>> I have no idea whether the drop shadows work now. I don't even remember
>> the property names...
>>
> It does... for some browsers.
> And round corners too... also for some.

Woo! Yay for standards and cross-platform interoperability. :-S

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> I'm particularly pleased with how I managed to insert chevrons
>>> *between* the links, but not before or after them. That look some
>>> figuring out.
>>
>> I was thinking about how you managed that one.
> 
>> Guess I'm missing latest CSS goodies, cause I've not heard of "content:"
>> before...
> 
> I read about the "content:" property way, waaaaaay back in 1998 or so. 

damn, I'm truly behind the times... :p

ok, I'm just unaware of the complete spec... I've got the box model 
pretty worked out though... :)

> Of course, reading about this, I was very excited, and immediately went 
> to try it out. But, as it turns out, neither Netscape nor IE took any 
> notice of these properties at all. I promptly forgot all about them, 
> since they don't work.
> 
> (In a similar vein, it's supposed to be possible to add drop shadows to 
> text and so on. That didn't work either.)

weirdly enough, I'm aware of latest CSS goodies like drop shadows, 
transitions, gradients, border-radius and so on.  Since they are still 
experimental, web browsers tend to have them available only via prefixes 
such as -moz-border-radius or -webkit-border-radius... won't cause any 
problem to browsers unaware of them because html-related techs were 
build around the idea to simply ignore tags and properties they don't 
understand.

Imagine if they used a static type system like in haskell:  "This page 
can't be shown:  a type mismatch has occurred!" :)

> Fast forward 10 years, and it seems these funky features are actually 
> *implemented* now. (I didn't bother to check whether IE supports it - 
> mainly since I don't give a damn.)

yeah, what percentage of your 2 blog readers would possibly be using IE?...

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I read about the "content:" property way, waaaaaay back in 1998 or so.
>
> damn, I'm truly behind the times... :p
>
> ok, I'm just unaware of the complete spec... I've got the box model
> pretty worked out though... :)

When I was at uni, I'd sit and read the spec from cover to cover. (Even 
though most of it doesn't actually make sense.) I learned loads of cool 
stuff... and then discovered that most of it has no relationship to reality.

>> (In a similar vein, it's supposed to be possible to add drop shadows
>> to text and so on. That didn't work either.)
>
> weirdly enough, I'm aware of latest CSS goodies like drop shadows,
> transitions, gradients, border-radius and so on. Since they are still
> experimental, web browsers tend to have them available only via prefixes
> such as -moz-border-radius or -webkit-border-radius... won't cause any
> problem to browsers unaware of them because html-related techs were
> build around the idea to simply ignore tags and properties they don't
> understand.

So some of these actually work now?

> Imagine if they used a static type system like in haskell: "This page
> can't be shown: a type mismatch has occurred!" :)

Yeah, whatever. It's perfectly possible to avoid this in Haskell (or 
just about any other Turing-complete language). It isn't even especially 
difficult. :-P

>> Fast forward 10 years, and it seems these funky features are actually
>> *implemented* now. (I didn't bother to check whether IE supports it -
>> mainly since I don't give a damn.)
>
> yeah, what percentage of your 2 blog readers would possibly be using IE?...

Maybe if enough web pages are broken in IE, people will start asking why 
MS produces such a defective product. (But I doubt it...)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:03:40 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>> yeah, what percentage of your 2 blog readers would possibly be using  
>> IE?...

Ow!

> Maybe if enough web pages are broken in IE, people will start asking why  
> MS produces such a defective product. (But I doubt it...)

Nah they'd just wonder why you can't write a proper web site like everyone  
else.

-- 
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

And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:18:09 +0100, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> Invisible escreveu:
>> On 21/09/2010 01:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I know, there's hardly anything ground-breaking in here.
>>  I'm particularly pleased with how I managed to insert chevrons  
>> *between* the links, but not before or after them. That look some  
>> figuring out.
>>  (The trick is to do :before {content: " > ";} and then do  
>> :first-child:before {content: "Navigation: ";}. You can even put  
>> additional styling in there; I've put "Navigation" in bold, for  
>> example.)
>
> I was thinking about how you managed that one.
> Guess I'm missing latest CSS goodies, cause I've not heard of "content:"  
> before...

