Creating a CSS File

[John]

Was trying to edit an article last night that I wrote in 2006 and no
question about it I was blind as a bat! The source code on this one
sucked! I had then created the article in MS Word / Claris Home Page
(the tools available to me at that time) and this gave reason to horrid
HTML. I cleaned up the article a little by copy and pasting into Text
Edit (no formatting) and re-did allot of it. [B]The end result is MUCH
better than it was. No its not perfect but its certainly far better!
[/B]
I used Sea Monkey which also may be a mistake as its a old editor so I
am starting to use Kompozer or Blue Griffon. I would use BlueGriffon but
I am not sure how to make the text larger. Does anyone know of a way?
Otherwise the choice is Kompozer.

So I guess I need to study HTML more (something I have not done) as I
have been reading all kinds of theology. What I want to do is I want to
create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?


John
--
Are there errors in the Bible? Is Jesus Christ God?
After death whats on the other side? If you want to
learn, get answers, and be able to defend the faith,
CERM is your place. http://www.cerm.info

[Gus Richter]

On 3/17/2013 8:24 AM, John wrote:
> What I want to do is I want to
> create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
> index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=create+a+CSS+file

--
Gus

[Warren Oates]

In article <ki4rsi$7h2$1...@dont-email.me>,

You've gotta understand that John just wants you to read his sig file
and come-while-we-stand-and-sing and visit his pages to read his
message. That's pretty much all he wants.
--

Soulless fruitflies are the nanotechnology of the fear industry -- Bucky

[John]

In article <ki4rsi$7h2$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

I did not know you were that ignorant. You must not be that far behind
me in terms of ignorance with HTML. I admit that I am a idiot with it,
but you have confirmed that you are as well.

[John]

In article <51460728$0$52246$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <ki4rsi$7h2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/17/2013 8:24 AM, John wrote:
> > > What I want to do is I want to
> > > create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
> > > index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?
> >
> > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=create+a+CSS+file
>
> You've gotta understand that John just wants you to read his sig file
> and come-while-we-stand-and-sing and visit his pages to read his
> message. That's pretty much all he wants.

You do not sound too bright. I am a idiot with HTML but you do not
appear too bright as well, and at the same time claim to be an expert.

[tlvp]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:33:10 -0400, John wrote:

> I did not know you were that ignorant. You must not be that far behind
> me in terms of ignorance with HTML. I admit that I am a idiot with it,
> but you have confirmed that you are as well.

John, please do try to manifest a little Christian charity toward those who
you might hope could help you in your quest :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[123Jim]

On 17/03/2013 12:24, John wrote:
> Was trying to edit an article last night that I wrote in 2006 and no
> question about it I was blind as a bat! The source code on this one
> sucked! I had then created the article in MS Word / Claris Home Page
> (the tools available to me at that time) and this gave reason to horrid
> HTML. I cleaned up the article a little by copy and pasting into Text
> Edit (no formatting) and re-did allot of it. [B]The end result is MUCH
> better than it was. No its not perfect but its certainly far better!
> [/B]
> I used Sea Monkey which also may be a mistake as its a old editor so I
> am starting to use Kompozer or Blue Griffon. I would use BlueGriffon but
> I am not sure how to make the text larger. Does anyone know of a way?
> Otherwise the choice is Kompozer.
>
> So I guess I need to study HTML more (something I have not done) as I
> have been reading all kinds of theology. What I want to do is I want to
> create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
> index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?
>
>
> John
>

This is often recommended: http://www.htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/

[Jonathan N. Little]

John wrote:
> In article <51460728$0$52246$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <ki4rsi$7h2$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2013 8:24 AM, John wrote:
>>>> What I want to do is I want to
>>>> create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
>>>> index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?
>>>
>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=create+a+CSS+file
>>
>> You've gotta understand that John just wants you to read his sig file
>> and come-while-we-stand-and-sing and visit his pages to read his
>> message. That's pretty much all he wants.
>
> You do not sound too bright.

