GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
wonders why you are even arguing the point when clearly you agree...
ps like the gallery though it seems a tad familar
Website question
- Thread starter 5T3R30TYP3
- Start date
wonders why you are even arguing the point when clearly you agree...
ps like the gallery though it seems a tad familar
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
GarfieldLeChat said:wonders why you are even arguing the point when clearly you agree...
ps like the gallery though it seems a tad familar
Cheerz. That's getting a php makeover soon though.
I dallied with GoLive before Adobe bought it and lost interest round v5.0. Dreamweaver/CS3 might be worth an upgrade fee. I'll stick with BBEdit till then.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i have no idea tbh i didn't even look at the code out put i wanted to see what it's wysiwyg editor was any good... needless to say it's the only site i have built in it...
also wonders what else is in the code....
also wonders what else is in the code....
edit: forget it, i'd saved the css file in the wrong place. should stop staying up all night.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
huh?cybertect said:
golive thicko
look im not sure how this happened but some one asked for help on their site with stuff they asked for some info and i gave some which apperently they foudn useful, i have no idea why you have decided to turn this into some kind of 733l pissing competition on how kewll a coder you are, my home page wasn't and isnt' the topic of your discussion if you wish to mention summit about it please pm me and i wll feel under no obligation to take any notice of you frankly about my personal site. cos it's my site for my things thank you... it's not intended for a wider audinece than me and mine... if oyu happen to stumble upon it then great groovey enjoy but really it's not open to discussion espically but an arsey prick like yourself who's got some kind of eleitist bollcks going on about code...
i'm to busy deal witht he actual sites which are for public consumption and have around a mllion unique vews a month being a public usuage site reguallry featured on the bbc and other places to enguage in your triflling pissing contest in order to bolster your ego so if you have anythign to add to sterotypes questions about css please do but if you just wish to ponce around about my site start afucking thread of your own you prize twat and stop derailing this one...
some fucking people...
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
sorry, that wasn't intended as any kind of comment on your site which, as you already mentioned, was built with GoLive.
It was supposed to be a humorous reference to FrontPage's propensity to spew unwanted code into HTML, leaving you wondering precisely what it's put there, just as you'd noticed something odd appearing in your own with GoLive.
Perhaps I should have made that clearer, for which I apologise humbly.
and yes, this is all getting a bit off-topic.
P.S. Your site is fine and I love the photography
It was supposed to be a humorous reference to FrontPage's propensity to spew unwanted code into HTML, leaving you wondering precisely what it's put there, just as you'd noticed something odd appearing in your own with GoLive.
Perhaps I should have made that clearer, for which I apologise humbly.
and yes, this is all getting a bit off-topic.
P.S. Your site is fine and I love the photography
You lot fackin stitched me up! I just made the website (different to the original one I showed you) out of CSS style sheets, and it ain't workin' the way I want it to! I think I'm gonna resort to tables ya know!!!!
what it actually is is that the site displayes differently in opera than it does in IE,... and I can't get IE to do what I want
what it actually is is that the site displayes differently in opera than it does in IE,... and I can't get IE to do what I want
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
IE's CSS standards compliance is ummm.. slightly less than stellar
In particular, its implementation of the CSS box model is a bit broken with regard to to setting widths of objects, but you can hack your way round it.
The other thing to bear in mind when getting your head round CSS layouts is that they're inherently much more 'fluid' than HTML table-based layouts. If you're used to locking things down with pixel accuracy be prepared to start rethinking your approach to page design. It can be a bit of a culture-shock at first.
Fixed-size layouts work well if you're designing for a specific browser on a specific platform, but when you start to consider that people will be using a multitude of devices and browsers to access your site, CSS offers a good deal more usable flexibility at the expense of it working precisely like a magazine layout from the outset.
The wider benefits of faster page loads, being able to re-purpose your content for different platforms and even even re-layout the content at short notice is worth it in the long run.
if there's a specific issue, I may be able to help
In particular, its implementation of the CSS box model is a bit broken with regard to to setting widths of objects, but you can hack your way round it.
