>> And it says all this even if you transmogrify the style sheet to
>> a grotesque mess that violates CSS rules in all possible ways -
>> provided just that you "protect" it with "<!--" and "-->".
> There is nothing violated, nothing protected; there is just a comment.
Formally speaking, yes. But "This document validates as CSS level 2.1 !" is not formal talk, and "Congratulations", is even less, and "you've taken the care to create an interoperable Web page" is worse than marketese.
I don't think it is adequate to congratulate the user that way, especially since we know that the user actually wants the stuff between "<!--" and "-->" to be a style sheet and the linter does not check at all. And saying that a document with an empty style sheet "validates as CSS level 2.1 !" helps no one.
On 2012-04-14, Philip Herlihy <bounceb...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204131751050.17...@zen.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>, > prilop4...@trashmail.net says...
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Swifty wrote:
>> > Bear in mind that some of us were using IE6 until quite recently,
>> > as we had no other choice.
>> Windows 2000 allows only Internet Explorer 6, not version 7.
> Even Win2K runs Firefox!
Windows XP refuses to run IE9, which is their first half-decent release
of that browser. Even to install IE8 you have to mess around with
obscure "service packs" and run command line autoupdaters that need
newer service packs than the ones they're trying to install and thus
fail silently and with no error messages. Don't ask me how I know this.
But to install Firefox (or chrome) on the same OS is one click and takes
2 minutes.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2012-04-14, Philip Herlihy<bounceb...@you.com> wrote:
>> In article<Pine.LNX.4.64.1204131751050.17...@zen.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
>> prilop4...@trashmail.net says...
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Swifty wrote:
>>>> Bear in mind that some of us were using IE6 until quite recently,
>>>> as we had no other choice.
>>> Windows 2000 allows only Internet Explorer 6, not version 7.
>> Even Win2K runs Firefox!
> Windows XP refuses to run IE9, which is their first half-decent release
> of that browser. Even to install IE8 you have to mess around with
> obscure "service packs" and run command line autoupdaters that need
> newer service packs than the ones they're trying to install and thus
> fail silently and with no error messages. Don't ask me how I know this.
> But to install Firefox (or chrome) on the same OS is one click and takes
> 2 minutes.
Interesting. I have two XP Pro SP3 systems here and upgrading to IE8 was a simple Windows Update process.
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2012-04-14, Philip Herlihy<bounceb...@you.com> wrote:
> >> In article<Pine.LNX.4.64.1204131751050.17...@zen.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
> >> prilop4...@trashmail.net says...
> >>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Swifty wrote:
> >>>> Bear in mind that some of us were using IE6 until quite recently,
> >>>> as we had no other choice.
> >>> Windows 2000 allows only Internet Explorer 6, not version 7.
> >> Even Win2K runs Firefox!
> > Windows XP refuses to run IE9, which is their first half-decent release
> > of that browser. Even to install IE8 you have to mess around with
> > obscure "service packs" and run command line autoupdaters that need
> > newer service packs than the ones they're trying to install and thus
> > fail silently and with no error messages. Don't ask me how I know this.
> > But to install Firefox (or chrome) on the same OS is one click and takes
> > 2 minutes.
> Interesting. I have two XP Pro SP3 systems here and upgrading to IE8 > was a simple Windows Update process.
I installed an XP Pro on a machine that had 98 on it and it took ages but it all seemed to update to the latest of everything, me not doing much - save for having a loaded shotgun pointed at the online updating dialog boxes. Even on a Mac when installing XP Pro in Virtual Box, it surprised me how it all just worked and updated to the IE8 - yes, the shotgun was loaded for that too. Maybe I was just plain lucky or maybe Ben was too nice about it and used no threats. He is right, of course, about IE9, but, I think, there are ways to get IE9 (at least on a Mac) without the official MS OS.
dorayme wrote:
> In article<5imej3.q5m.1...@news.alt.net>,
> Ed Mullen<e...@edmullen.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-14, Philip Herlihy<bounceb...@you.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<Pine.LNX.4.64.1204131751050.17...@zen.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
>>>> prilop4...@trashmail.net says...
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Swifty wrote:
>>>>>> Bear in mind that some of us were using IE6 until quite recently,
>>>>>> as we had no other choice.
>>>>> Windows 2000 allows only Internet Explorer 6, not version 7.
>>>> Even Win2K runs Firefox!
>>> Windows XP refuses to run IE9, which is their first half-decent release
>>> of that browser. Even to install IE8 you have to mess around with
>>> obscure "service packs" and run command line autoupdaters that need
>>> newer service packs than the ones they're trying to install and thus
>>> fail silently and with no error messages. Don't ask me how I know this.
>>> But to install Firefox (or chrome) on the same OS is one click and takes
>>> 2 minutes.
>> Interesting. I have two XP Pro SP3 systems here and upgrading to IE8
>> was a simple Windows Update process.