Actually quite the contrary, I think Warren pegged your motives
accurately. You popup periodically over the years asking the very same
questions, never employing any of the suggestions, and then berate those
who offer you the help. Please find another way to evangelize.

> I am a idiot with HTML

<snip>

It appears so, and since you show no evidence to change that might I
suggest that you hire someone else to do your web design.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Ed Mullen]

Jonathan, that was a much more polite reply than the anatomically
totally impossible suggestion I was about to make.

Thank you.

John?

If you spent as much time learning about what you are asking about as
you do slinging negative slurs at people giving you helpful suggestions
you would be years ahead of where you are now. Which is clueless.

But, your posts indicate to all of us that you aren't really asking for
real help: You're, at best, lamenting that you don't know what you're
doing and are angry that it's going to take a concerted effort on your
part to rectify the situation.

I the meantime ... ah, never mind.


--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
What happened to Preparations A through G?

[Ed Mullen]

And usually unread by such as John.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

UnHallmark Card: How could two people as beautiful as you ... have such
an ugly baby?

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2013-03-17, 123Jim wrote:
...

> This is often recommended: http://www.htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/

That whole site has problems when I view it in Firefox (even without
any plugins or addons):

<http://b.cfaj.ca/htmldog.jpg>

It's fine in Chrome.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
<http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>

[Jonathan N. Little]

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2013-03-17, 123Jim wrote:
> ...
>> This is often recommended: http://www.htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/
>
> That whole site has problems when I view it in Firefox (even without
> any plugins or addons):
>
> <http://b.cfaj.ca/htmldog.jpg>
>

Doesn't look like that to me in Firefox in either Windows7 or Ubuntu 12.04

[John]

In article <2xztrhlj5om9$.1uquvame...@40tude.net>,

tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:33:10 -0400, John wrote:
>
> > I did not know you were that ignorant. You must not be that far behind
> > me in terms of ignorance with HTML. I admit that I am a idiot with it,
> > but you have confirmed that you are as well.
>
> John, please do try to manifest a little Christian charity toward those who
> you might hope could help you in your quest :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

I spoke before thinking

[John]

In article <6e2cbt....@news.alt.net>,

Actually I got a brain in my head and actually spent some time in a
tutoring lesson with someone. I am gonna get some books on CSS/HTML
soon. But I figured out some new tricks.

First BlueGriffon for Mac is lacking an ability to edit/create CSS so I
used SimpleCSS/Kompozer and got a real CSS file I will be employing o
all my documents from this day forward.

h1 {
color: #0000ff;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 2em;
font-weight: bolder;
text-transform: uppercase;
}
h2 {
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 1.6em;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: bolder;
}
body {
border-style: none;
font-weight: normal;
font-family: Arial;

[richard]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:24:12 -0400, John wrote:

> Was trying to edit an article last night that I wrote in 2006 and no
> question about it I was blind as a bat! The source code on this one
> sucked! I had then created the article in MS Word / Claris Home Page
> (the tools available to me at that time) and this gave reason to horrid
> HTML. I cleaned up the article a little by copy and pasting into Text
> Edit (no formatting) and re-did allot of it. [B]The end result is MUCH
> better than it was. No its not perfect but its certainly far better!
> [/B]
> I used Sea Monkey which also may be a mistake as its a old editor so I
> am starting to use Kompozer or Blue Griffon. I would use BlueGriffon but
> I am not sure how to make the text larger. Does anyone know of a way?
> Otherwise the choice is Kompozer.
>
> So I guess I need to study HTML more (something I have not done) as I
> have been reading all kinds of theology. What I want to do is I want to
> create a CSS file for my HTML documents (already have one for my main
> index.htm page) and I want the docs to follow that. Is there a way?
>
>
> John

Sounds like you like to punish yourself by using ancient material.
Ya think kompozer is new?
When it wants to open your files in (eeeek!) Navigator, well, when's the
last time you ever even heard it mentioned?
Kompozer was written by the same people who wrote Navigator I believe.

Blue Griffon? As ancient as Front Page Express.
When you manually type in an &, it automatically generates &amp&amp.
Which is why I ditched it.

