Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

[dorayme]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

In article <45f2cb5f.0@ent anet>, "mark" <mar-k@localhost.net >
wrote:

>
"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f2b0fe$1 _2@news.bluewin .ch...

mark wrote:
...ll possible you will
want to change the decoration, i.e., use some other image, like
squiggles.gif. In that case, "#bgleft" will be pretty silly.

>
why are you talking at me like I'm some kind of retard? I'm testing out a
layout, end of story.

I don't think he was talking to you as if you were a retard. Not
especially at least.

--
dorayme

[mark]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f3546c$1 _7@news.bluewin .ch...

mark wrote:

Ooh, yummy! Images instead of code, imageshack instead of a real server
(pop-up ads don't endear me, somehow.)
>
More to the point: What's your point? What are you trying to communicate
to us? How is this different from what I provided (except that our
semi-circles are swapped)?

How can you not possibly see it's different? the very fact your sample had
the circles fixed at the edges of the browser window and mine has them fixed
on either side of the center cell/content. You have the code, and now images
and you still cannot understand what I wanted.

>And in http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5360/picture2tm6.png your "800px
>wide content" is still not 800px wide. So I remain confused.

that width of the white area in the center is exactly 800px. Measure it.

>resized browser:
>>
>http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture3dt4.png (
>http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4214/picture3dt4.png ) notice there
>are no horizontal scrollbars.

>
What are these pictures? What do you mean "resized browser"? Do you just
mean sized differently from the previous two images?

I mean it showes what happens to the background circles once the width of
the browser is reduced, I would have thought that was obvious. If this were
your sample the circles would remain fully visible due to the fact they are
attached to the edges of the browser window.

>Besides, I think I have my facts at least as straight you do.

you clearly don't

[mark]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f35238$1 _5@news.bluewin .ch...

>
I *did* test the code (see my other post). The facts you claim here apply
only to certain browsers. The fact that you can claim a logical oddity
like 49% + 800px + 49% = [less than 40000px] and get a validation of your
claims from some excuse for a browser says a lot about the quality of IE,
and the problems of coding to one browser's quirks.

lol, now you're saying I designed the table for 'IE quirks'...? You'll find
the table renders exactly the same in FF1-2, S1-2, IE 4-7, Opera 6-9,
Camino.... Hardly an IE quirk :-/ More like the way tables are designed to
work..

And it's not 49% + 800px + 49% at all, just shows what little you know about
tables. The table width is defined as 100%, this is key. And the cells
49%+2%+49% = 100%. It will always be at least 100% wide with a minimum width
of the content it contains, in this case 1px+800px+1px. The width of the
outer cells will be a minimum of 1px and a maximum of 49% of the table
width. The width of the center cell will either be 800px or 2%, whichever is
greater.

[mark]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS


"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f34fae$1 _4@news.bluewin .ch...

>
My problem, mate, is that I tried to help you, and you chose (a) to make
it difficult to help you, and (b) to insult me when I did.

I insulted you? ....that's take some quotes from your initial reply shall
we:

>"#bgleft" will be pretty silly

>Wait a minute; if you *were*... it *would*...? Awfully conditional words

>Is that why you didn't provide a URL? Because you don't have actual code
>you're trying to "convert"?

>Is it because the code isn't actual (but merely typed in to your post on

the fly) that the code above doesn't do what you claim you want it to
do?

>How about for reference we assume you copied and pasted without paying

attention? ;-)

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say, 'Can you please post a URL, I
can't help you until you do'...?

I didn't "wish to test it," but you asked for help, and when a brother
needs help, I like to be able to provide it. Your post was just sitting
there unanswered for an hour, so I went the extra distance. Your welcome.

You didn't help me at all, just wasted my time and yours by being so rude.

By the way, as Rik has pointed out, copy-and-paste is more trouble than
some problems are worth for some people, so you reduce the quantity of
help you might get. Besides which, if it's so damn easy to do it, why
don't *you* do it? It's "all you have to do."
>
If *you* can't be bothered doing the minimum work, why should each of us?

Settings up a server/host is easier than copying and pasting into a text
file? Look, I quite understand you don't like to help without a sample URL,
that's fair enough. I will not post here without one again. OK?

[OP's CSS and my advice about class names snipped]
>

>why are you talking at me like I'm some kind of retard? I'm testing out a
>layout, end of story. I'm sorry if you don't like the way I'm named my
>IDs.

>
It's the "end of story" if you keep testing locally and don't ask for help
in a public NG. If you post to usenet you run the risk of having your code
discussed publicly, by people who know much, much more than you (the
advantage of Usenet) as well as by people with less of a clue (the
disadvantage of Planet Earth). My remarks were meant as helpful tips.