The other thing to bear in mind when getting your head round CSS layouts is that they're inherently much more 'fluid' than HTML table-based layouts. If you're used to locking things down with pixel accuracy be prepared to start rethinking your approach to page design. It can be a bit of a culture-shock at first.
Fixed-size layouts work well if you're designing for a specific browser on a specific platform, but when you start to consider that people will be using a multitude of devices and browsers to access your site, CSS offers a good deal more usable flexibility at the expense of it working precisely like a magazine layout from the outset.
The wider benefits of faster page loads, being able to re-purpose your content for different platforms and even even re-layout the content at short notice is worth it in the long run.
if there's a specific issue, I may be able to help
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Sure you're not thinking of IE5? IE6 (in standards mode, not quirks mode) gets the box model right.cybertect said:IE's CSS standards compliance is ummm.. slightly less than stellar
In particular, its implementation of the CSS box model is a bit broken with regard to to setting widths of objects, but you can hack your way round it.
Eh? CSS layouts are no more "inherently fluid" (or inherently anything else) than table-based layouts, it all depends on what you want to do... and how good you are at doing it right. It is true, though, that with CSS it is much easier to make fluid layouts - but I don't think that's what you meant.
Here's the site so far, after about three changes. It'll probably undergo a couple more too. Whaddya think?? No tables, just css. I feel pretty stoked that I've learnt something new. 
thanks to you lot for giving me the kick up the arse to learn something other than basic html.
As a final favour, can anyone let me know if it looks ok in Firefucks and Shatfari?
http://www.leebuckley.co.uk/fpsbmx
or http://www.fpsbmx.co.uk/
thanks to you lot for giving me the kick up the arse to learn something other than basic html. As a final favour, can anyone let me know if it looks ok in Firefucks and Shatfari?
http://www.leebuckley.co.uk/fpsbmx
or http://www.fpsbmx.co.uk/
Need more help...
Hi,
I need help positioning images.
It seems that CSS only lets you position stuff relative to other things, e.g. the distance between the left of the image and the left of the browser screen.
As far as I'm aware there's no way of making the centre of the image align with the centre of the screen.
This is a pain in the arse for me, because I've been trying to make a javascript slideshow with both portrait and landscape images.
It's fine for the portrait ones, because they're all the same width and I can just centre them by setting the distance between the left of the picture and the left of the screen.
But as soon as a landscape picture comes up, because it's wider than the portrait ones, it's off to the right of the screen instead of to the centre.
Hi,
I need help positioning images.
It seems that CSS only lets you position stuff relative to other things, e.g. the distance between the left of the image and the left of the browser screen.
As far as I'm aware there's no way of making the centre of the image align with the centre of the screen.
This is a pain in the arse for me, because I've been trying to make a javascript slideshow with both portrait and landscape images.
It's fine for the portrait ones, because they're all the same width and I can just centre them by setting the distance between the left of the picture and the left of the screen.
But as soon as a landscape picture comes up, because it's wider than the portrait ones, it's off to the right of the screen instead of to the centre.
5T3R30TYP3 said:
And how would you position them, if not relative to something?
You really don't want to get me started on Mach's Paradox and the like
5T3R30TYP3 said:
Well, yes, that's one possibility.
You positions things (e.g. DIVs) relative to the containing thing (e.g. another DIV, or the implied DIV that is the page).
You also want to investigate the "clear" attribute (reminds me: so do I: a couple of hundred of my pages are broken in IE5).
5T3R30TYP3 said:
You could always use javascript to compute and set the left attribute
Or you could explore the text-align property... make a div with width:100% and text-align:center and inside that a paragraph and inside that a div with the image in it...
Edited to add: this looks almost readable, and I may have to explore it further: Float layouts
"Or you could explore the text-align property... make a div with width:100% and text-align:center and inside that a paragraph and inside that a div with the image in it..."
I tried this before, I must have done something wrong because it didn't work. It works now though. Ta.
I tried this before, I must have done something wrong because it didn't work. It works now though. Ta.
5T3R30TYP3 said:
PMSL!!!!!
squelch said:PMSL!!!!!
Similar threads