I use notepad++ because it has auto checking of tags and enclosures.
You'll know right away if you have one to many tags or not enough.

When you're doing that CSS file, you will note that notepad++ will
highlight the properly encoded stuff as you type. If you don't get it
right, you'll know it by the color coding.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

richard the sto0pid wrote:

> Blue Griffon? As ancient as Front Page Express.

Wrong again, RtS. BlueGriffon's latest release was just 18 days ago.

"Most recent stable version: v 1.6.2 "Ontto Beltza" 28-feb-2013"

You should think before you speak.

> I use notepad++ because it has auto checking of tags and enclosures.

> You'll know right away if you have one to [sic] many tags or not enough.

Then how come it didn't find your mistake in that PHP question you asked
yesterday?

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

[tlvp]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:58:24 -0400, John wrote:

> I spoke before thinking
> --
> Are there errors in the Bible? Is Jesus Christ God?
> After death whats on the other side?

Yes > -- > maybe ... perhaps ... > we all get to find out. Cheers, -- tlvp

[Warren Oates]

In article <jwolf6589-D51AE...@nntp.charter.net>,

John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>
> First BlueGriffon for Mac is lacking an ability to edit/create CSS so I
> used SimpleCSS/Kompozer and got a real CSS file I will be employing o
> all my documents from this day forward.

[snip]

Are you truly that dense? I mean, it's a _text file_ John. If you took
the time time learn even the very basics of CSS you could create
everything you need in TextEdit (I see you're using a Mac). Don't use MS
Word. Although, having said that, I have the plain-text thingie set up
in Word to mimic most of Emacs's key bindings.

[Warren Oates]

In article <jwolf6589-BE4D0...@nntp.charter.net>,
John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> I am a idiot

Indeed.

[Warren Oates]

In article <timstreater-646B...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <5146fc02$0$44766$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com>,

> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jwolf6589-D51AE...@nntp.charter.net>,
> > John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > First BlueGriffon for Mac is lacking an ability to edit/create CSS so I
> > > used SimpleCSS/Kompozer and got a real CSS file I will be employing o
> > > all my documents from this day forward.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Are you truly that dense? I mean, it's a _text file_ John. If you took
> > the time time learn even the very basics of CSS you could create
> > everything you need in TextEdit (I see you're using a Mac). Don't use MS
> > Word. Although, having said that, I have the plain-text thingie set up
> > in Word to mimic most of Emacs's key bindings.
>

> If he's on a Mac he can use TextWrangler.

Of course; he can use anything that will work in plain text. Even MS
Word. I'm just trying to point out the simplicity of the process.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2013-03-18 01:22:31 +0100, Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> said:

[ ... ]

> I the meantime ...

Come on. You mustn't say that. He's a Christian.

> ah, never mind.


--
athel

[Ed Mullen]

John wrote:
> Actually I got a brain in my head and actually spent some time in a
> tutoring lesson with someone. I am gonna get some books on CSS/HTML
> soon. But I figured out some new tricks.
>
> First BlueGriffon for Mac is lacking an ability to edit/create CSS so I
> used SimpleCSS/Kompozer and got a real CSS file I will be employing o
> all my documents from this day forward.
>

> body {
> border-style: none;

That is not needed because <body> defaults to no border.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

[Warren Oates]

In article <6ec765....@news.alt.net>,

Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> John wrote:
> > Actually I got a brain in my head and actually spent some time in a
> > tutoring lesson with someone. I am gonna get some books on CSS/HTML
> > soon. But I figured out some new tricks.
> >
> > First BlueGriffon for Mac is lacking an ability to edit/create CSS so I
> > used SimpleCSS/Kompozer and got a real CSS file I will be employing o
> > all my documents from this day forward.
> >
>
> > body {
> > border-style: none;
>
> That is not needed because <body> defaults to no border.

True, but doing a reset is always a good idea; start from scratch with
every browser. I've been doing it with the <body> for years, but it can
get pretty serious:

<http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/>

[Ed Mullen]

Okay, but what supercedes a <body> declaration that could possibly
impose a border on <body>? Especially in something you're writing
yourself. I suppose there's is some condition that could but I can't
imagine it (and haven't ever experienced it) since doing this since
1996. Admittedly, I'm a dabbler but a long-term one, and always willing
and eager to learn.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once.

