Topic: CSS: body in NS4

are there known problems with the body-identifier in NS4?
i have the following line in my css-file:

body { font-size: 10px; font-family: "verdana", "arial", "helvetica", sans-serif; }

but NS4 still shows me the default times new roman font.
it all works fine with IE and NS6.

Try losing the quotes. You only need quotes if the name of the font is tow seperate words (seperate as in no hyphen...like "Lucida Console"....for example).

Also, just double check you don't have NN set to override the page font.

hm. thanks for your help DL-44, but there's still no change.
i've removed all quotes...
and of course i have unchecked "override fonts..."

any other ideas?

ahhhh! i got it!

i had my text in between <P> and </P>.
then i added:

P { font-size: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; }

to my css and now it works fine....

another job well done.

i had the same problem some times ago, but didn't see any solution how NN handel the 'body {font-family}' thing. my last solution was, that i put the body text into the <span class="yourclass">-tag. this will set the font in NN.

hehe
this is also a solution, but p is a paragraph. so everytime u set <p> u get some blank space. <span> will do that without a blank space!

not if i work with <p></p>! (as GoLive does)

it is easier/more efficient if you do it like this:

body, p, td, li { font-size: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif }

you will get the same problem with tables and lists in netscape. may as well plan ahead when you write your css.

------
this rose has a thorn...

wohooo!
i didnt know you can do that in css.

btw: how can i write comments in css?

i think the only "legal" method of commenting in css is like this: /* this is commented */ this is not commented.

------
this rose has a thorn...

Annoyingly, Netscape Nav doesn't support the "cascading" part of "cascading style sheets"... what you originally had *should* have worked, but NN is evil.

- Slime

well, the annoying part of css validation means that my sites will never validate because i dont define background-color for my paragraphs, tables, lists, etc. i rely on the "cascading" part of css to take care of that for me, since body is already defined with a bg color.

i refuse to add bg color to those elements because i rely on them to be the default "transparent" background most of the time.

------
this rose has a thorn...

then why not do a background-color : transparent; statement? That's validated, and works just fine if you want to declare something...


s t e p h e n

apparently, youve missed my point. why must i define something that is already that way by default? not all browsers have default white background (i believe ie3 and ie2 are both grey, probably a few others as well), but i dont know of a single browser that does not have default paragraph background as anything other than transparent.

------
this rose has a thorn...