canvas support will be decent? That various browsers will just snap to, at long last? The concept is as outdated as the Best Viewed with Netscape badge and looks like a futile effort on the part of the W3C to hold onto web relevance after their bungling of XHTML 2.0. #cssjokes .perthread {
z-index:1 !important;
}Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?Off the top of my head...USB, Bluetooth, Firewire/1394, HDMI
vertical-center rule that does in all contexts what vertical-align does in combination with display: table-cell. overflow values available right now don't cut it, but this could get there.<table class="layout"> when I'm faced with a layout case for which tables make more sense. This in itself is probably unnecessary, given that human coders are generally pretty skilled at telling a layout table from a semantic one, and computers can be too given a few simple heuristics, but maybe every little bit helps.Some kind of rule that says 'contain your contents, dammit'
body {
width: 960px;
}
#wrapper {
width: 960px;
float: left; //won't go anywhere since it's the same width as the body
}
#contents {
width: 600px;
float: left;
}
#nav {
width: 340px;
float: right;
}
The logo is very well executed. And a logo for HTML5 is a good idea.I stand by my objection -- the 'HTML5' logo conflates almost a dozen loosely related but independent technologies, grouping them under the banner of one specific standard that does NOT in fact rely on them.
And HTML5 is A GOOD THING.
Reading this discussion has been disheartening and depressing.
Are you kidding? They're handing you a work order, and what's more, you know it is an evolving standard that will require future work orders. They're happy they're getting HTML in a video tag, and you're happy knowing you billed 60+ hours and another 60 hours down the road when FireFox/Chrome makes a breaking change, and they're paying you to learn a new technology.I think we're definitely talking about different kinds of problems. Getting change requests from clients that would otherwise be asking about The Myspace and Facebooks isn't really what haunts my days. That 60 extra hours you mention wouldn't be gravy on the projects I work on -- it would be an unanticipated bump on a carefully plotted 800+ hour project timeline, evidence that I and the rest of the developers on my team didn't do our jobs up front when we estimated the complexity of the assorted tasks.
overflow: hidden or a clearing div. But it's not what I'm talking about, really. Closer would be the problems of having #wrapper expand to fill an unknown width. Or having both #nav and #content expand to fill the height of #wrapper.Let's say you've got a form design that calls for labels off to the left of text inputs, and the combined width of each label plus each text input (plus some small margin between the two) is supposed to be some fixed width.
short label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
a longer label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
middle label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
tiny label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
The layout I'm asking about is instead like this:
short label | xxxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxx a longer label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx middle label | xxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxx tiny label | xxxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxxxSo, no fixed width for either the text input or the label, but their individual widths are supposed to sum to a fixed width.
form {
width: 600px;
}
label, input {
display: block;
float: left;
width: auto;
}
label {
clear: left;
margin: 0 10px 20px 0;
}
« Older The FCC and Department of Justice have approved Co... | Know that feeling of disappoin... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Burhanistan at 12:37 PM on January 18, 2011 [9 favorites]