[Warren Oates]

In article <6ecq4u....@news.alt.net>,

Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> Okay, but what supercedes a <body> declaration that could possibly
> impose a border on <body>? Especially in something you're writing
> yourself. I suppose there's is some condition that could but I can't
> imagine it (and haven't ever experienced it) since doing this since
> 1996. Admittedly, I'm a dabbler but a long-term one, and always willing
> and eager to learn.

Try

<style type="text/css">
html {border: 1px solid black; }
</style>

I know, it's unlikely, but there are semi-learned discussions of this
type of thing here and there.

[dorayme]

In article <514ba0c6$0$5846$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <6ecq4u....@news.alt.net>,
> Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:
>
> > Okay, but what supercedes a <body> declaration that could possibly
> > impose a border on <body>? Especially in something you're writing
> > yourself. I suppose there's is some condition that could but I can't
> > imagine it (and haven't ever experienced it) since doing this since
> > 1996. Admittedly, I'm a dabbler but a long-term one, and always willing
> > and eager to learn.
>
> Try
>
> <style type="text/css">
> html {border: 1px solid black; }
> </style>
>

Nope. The HTML border is not guaranteed to apply to BODY. It is
sometimes an illusion that it does with your above. But the reality is
different, try to identify the two elements better with


html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}
body {margin: 50px; background: red;}

--
dorayme

[Jukka K. Korpela]

2013-03-22 4:27, dorayme wrote:

>> <style type="text/css">
>> html {border: 1px solid black; }
>> </style>
>
> Nope. The HTML border is not guaranteed to apply to BODY.

It is guaranteed to *not* apply to BODY, so the CSS code above is surely
ineffective of any suspected style sheet that sets a border on BODY.

"CSS resets" cause more problems than they solve. It is common to see
them used routinely, without thinking, and nasty problems emerging.

The sensible approach is to set whatever needs to be set to meet your
design goals, not "everything". If there is a browser style sheet or a
user style sheet that sets a border on BODY, then we should assume that
there is very good reason to that, and avoid interfering with it.

Setting line-height is a different manner: we *know* that browsers apply
different defaults for it, and we *know*, from typographic principles,
that adequate values for line height depend on things like column width,
not only on font.

Followups trimmed - CSS is not HTML, but alt.html is a more or less
catchall group.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Warren Oates]

In article <dorayme-60406F...@news.albasani.net>,

That works as I'd expect it to work. It fills the whole window in in
red, I guess is what you're getting at. Try:

html {border: 10px solid black; background: yellow }
body {border: 5px solid black; margin: 50px; background: red; }

(Scares the hell out of Opera ...)

(Looks like the flag of some country "nice place to live, wouldn't want
to visit here.")

The point I was making about resetting was that the un-reset margins
around the body vary from browser to browser. I always set the body
margins and padding and whatever to 0 so that everyone starts in the
same place on the same page.

I've only ever "styled" the html element for some obscure font-size
thingie that I disremember at 7 am eastern time and it's still bloody
snowing at the end of bloody March. Stick my head right under the
espresso machine and keep pushing the button

[dorayme]

In article <514c3e29$0$52276$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-60406F...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <514ba0c6$0$5846$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6ecq4u....@news.alt.net>,
> > > Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, but what supercedes a <body> declaration that could possibly
> > > > impose a border on <body>? Especially in something you're writing
> > > > yourself. I suppose there's is some condition that could but I can't
> > > > imagine it (and haven't ever experienced it) since doing this since
> > > > 1996. Admittedly, I'm a dabbler but a long-term one, and always
> > > > willing
> > > > and eager to learn.
> > >
> > > Try
> > >
> > > <style type="text/css">
> > > html {border: 1px solid black; }
> > > </style>
> > >
> >
> > Nope. The HTML border is not guaranteed to apply to BODY. It is
> > sometimes an illusion that it does with your above. But the reality is
> > different, try to identify the two elements better with
> >
> >
> > html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}
> > body {margin: 50px; background: red;}
>
> That works as I'd expect it to work. It fills the whole window in

> red, I guess is what you're getting at.