What I find funny is that you're trying to give me tips on things I didn't
even ask for! For you to tell me how I should be doing a certain thing when
I'm merely testing is not needed and not relevant to the problem in hand.
I'm working a test file, I didn't think twice about the width of the class
names because they do not matter at all as regards the problem I'm trying to
solve.

[OP's code snipped]
>

>>>Is it because the code isn't actual (but merely typed in to your post on
>>>the fly) that the code above doesn't do what you claim you want it to do?

>>
>I'm sorry, but it does. I tested it before putting it into the post. I've
>also used this type of layout many times before. I find it funny that you
>tell me my code doesn't do what I already know it does. More like you
>don't actually understand what I want.

>
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. I didn't copy and paste your code and then test
in IE. Because I have Firefox set as my default browser, I saw what I saw.
I realize now (looking back and re-testing [you're welcome]) that IE and
Opera deal with your code differently. It is clear to me that as you "test
locally" you avoid use of Mozilla browsers. If you try your code in
browsers besides IE you might see something like what I saw:
http://mypage.bluewin.ch/jlh/Mark.JPG

oh jeez, the only reason that is happening is because you have no 'foo.gif'.
I would have thought that was pretty clear, especially to an 'expert' like
yourself!!! Second of all, like I said in my response to your initial
replay, the 800px width matters not, it's the way the backgrounds are
aligned to the outside of the center cell. As the above image shows exactly.
The code works percectly, the only problem you're seeing is that Mozilla and
Opera are not honouring the width of the broken image.

Second of all, considering I'm testing on a mac, why do you keep assuming
I'm ONLY using IE? I find that rather funny, I even posted screenshots of
Safari.

<snip rest of lecture>

[John Hosking]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

mark wrote:

"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f3546c$1 _7@news.bluewin .ch...
>

>>mark wrote:

>
that width of the white area in the center is exactly 800px. Measure it.

I did, both images. Trust me.


I do not foresee attempting to communicate with you again. HAND

--
John

[Bergamot]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

mark wrote:

"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f34fae$1 _4@news.bluewin .ch...
>

>If *you* can't be bothered doing the minimum work, why should each of us?

>
Settings up a server/host is easier than copying and pasting into a text
file?

We don't care how difficult it is for *you*. We care about how difficult
it is for *us*. If you want help, you should make it as easy as possible
for us to help you. Posting a URL is the way.

Look, I quite understand you don't like to help without a sample URL,
that's fair enough. I will not post here without one again. OK?

I'm wondering what incentive we have to give you any assistance at all
if you're just going to be argumentative about everything? Your attitude
leaves something to be desired.

What I find funny is that you're trying to give me tips on things I didn't
even ask for!

Welcome to Usenet. This is a discussion group, so we discuss things. It
is not a help desk. It is not unusual to point out poor coding or design
practices when we see them. If we happen to give you the answer you were
originally seeking, consider it a bonus.

--
Berg

[dorayme]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

In article <45f3ec6d.0@ent anet>, "mark" <mar-k@localhost.net >
wrote:

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say, 'Can you please post a URL, I
can't help you until you do'...?

Maybe it would have. But these are not magic words and could
easily have been answered with a storm of protest by you. Since
old John has now had enough of you, would you mind carrying on a
bit of flaming with me. I like it you see. One way to distract
myself is always as good as any other really... I want you to
think of horrible cutting things and we can take it from there...

--
dorayme

[mark]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-9A5CC7.08383412 032007@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

In article <45f3ec6d.0@ent anet>, "mark" <mar-k@localhost.net >
wrote:
>

>Wouldn't it have just been easier to say, 'Can you please post a URL, I
>can't help you until you do'...?

>
Maybe it would have.

right, really that's all it needed. Instead of the patronising BS

But these are not magic words and could
easily have been answered with a storm of protest by you.

I wouldn't have protested, but if you read John's response to my OP it
really is rather rude, making a lot of false assumptions. I will not post
here for CSS help again, it's that simple.

>Since
old John has now had enough of you, would you mind carrying on a
bit of flaming with me. I like it you see. One way to distract
myself is always as good as any other really... I want you to
think of horrible cutting things and we can take it from there...

I suggest if you like these type of arguments you post here under another
name and not post a URL, I'm sure John will be all too happy to assist you
in your quest for a bit of 'flaming' ;-)

[mark]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi. comwrote in message
news:55j27mF25c l3hU1@mid.indiv idual.net...

mark wrote:

>"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
>news:45f34fae$ 1_4@news.bluewi n.ch...
>>

>>If *you* can't be bothered doing the minimum work, why should each of
>>us?

>>
>Settings up a server/host is easier than copying and pasting into a text
>file?

>
We don't care how difficult it is for *you*. We care about how difficult
it is for *us*. If you want help, you should make it as easy as possible
for us to help you. Posting a URL is the way.