As Invisible says it's one of those old ones that never got used because  
certain well-used browsers never implemented it. It also takes an attr()  
so you can pull an attribute from the element and present it. So you could  
have every <acronym> element end with the title attribute for instance. It  
gets even better with CSS3 as that allows styling by type of link so you  
can do things like:

a[href$='.pdf']:after { content: " (PDF)"; }

and every pdf link will add that content to the end of the link  
automatically.

I mean it's only taken, what, 12+ years to get to this level :-)

-- 
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 10:12 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> As Invisible says it's one of those old ones that never got used because
> certain well-used browsers never implemented it.

Or rather, "no browsers on Earth actually implemented it at all".

> I mean it's only taken, what, 12+ years to get to this level :-)

I'm still waiting for the day when you can take an ordinary <table> 
element with no special markup, and style is so that each row as an 
alternating background colour. :-P

(Currently the only way to do this is to assign different style classes 
to each row.)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:37:00 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> On 22/09/2010 10:12 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> As Invisible says it's one of those old ones that never got used because
>> certain well-used browsers never implemented it.
>
> Or rather, "no browsers on Earth actually implemented it at all".
>
>> I mean it's only taken, what, 12+ years to get to this level :-)
>
> I'm still waiting for the day when you can take an ordinary <table>  
> element with no special markup, and style is so that each row as an  
> alternating background colour. :-P
>
> (Currently the only way to do this is to assign different style classes  
> to each row.)

Off the top of my head I don't know which browsers support :nth-child(),  
but I'm betting the latest releases of IE don't. Tum te tum oh yes what a  
surprise it doesn't; the latest versions of Firefox do though so you can  
use it if you want.

-- 
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

>> I'm still waiting for the day when you can take an ordinary <table>
>> element with no special markup, and style is so that each row as an
>> alternating background colour. :-P
>>
>> (Currently the only way to do this is to assign different style
>> classes to each row.)
>
> Off the top of my head I don't know which browsers support :nth-child(),
> but I'm betting the latest releases of IE don't. Tum te tum oh yes what
> a surprise it doesn't; the latest versions of Firefox do though so you
> can use it if you want.

I hadn't even heard about :nth-child. (What, still no :last-child yet?) 
That still doesn't help me style a table with some arbitrary number of 
rows, where I want the odd rows blue and the even rows yellow.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:00:07 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>> I'm still waiting for the day when you can take an ordinary <table>
>>> element with no special markup, and style is so that each row as an
>>> alternating background colour. :-P
>>>
>>> (Currently the only way to do this is to assign different style
>>> classes to each row.)
>>
>> Off the top of my head I don't know which browsers support :nth-child(),
>> but I'm betting the latest releases of IE don't. Tum te tum oh yes what
>> a surprise it doesn't; the latest versions of Firefox do though so you
>> can use it if you want.
>
> I hadn't even heard about :nth-child. (What, still no :last-child yet?)  
> That still doesn't help me style a table with some arbitrary number of  
> rows, where I want the odd rows blue and the even rows yellow.

We're cross-threading here so I'll just repeat tr:nth-child(odd){} Oh and  
nth-last-child() will select elements backwards, but besides there is a  
:last-child. All hail CSS3.

-- 
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

>> I hadn't even heard about :nth-child. (What, still no :last-child
>> yet?) That still doesn't help me style a table with some arbitrary
>> number of rows, where I want the odd rows blue and the even rows yellow.
>
> We're cross-threading here so I'll just repeat tr:nth-child(odd){} Oh
> and nth-last-child() will select elements backwards, but besides there
> is a :last-child. All hail CSS3.

And, uh, how many years will it be before any browser anywhere starts to 
implement CSS3?

Post a reply to this message