No, I am not getting at this at all. On my computer, neither in
Safari, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, iCab does the "whole window" fill in
red. Nor even in MacIE5. Nor in Win IE8, Win IE6.

I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for sure
get you a border on the BODY element.

Now you are introducing a further surprising thing, that the colour on
BODY in the example I gave you is colouring the HTML against the
wishes of the CSS.

Here is a URL so we are on the same page:

<http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

Try adding this to it:

html,body{height:100%;}

--
Gus
(Do we really need this to go to two newsgroups?)

[dorayme]

In article <kiiqne$n7a$1...@dont-email.me>,

Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> > <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>
>
> Try adding this to it:
>
> html,body{height:100%;}

Why?

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

To recap:

>> html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}
>> body {margin: 50px; background: red;}
>
> That works as I'd expect it to work. It fills the whole window in
> red, I guess is what you're getting at.

No, I am not getting at this at all. On my computer, neither in
Safari, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, iCab does the "whole window" fill in
red. Nor even in MacIE5. Nor in Win IE8, Win IE6.

~~ comment by me ~~
Right, it does not fill the whole window in red. The red is only inside
the margin. Temporarily add padding and see the padding also turn red.
Because it is a block, but if inline-block only the content and not at
all (screwy) if inline.
~~ /me ~~

I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
sure get you a border on the BODY element.

~~ comment by me ~~
Body being the content only, html will, and does, put the border around
body, including the margin.
~~ /me ~~

Now you are introducing a further surprising thing, that the colour
on BODY in the example I gave you is colouring the HTML against the
wishes of the CSS.

~~ comment by me ~~
I don't understand what you mean. The css states that html's background
is white and that the body's background of red is overlayed on top of
html. I see no surprise.
~~ /me ~~


Regarding your question as to why I suggested to try:
html,body{height:100%;}
This was to respond to the "whole window" fill for red question.
Because of margins interfering, the following must be included/altered
as well:
body {margin:0 50px 0 50px; background:red;}
p {margin:0;}
and now the whole window is filled with red.

--
Gus
(I hope the above is understandable.)

[dorayme]

In article <kik6pu$73k$1...@dont-email.me>,

Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> On 3/22/2013 11:54 PM, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <kiiqne$n7a$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>
> >>
> >> Try adding this to it:
> >>
> >> html,body{height:100%;}
> >
> > Why?
>
>
> To recap:
> >> html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}
> >> body {margin: 50px; background: red;}
> >
> > That works as I'd expect it to work. It fills the whole window in
> > red, I guess is what you're getting at.
>
> No, I am not getting at this at all. On my computer, neither in
> Safari, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, iCab does the "whole window" fill in
> red. Nor even in MacIE5. Nor in Win IE8, Win IE6.
>
> ~~ comment by me ~~
> Right, it does not fill the whole window in red. The red is only inside
> the margin.

The point is not *directly* about filling inside margins. It is that
it fills the BODY element. It is a simple point, namely that the red
fills the BODY. The margin was put there by me to confine the BODY
element.

...

>
> Now you are introducing a further surprising thing, that the colour
> on BODY in the example I gave you is colouring the HTML against the
> wishes of the CSS.
>
> ~~ comment by me ~~
> I don't understand what you mean. The css states that html's background
> is white and that the body's background of red is overlayed on top of
> html. I see no surprise.
> ~~ /me ~~
>

There is no surprise about that the BODY is red and the whole viewport
is not. But you seem not to be appreciating that my comment about
surprise was in relation to Oates saying about my URL above

> > That works as I'd expect it to work.
> > It fills the whole window in red,

It does not fill the whole window in red, nor does the monitor bleed
or sprout flowers and anyone who says these things happen mildly
surprise me. I am very sensitive and jumpy, you see. I have been known
to jump up on chairs when a fly appears on the floor.

