>> Irritatingly, what you *cannot* do is content: " → ". This is
>> extremely frustrating, and currently I cannot find any way around this
>> flaw.
>
> content: "\2192"

Oh God, you *are* kidding me, right?? o_O

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/09/2010 16:19, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Irritatingly, what you *cannot* do is content: " → ". This is
>>> extremely frustrating, and currently I cannot find any way around this
>>> flaw.
>>
>> content: "\2192"
> 
> Oh God, you *are* kidding me, right?? o_O

content: is not reparsed by the engine, so no entities would be
substituted, but that should not stop you to encode the right char.

Give it a try.
(U+2192 is unicode for → )
Of course, your font must support it...

Post a reply to this message

>>> content: "\2192"
>>
>> Oh God, you *are* kidding me, right?? o_O
>
> content: is not reparsed by the engine, so no entities would be
> substituted, but that should not stop you to encode the right char.

Yeah. I already discovered that you can't use it to insert any new tags 
either. (I guess if you could, it would be a macro expansion engine...)

> Give it a try. (U+2192 is unicode for→ )

Cool. So now I have to memorise character codes. Yay. :-(

> Of course, your font must support it...

Yeah, well, that's always entertaining. ;-)

(The again, I've installed a pack of MathML fonts, so it's usually OK.)

Post a reply to this message

OK, wanna see something weird?

   line-height: 100%;

You'd think this sets the line height to its default value. You'd be 
wrong. As best as I can tell, the default hight (for Firefox) is 120%. 
And, as far as I can tell from the W3C spec, this default value is 
allowed to vary arbitrarily for each browser.

Yay, that's useful! :-/

Post a reply to this message

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...

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

I was beginning to think it wouldn't be possible. I could put one in 
front of *every* link, or after *every* link, but not *between* links 
only. It took some tweaking to get it to work. (There is a :first-child 
selector, but no :last-child selector, crucially enough...)

> 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. 
The idea is that, in combination with the ":before" and ":after" 
psuedo-element selectors and the automatic counters, you're supposed to 
be able to do things like automatically number section headings, like 
TeX does.

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.)

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.)

I have no idea whether the drop shadows work now. I don't even remember 
the property names...

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

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/09/2010 21:21, Orchid XP v8 nous fit lire :

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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