Fair enough, like I said in another post. If this is the case all was needed
to be said was 'Can you please post a URL, otherwise we can't help you'
That's it.

Instead I get all this nonesense.....

>"#bgleft" will be pretty silly

>Wait a minute; if you *were*... it *would*...? Awfully conditional words

>Is that why you didn't provide a URL? Because you don't have actual code
>you're trying to "convert"?

>Is it because the code isn't actual (but merely typed in to your post on

the fly) that the code above doesn't do what you claim you want it to
do?

>How about for reference we assume you copied and pasted without paying

attention? ;-)

Just un-needed and wrong, it's no wonder this thread turned out the way it
did with such a response.

>Look, I quite understand you don't like to help without a sample URL,
>that's fair enough. I will not post here without one again. OK?

>
I'm wondering what incentive we have to give you any assistance at all
if you're just going to be argumentative about everything? Your attitude
leaves something to be desired.

If you read the thread from start to finish, you'll see my post was answered
IMO rather rude.

>What I find funny is that you're trying to give me tips on things I
>didn't
>even ask for!

>
Welcome to Usenet. This is a discussion group, so we discuss things. It
is not a help desk. It is not unusual to point out poor coding or design
practices when we see them. If we happen to give you the answer you were
originally seeking, consider it a bonus.

It's not a bonus at all, it's akin to posting a message on a web authoring
group concerning a Flash problem. There's always going to be people who
rather than answer your query will question your decision to even use Flash
in the first place. As was the case here with a fixed px layout. I've heard
it all before and it was totally irrelevant to the problem at hand. Hence
the reason I don't appreciate the advice, to assume I don't know the pros
and cons of a fixed vs elastic layout is poor game.

[dorayme]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

In article <45f4a1ab.0@ent anet>, "mark" <mar-k@localhost.net >
wrote:

Fair enough, like I said in another post. If this is the case all was needed
to be said was 'Can you please post a URL, otherwise we can't help you'
That's it.
>
Instead I get all this nonesense...

It is not always an easy thing to judge, to go ahead and give
practical advice about something that one has misgivings about in
the first place or to simply stay out of it. Sometimes one
stumbles on ... (as did John) and it is not always well received.
Perhaps you are a perfectly normal earthling and do not
understand that we here have no other outside life and cannot
keep out of too much otherwise we face the creepiest alternative
of all.. total and self-conscious solipsism, a fate worse than
death.

--
dorayme

[Bergamot]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

mark wrote:

>
like I said in another post. If this is the case all was needed
to be said was 'Can you please post a URL, otherwise we can't help you'
That's it.

Um, your words, after the first response to your original query:

Mate, what is your problem? I didn't provide a URL because I'm testing
locally. I've provided sample code, really sorry if it's not good enough for
you. If you wish to test it, then all you have to do is copy and paste and
save the images I linked.

You ignored all requests to post a URL. Sorry you couldn't be bothered.

Instead I get all this nonesense.....

You really need a thicker skin if you're going to play in Usenet.
Frankly, I'm mighty tired of newbies who don't bother learning the
conventions of the newsgroup they are posting to, then getting all
defensive and arguing about things when they don't like what they hear.
You aren't the first, nor will you be the last. <heavy sigh>

There's always going to be people who
rather than answer your query will question your decision to even use Flash
in the first place. As was the case here with a fixed px layout. I've heard
it all before and it was totally irrelevant to the problem at hand.

I guess you didn't hear the part about this being a discussion group,
not a help desk. Shall I repeat it?

Hence
the reason I don't appreciate the advice, to assume I don't know the pros
and cons of a fixed vs elastic layout is poor game.

Arrogance will get you nowhere, except kill-filed.

--
Berg

[Geoffrey Summerhayes]

Re: Struggling to convert this layout into CSS

On Mar 11, 7:59 am, John Hosking <J...@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LID>
wrote:

mark wrote:

"John Hosking" <J...@DELETE.Ho sking.name.INVA LIDwrote in message
news:45f3546c$1 _7@news.bluewin .ch...

>

>mark wrote:

>

that width of the white area in the center is exactly 800px. Measure it.

>
I did, both images. Trust me.
>
I do not foresee attempting to communicate with you again. HAND
>
--
John

I'm not surprised. Tested the html in the OP, got the same
results, including behaviour on resizing the browser to smaller
than 800px, on every one I tested: IE7,FF,Opera,NN

Measured images, white area=800px.

In other words, I fail to see why mark was jumped on. He gave
HTML that worked cross-browser and asked for help converting
it to a css-based presentation. Instead he gets told that his
HTML doesn't work, WTF?

I only browsed this NG looking for a place to post css questions
but this obviously ain't the place to go. Ciao.