> Regarding your question as to why I suggested to try:
> html,body{height:100%;}
> This was to respond to the "whole window" fill for red question.
> Because of margins interfering, the following must be included/altered
> as well:
> body {margin:0 50px 0 50px; background:red;}
> p {margin:0;}
> and now the whole window is filled with red.

The margins are *not* interfering any more than a well tuned motor is
interfering with a car that is smoothly going at 120MPH. The whole
point of the URL above is to show that placing a border on an HTML
element does not necessarily confer a border on a BODY element. It is
a simple point.

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

On 3/23/2013 6:04 PM, dorayme wrote:
> In article <kik6pu$73k$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2013 11:54 PM, dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <kiiqne$n7a$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>

"Quote" from Warren Oates:

>>> That works as I'd expect it to work.
>>> It fills the whole window in red,

"/quote"

>
> It does not fill the whole window in red, nor does the monitor bleed
> or sprout flowers and anyone who says these things happen mildly
> surprise me. I am very sensitive and jumpy, you see. I have been known
> to jump up on chairs when a fly appears on the floor.

Irregardless of the monitor bleeding or sprouting flowers, you attribute
this to me, whereas it was Warren Oates that said this to you. I agreed
with you and then commented that, "The red is only inside the margin."
just to clarify.
Look out for those horseflies, they bite.

>> Regarding your question as to why I suggested to try:
>> html,body{height:100%;}
>> This was to respond to the "whole window" fill for red question.
>> Because of margins interfering, the following must be included/altered
>> as well:
>> body {margin:0 50px 0 50px; background:red;}
>> p {margin:0;}
>> and now the whole window is filled with red.
>
> The margins are *not* interfering any more than a well tuned motor is
> interfering with a car that is smoothly going at 120MPH. The whole
> point of the URL above is to show that placing a border on an HTML
> element does not necessarily confer a border on a BODY element. It is
> a simple point.

Just as a goat will be nibbling at a tin can, I tried to remove
ambiguous thought and add some info and a different view as clearly as I
could. If the "fill for red question" is of no interest, then please ignore.

--
Gus

[dorayme]

In article <kild4n$nku$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> ... I agreed

> with you and then commented that, "The red is only inside the margin."
> just to clarify.

No clarification is needed. I have no idea what you and Oates are
seeing. I am seeing a BODY element coloured red, browser's attempt to
show an HTML element with the border and, crucially relevant, no
border on the BODY. The red was just to identify the BODY. That is
all. No clarification about margins or anything is needed, there is no
need or question about how to go about filling viewports with red or
any other colour. My response was to Oates.

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

What *you* believe to be 'clear' may be 'clear as mud' to someone else,
and probably is.

My 'intrusion' was in your response to Oates with your:

"I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
sure get you a border on the BODY element."

I tried to show under what condition it is *for sure* hence the
'clarification' (which I felt was needed).

> My response was to Oates.

My client clearly shows all responses and to whom, or are you saying
that it was a private communication and I 'intruded'?

--
Gus

[dorayme]

In article <kilogc$3vi$1...@dont-email.me>,

Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> On 3/23/2013 8:02 PM, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <kild4n$nku$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> ... I agreed
> >> with you and then commented that, "The red is only inside the margin."
> >> just to clarify.
> >
> > No clarification is needed. I have no idea what you and Oates are
> > seeing. I am seeing a BODY element coloured red, browser's attempt to
> > show an HTML element with the border and, crucially relevant, no
> > border on the BODY. The red was just to identify the BODY. That is
> > all. No clarification about margins or anything is needed, there is no
> > need or question about how to go about filling viewports with red or
> > any other colour.
>
> What *you* believe to be 'clear' may be 'clear as mud' to someone else,
> and probably is.

Yes, I know quite well that everything is misunderstood on usenet all
the time. It is clearly rocket science to say that putting a border on
the HTML element does not necessarily (or ever, to make a point by JK)
get you a border on BODY and to show it in a URL.

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

You said, "does not for sure" and not, "does not necessarily".
<quote>
I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
sure get you a border on the BODY element.
</quote>
I showed you under what condition "it is for sure".

JK's point was regarding a specific rule submitted by Oates and not on
your <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html> along with
your "not for sure" comment, which was my entry point in this thread.

You responded to only 1 of 4 points I made and chose the one to make a
snide personal attack and nothing at all regarding my submission. *sigh*

--
Gus

[dorayme]

In article <kimsoq$aii$1...@dont-email.me>,

Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> You said, "does not for sure" and not, "does not necessarily".
> <quote>
> I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
> sure get you a border on the BODY element.
> </quote>
> I showed you under what condition "it is for sure".

It is not relevant to the specific point I was replying to. If someone
says it is raining when it clearly is not and you pipe up that it is
raining in Timbuktu or that it will rain in ten days time or that it
rained yesterday, it is not relevant.

But besides that, you showed no such thing. Adding

html,body{height:100%;}

to

<http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>

does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
around Berlin.

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

On 3/24/2013 4:42 PM, dorayme wrote:
> In article <kimsoq$aii$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> You said, "does not for sure" and not, "does not necessarily".
>> <quote>
>> I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
>> sure get you a border on the BODY element.
>> </quote>
>> I showed you under what condition "it is for sure".
>
> It is not relevant to the specific point I was replying to. If someone
> says it is raining when it clearly is not and you pipe up that it is
> raining in Timbuktu or that it will rain in ten days time or that it
> rained yesterday, it is not relevant.

I must repeat:
*I showed you under what condition "it is for sure"*
If you are not able to see the relevance and that it corrects your
erroneous statement (quoted), then I'm not able to help you further.

> But besides that, you showed no such thing. Adding
> html,body{height:100%;}
> to
> <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>
> does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
> Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
> around Berlin.

I gave you too much credit that you would be able to see that you would
have to alter body and p margins in order to complete it. In case you
come back and point out that the horizontal margins on body (which I
left to demonstrate) do not allow html's border to fully encase body,
here is the complete stylesheet:

<style>

html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}

body {margin:0; background:red;}
html,body {height:100%;}
p {margin:0;}
</style>

--
Gus

[dorayme]

In article <kio3kf$35v$1...@dont-email.me>,

Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:

> On 3/24/2013 4:42 PM, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <kimsoq$aii$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You said, "does not for sure" and not, "does not necessarily".
> >> <quote>
> >> I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
> >> sure get you a border on the BODY element.
> >> </quote>
> >> I showed you under what condition "it is for sure".
> >
> > It is not relevant to the specific point I was replying to. If someone
> > says it is raining when it clearly is not and you pipe up that it is
> > raining in Timbuktu or that it will rain in ten days time or that it
> > rained yesterday, it is not relevant.
>
> I must repeat:
> *I showed you under what condition "it is for sure"*
> If you are not able to see the relevance and that it corrects your
> erroneous statement (quoted), then I'm not able to help you further.
>

Help me? You have distracted me. But that does have an upside.

> > But besides that, you showed no such thing. Adding
> > html,body{height:100%;}
> > to
> > <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>
> > does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
> > Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
> > around Berlin.
>
> I gave you too much credit that you would be able to see that you would
> have to alter body and p margins in order to complete it.

Sounds to me that you are trying to create some illusion of a border
around BODY. It was the illusion I was warning against and here you
are creating an even more convincing one. I can scarcely believe you
are trying this on.

--
dorayme

[Gus Richter]

On 3/24/2013 9:17 PM, dorayme wrote:
> In article <kio3kf$35v$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2013 4:42 PM, dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <kimsoq$aii$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Gus Richter <gusri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You said, "does not for sure" and not, "does not necessarily".
>>>> <quote>
>>>> I was getting at that border set on the HTML element does not for
>>>> sure get you a border on the BODY element.
>>>> </quote>
>>>> I showed you under what condition "it is for sure".
>>>
>>> It is not relevant to the specific point I was replying to. If someone
>>> says it is raining when it clearly is not and you pipe up that it is
>>> raining in Timbuktu or that it will rain in ten days time or that it
>>> rained yesterday, it is not relevant.
>>
>> I must repeat:
>> *I showed you under what condition "it is for sure"*
>> If you are not able to see the relevance and that it corrects your
>> erroneous statement (quoted), then I'm not able to help you further.
>
> Help me? You have distracted me. But that does have an upside.
>

The upside being that you recognize having an ego problem, or what?
Do you think I've enjoyed this creepy dance?

>
>>> But besides that, you showed no such thing. Adding
>>> html,body{height:100%;}
>>> to
>>> <http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html>
>>> does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
>>> Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
>>> around Berlin.
>>
>> I gave you too much credit that you would be able to see that you would
>> have to alter body and p margins in order to complete it.
>
> Sounds to me that you are trying to create some illusion of a border
> around BODY. It was the illusion I was warning against and here you
> are creating an even more convincing one. I can scarcely believe you
> are trying this on.

I must repeat:
_I showed you under what condition "it is for sure"_

Before you spew some outer space nonsense, I will step out of this
thread which apparently you cannot or will not comprehend. Do and say
what you will and enjoy.

--
Gus

[dorayme]

In article <kioefd$dck$1...@dont-email.me>,

There is nothing outer space about it, it is simply that a border on
an HTML does not get you a border on the BODY. A border on the HTML
element *can* get you an *illusion* of a border on BODY as in

html {border: 1px solid black; background: white;}

body {background: red;}
body, html, p {margin: 0;}

<p>The HTML border is not guaranteed to apply to BODY. It is sometimes

an illusion that it does with your above. But the reality is

different, try to identify the two elements better ...</p>

It just happens that BODY has no border, HTML has one and it wraps
close around BODY.

Try

html {border: 10px solid black; background: white;}
body {margin: 50px; background: red;}
body, html, p {margin: 0;}
body {border: 5px green solid;}

<p>The HTML border is not guaranteed to apply to BODY. It is sometimes

an illusion that it does with your above. But the reality is

different, try to identify the two elements better ...</p>

which separates what belongs truly to BODY.

(Modify

http://commonreader.com.au/dorayme/htmlBorder.html

to see)

--
dorayme

[Warren Oates]

In article <dorayme-651F33...@news.albasani.net>,

dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
> Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
> around Berlin.

But, darlin', that was the point I was originally making. The border
'round the whole document encloses the whole document. What you do with
it is up to you. Which is why I'm no longer interested in this
discussion. And the solace system is around the earth and the creamy way
is around the ...
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

[Jonathan N. Little]

Not sure what you are are trying to prove.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

<html>
<head>
<title>What are you trying to do?</title>
<style type="text/css">
html, body, p { margin: 10px; padding: 10px; border: 10px solid black;
background-color: red; }
body { border-color: green; background-color: magenta; }
p { border-color: blue; background-color: yellow}
</style>
</head>

<body>
<p>
html, body, p { margin: 10px; padding: 10px; border: 10px solid black;
background-color: red; }
</p>
<p>
body { border-color: green; background-color: magenta; }
</p>
<p>
p { border-color: blue; background-color: yellow}
</p>
</body>
</html>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[dorayme]

In article <51503819$0$59630$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-651F33...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > does not get you a 1px border around B except in the sense that the
> > Australian coastline is around Ayers Rock, or the Eurasion border is
> > around Berlin.
>
> But, darlin', that was the point I was originally making.

Well, it is not even true. I was just cutting you some slack. In some
cases, for example, where BODY is given a negative margin, it escapes
the envelopment. Still what an intelligent point you made, it is a
wonder you resisted the temptation to say that a border around HTML or
BODY also, *in the same sense*, most usually makes a border around all
or nearly all descendant elements.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <kipkpi$dkj$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > ...

> >
>
> Not sure what you are are trying to prove.
>

That a border around an HTML element can create an illusion of a
border around a BODY element (even other descendent elements) *without
it really being the case*. Take the case of

html {border: 1px black;}
body {border: 0;}

It has not only been claimed otherwise in this thread, some have even
attempted to demonstrate the illusion with CSS and HTML.

--
dorayme