly. Assuming I tag enough stuff, it should be possible to fiddle  
> with the CSS later.

Well the benefit to the way I've done it is that it keeps the flow. That  
is the third column will be positioned by default behind the second column  
with no extra styling so you only need to set the sizes to indent+width  
for everything to line up.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2010 01:21 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 2. I want to build a file tree where you can collapse or expand tree
> nodes. The obvious way to do this is with the <ul> element. However, I
> also want each file to have attributes, a creation date, and so forth,
> and all these columns should line up vertically. The obvious way to do
> that is with a table. But it can't be a table and a list at the same time!
>
> I could use nested tables I suppose, but nested tables are EVIL! Is
> there some more semantically-transparent way that I can do this?
>
> Root 2009-09-12 Ahsc
> Resources 2009-09-10 Ahsc
> Main.css 2009-09-10 Ahsc
> Main.js 2009-09-10 Ahsc
> Packages 2009-09-12 Ahsc
> ansi-terminal 2009-09-12 Ahsc
> ...

Facepalm moment: Using CSS, you can render any element AS A TABLE! >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:59:13 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake thusly:

> On 12/09/2010 01:21 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> 2. I want to build a file tree where you can collapse or expand tree
>> nodes. The obvious way to do this is with the <ul> element. However, I
>> also want each file to have attributes, a creation date, and so forth,
>> and all these columns should line up vertically. The obvious way to do
>> that is with a table. But it can't be a table and a list at the same  
>> time!
>>
>> I could use nested tables I suppose, but nested tables are EVIL! Is
>> there some more semantically-transparent way that I can do this?
>>
>> Root 2009-09-12 Ahsc
>> Resources 2009-09-10 Ahsc
>> Main.css 2009-09-10 Ahsc
>> Main.js 2009-09-10 Ahsc
>> Packages 2009-09-12 Ahsc
>> ansi-terminal 2009-09-12 Ahsc
>> ...
>
> Facepalm moment: Using CSS, you can render any element AS A TABLE! >_<

Well yeah that was going to be my first response, but you wanted the  
columns offset within rows and that would have ended up just as messy as  
absolute positioning.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Facepalm moment: Using CSS, you can render any element AS A TABLE! >_<
>
> Well yeah that was going to be my first response, but you wanted the
> columns offset within rows and that would have ended up just as messy as
> absolute positioning.

Well, I can make it so that a <ul> who's <li> elements contain multiple 
<span> tags gets rendered as a regular table. What I *cannot* do is make 
nested <ul> elements render correctly. Not for love nor money.

I can, however, take a <table> and annotate each <tr> with a style class 
indicating how far to indent it, and get a result that looks exactly 
like what I want.

So I have a choice here: The information I want to present is 
semantically tabular *and* hierarchical. I can mark it up as <ul> (which 
lets be expose the hierarchy but hides the tabular nature in <span> 
tags), or I can mark it up as <table> (which exposes the tabular 
structure but hides the hierarchy in style class declarations).

I think I'm going to go with <table>, simply because it lets me actually 
achieve the rendering result I want. Sure, tables are evil. OTOH, my 
data actually *is* a table! So putting it in <table> isn't that much of 
a hack.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:35:08 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> I think I'm going to go with <table>, simply because it lets me actually  
> achieve the rendering result I want. Sure, tables are evil. OTOH, my  
> data actually *is* a table! So putting it in <table> isn't that much of  
> a hack.

Well yeah if it's tabular data present it in a table nothing evil about  
that well unless you're going to use nested tables just for display  
purposes that's frowned upon; and if you're not then you're going to have  
to style every single cell and that's just messy.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2010 10:50 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:35:08 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake thusly:
>
>> I think I'm going to go with <table>, simply because it lets me
>> actually achieve the rendering result I want. Sure, tables are evil.
>> OTOH, my data actually *is* a table! So putting it in <table> isn't
>> that much of a hack.
>
> Well yeah if it's tabular data present it in a table nothing evil about
> that well unless you're going to use nested tables just for display
> purposes that's frowned upon; and if you're not then you're going to
> have to style every single cell and that's just messy.

Nested tables won't even help me here. And no, I don't need to style 
every single cell. I just style each row (so I can get alternating 
colours) and each cell in column 1 (so I can set the indent). And since 
the whole table will be machine-generated anyway...

Post a reply to this message