> I installed an XP Pro on a machine that had 98 on it and it took ages
> but it all seemed to update to the latest of everything, me not doing
> much - save for having a loaded shotgun pointed at the online updating
> dialog boxes. Even on a Mac when installing XP Pro in Virtual Box, it
> surprised me how it all just worked and updated to the IE8 - yes, the
> shotgun was loaded for that too. Maybe I was just plain lucky or maybe
> Ben was too nice about it and used no threats. He is right, of course,
> about IE9, but, I think, there are ways to get IE9 (at least on a Mac)
> without the official MS OS.
One interesting thing. I NEVER, for many years, "upgrade" a Windows system. I always insist on getting at least an OEM full version of Windows (if not a retail version) with a new machine. And the first thing I do is wipe the drive and do a new install of Windows. My retailer (http://www.visioncomputers.com/index.asp) thinks I'm crazy but they have to admit they've never heard a tech support request from me except for a hardware issue.
Of course, I do kinda know what I'm doing. This is, obviously, not for the average bear. But it sure does mean I know what's going on with my systems.
By the way, if you DO need support, their average hold time is about 15 seconds. And they know what they are talking about. And for non-techie users, the have remote support software that lets them get into your machine and restore and fix things the non-techie user has screwed up.
On 2012-04-20, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.net> wrote:
[...]
> One interesting thing. I NEVER, for many years, "upgrade" a Windows > system. I always insist on getting at least an OEM full version of > Windows (if not a retail version) with a new machine. And the first > thing I do is wipe the drive and do a new install of Windows.
The first thing I do is wipe the drive, do a new install of GNU/Linux
and then try, usually without success, to get a refund of my Microsoft
tax.
Then years later I wanted to test something in IE and found the rescue
disks that came with an old laptop. So I restored it to its original
Windows XP state that I had never before used, found it had IE6 on it,
and tried to put IE8 on. It was then I found I needed all these service
packs and autoupdaters.
Eventually I got it to work by using the "professional" much bigger
service pack downloads their website kept protesting I didn't need.
Any reasonable people would have provided at least Linux binaries of
their browsers for people to test things in in the first place. But not
only do their tie their lousy browsers absolutely to their lousy OS--
they make it about 400 times harder to install them _even on that OS_
than any other browser!
> On 2012-04-20, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > One interesting thing. I NEVER, for many years, "upgrade" a Windows > > system. I always insist on getting at least an OEM full version of > > Windows (if not a retail version) with a new machine. And the first > > thing I do is wipe the drive and do a new install of Windows.
> The first thing I do is wipe the drive, do a new install of GNU/Linux
> and then try, usually without success, to get a refund of my Microsoft
> tax.
> Then years later I wanted to test something in IE and found the rescue
> disks that came with an old laptop. So I restored it to its original
> Windows XP state that I had never before used, found it had IE6 on it,
> and tried to put IE8 on. It was then I found I needed all these service
> packs and autoupdaters.
That probably explains the difference between your experience and
mine (and others) - installing XP SP3, and having no problems with
getting IE 8 up and running.
Ben C wrote:
> Then years later I wanted to test something in IE and found the rescue
> disks that came with an old laptop. So I restored it to its original
> Windows XP state that I had never before used, found it had IE6 on it,
> and tried to put IE8 on. It was then I found I needed all these service
> packs and autoupdaters.
Because IE is not a web browser but a OS component that provides web browsing...
That should work, if I understand the priority rules for CSS correctly. The priority for ".sunset" is 010(*). The priority for "a:link" is 011, so it should override ".sunset".
Now... if you wanted color:#611 to apply to links inside a "sunset" span but not to other links, you would make it
.sunset a:link {color:#611;}
(*) In a sufficiently large base, e.g., if your most complex selection rule has 12 parts, use base 13.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:17:09 -0700, Barry Gold <BarryDG...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:
>Now... if you wanted color:#611 to apply to links inside a "sunset" span >but not to other links, you would make it
>.sunset a:link {color:#611;}
That's what I was after, and that's more or less what I did (on the
recommendations I received here). Any haziness is because of the long
time (by my memory's standards) since I did this - about 7 days.
And the problems were solved; didn't you read the answers before posting yours?
>> I have defined a class, "sunset" as:
>> .sunset {color:red}
>> Can I add things like:
>> a:link {color:#611}
> That should work, if I understand the priority rules for CSS correctly.
This has nothing to do with priority rules, in the context that is all-important but was left out by you:
"... into the "sunset" class, such that all links inside a <SPAN
CLASS=sunset> inherit the #611 colour?"
> The priority for ".sunset" is 010(*). The priority for "a:link" is 011,
> so it should override ".sunset".
The selector ".sunset", when set on a <span> element only, never matches any <a> element, so priority does not matter.
