Topic: floating divs (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=10879" title="Pages that link to Topic: floating divs (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic: floating divs <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
u-neek
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Berlin, Germany
Insane since: Jan 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-15-2002 11:20 Edit Quote

http://thinkdrastic.de/asylum/think2/journal/

Any knows why opera(6.04) renders some tumbnails *under* the main content?
Fixes, solutions?

Thanks.

u-neek
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Berlin, Germany
Insane since: Jan 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-19-2002 13:05 Edit Quote

Hello?

Perfect Thunder
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milwaukee
Insane since: Oct 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-27-2002 21:35 Edit Quote

The trouble with this kind of problem is that there are so many interacting factors that it's nearly impossible to give a straight answer. The only real solution is "screw with it until it works, and if you can't get it to work, scrap it and use a different method." I just spent a half-hour trying to get your page to render correctly in Opera, and I couldn't. In your position, I would cut my losses and either accept the Opera bug, or redo it using absolute positioning; or redo it using a different system of floats. I'm certain there's one particular rendering problem, and I'm certain there's a workaround, but I don't know it.

u-neek
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Berlin, Germany
Insane since: Jan 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-27-2002 22:04 Edit Quote

I fixed it using img-tags instead of divs with background attribute.
The final result can be found here: http://thinkdrastic.de/

Can somone of the mac users post a screenshot? I have no idea how the site looks at that OS.

Thanks.

Perfect Thunder
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milwaukee
Insane since: Oct 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-27-2002 23:17 Edit Quote

I would have suggested using actual <img /> tags, also... I just assumed you had some special reason to do it like you had.

In general, you should use <img /> tags for anything that is meant to be an important part of the page; background-image should be used for pure decoration, things that wouldn't be important to a text-mode browser, for instance. On my (recent) pages, the main logo is an <img /> with alt text, while the "interface" graphics are divs with background-images.

u-neek
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Berlin, Germany
Insane since: Jan 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-28-2002 00:53 Edit Quote

I regulary use <img />, but it is being deprecated in XHTML 2.0. I tried a workaround - no use of <img /> - , but came to the conclusion, that actual browser are not able to manage that.

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

IP logged posted posted 12-28-2002 02:34 Edit Quote

Definitely, still use <img> for images. XHTML 2 is still in draft form, and browsers haven't even begun to follow it yet. It'll be at least a year before this starts changing.

Perfect Thunder
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milwaukee
Insane since: Oct 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-28-2002 06:23 Edit Quote

I don't know why <img> is being deprecated at all. If an image is central to the content of a page, it SHOULD be an element of its own, so that text-mode browsers will at least display its alt text and offer the option of downloading it.

At any rate, a standard should only be used to the extent that it is useful. Right now, XHTML 2.0 is definitely not. Do I try to incorporate "best practices"? Sure. But for the moment, eliminating <img> tags, particularly when they can have an important semantic element in a well-designed page, is not the best practice.

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

IP logged posted posted 12-28-2002 08:16 Edit Quote

They're being eliminated because the <object> tag serves the same purpose. In addition, the <object> tag can display *any* type of media that the browser can support (flash, java, etc), and has a much more useful method of displaying alternate content than the <img> tag's alt attribute. The deprecation of <img> (along with <applet> ), I believe, will be a very good thing because of this.

Perfect Thunder
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milwaukee
Insane since: Oct 2001

IP logged posted posted 12-28-2002 09:00 Edit Quote

Ah, I should have studied up before opening my mouth. I somehow assumed that they were just taking the "style vs. content" thing a little too far.

That said, I've been seeing more people than just U-Neek saying "well, <img> is deprecated, so I'm going to use nothing but background-image." A rethinking of <object> sounds like a good idea, but it also means that ditching <img> in the present remains a bad idea.



Post Reply
 
Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options: Remember Me On This Computer
 
Your Text:
Loading...
Options: Show Signature
Enable Slimies
Enable Linkwords

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu