Fixed top row in a table
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Float elements break block elemens - why?
Next: paypal wholesale all brand(UGGBOOTS,SHOES,CLOTHES,HANDBAG,WATCH,JEANS,JERSEY,T-SHIRT,SHIRTS,HOODY,EYEGLASS,CAP,SHAWL,WALLT) and so on
From: BootNic on 4 Mar 2010 20:46 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:03:21 +0100 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > BootNic wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>> BootNic wrote: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>> BootNic wrote: >>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>>>> [...] The Conditional Comments are the >>>>>>> only means to handle *this* quirk of *this* MSHTML version >>>>>>> reliably. >>>>>> Interesting! Well I suppose it may be a perspective issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> :root table.static tbody {â¦} >>>>> By comparison, CSS hacks like this are definitely going to do >>>>> something unintended once the corresponding selector is supported >>>>> by an implementation, regardless whether the feature declared >>>>> with it is going to be supported. They completely fail to >>>>> address the issue. >>>> CSS hack? What makes this a CSS hack? >>> A syntax element of CSS (CSS 3 Selectors PR, to be precise) is used >>> to prevent a rule from being applied to one or more elements in >>> user agents that do not support that syntax element. >> >> Backwards thinking that is. It is used to apply not deny. > > It was a reasonable assumption given that you used to to provide an > argument against Conditional Comments and did not provide any > property declarations, let alone explanations. An alternative to a conditional comment is not the same as argument against. In Jonathan's example there is no need for it. There are a few ways to apply the rules to the tbody without the need to use a conditional comment to fix IE7. Now if it were stated that a condition comment was best rather then the only reliable means, that I would agree with. >>>> An example of "something unintended" would be appreciated. >>> >>> You are the one to use this selector as a counter-argument, you >>> provide that example. >>> >>> Suffice it for me to say that if a user agent supports this >>> selector, the property declarations of it are supposed to be >>> applied. However, *again*, the property declarations have nothing >>> to do with the support of the selector, those are *seperate* >>> issues. And that is the very problem with this approach, that is >>> what makes it evidentially (sic!) error-prone. >> >> If this line of thinking is followed, no one would use any css3 at >> all. > > Your logic is flawed. > >>>> There is no "They", there is one rule. This rule totally address >>>> this issue, "*this* quirk of *this* MSHTML version". >>> >>> Most certainly it doesn't. This rule is either ignored by the >>> MSHTML version is intended for and all previous versions, or it is >>> supported by the MSHTML version it is intended for and all newer >>> versions. By contrast to Conditional Comments, it does _not_ and >>> can _not_ target only _one_ specific version. >> >> If anything was targeted, it would be UAs that support :root. > > Not necessarily. > >>>> It makes no since to trigger an issue then fix it when it can >>>> simply be avoided. >>> Parse error. >> >> The point is what? What is a UA to do when it cannot parse a >> selector? > > The point is that your statement does not make sense. They are questions not statements. -- BootNic Thu Mar 4, 2010 08:46 pm Curious things, habits. People themselves never knew they had them. *Agatha Christie* â 130 days remaining
From: Jonathan N. Little on 4 Mar 2010 20:57 BootNic wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:03:21 +0100 > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn<PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > >> BootNic wrote: >>> The point is what? What is a UA to do when it cannot parse a >>> selector? >> >> The point is that your statement does not make sense. > > They are questions not statements. > I know what they are supposed to do, ignore the rule for that selector. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Mar 2010 21:09 BootNic wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >> BootNic wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>>> BootNic wrote: >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>>> BootNic wrote: >>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] The Conditional Comments are the >>>>>>>> only means to handle *this* quirk of *this* MSHTML version >>>>>>>> reliably. >>>>>>> Interesting! Well I suppose it may be a perspective issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :root table.static tbody {…} >>>>>> By comparison, CSS hacks like this are definitely going to do >>>>>> something unintended once the corresponding selector is supported >>>>>> by an implementation, regardless whether the feature declared >>>>>> with it is going to be supported. They completely fail to >>>>>> address the issue. >>>>> CSS hack? What makes this a CSS hack? >>>> A syntax element of CSS (CSS 3 Selectors PR, to be precise) is used >>>> to prevent a rule from being applied to one or more elements in >>>> user agents that do not support that syntax element. >>> Backwards thinking that is. It is used to apply not deny. >> It was a reasonable assumption given that you used to to provide an >> argument against Conditional Comments and did not provide any >> property declarations, let alone explanations. > > An alternative to a conditional comment is not the same as argument > against. In Jonathan's example there is no need for it. Yes, there is. MSHTML 7 supports the `height' property on a TBODY element but does so incorrectly, giving each row that height instead. > There are a few ways to apply the rules to the tbody without the need to > use a conditional comment to fix IE7. Name them. > Now if it were stated that a condition comment was best rather > then the only reliable means, that I would agree with. In this case (targeting a specific version of a specific user agent) it sure looks as being the only (reliable) means. >>>>> It makes no since to trigger an issue then fix it when it can >>>>> simply be avoided. >>>> Parse error. >>> The point is what? What is a UA to do when it cannot parse a >>> selector? >> The point is that your statement does not make sense. > > They are questions not statements. "It makes no since to trigger an issue then fix it when it can simply be avoided." is a statement, and it does not make sense. PointedEars
From: dorayme on 4 Mar 2010 21:28 In article <1290152.kT8p0MMh6R(a)PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> wrote: > "It makes no sense to trigger an issue then fix it when it can > simply be avoided." is a statement, and it does not make sense. ! -- dorayme
From: Nick Theodorakis on 4 Mar 2010 22:06
On Mar 4, 4:29 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Nick Theodorakis wrote: > > P.S.: Your signature delimiter is borken. Yeah, I know. I lost my real newsfeed and I'm too cheap to pay for a new one. Google groups strips off the trailing space. I still put it there when I post, in case they ever fix it on their end. Nick -- Nick Theodorakis nick_theodorakis(a)hotmail.com contact form: http://theodorakis.net/contact.html |