User stylesheets without learning CSS?
Karl Smith
denied the option of using "user stylesheets"?
CC Zona wrote:
> Karl Smith wrote:
>
>
>>To start, give me a big long scrolling form with every element type the
>>browser implements and a tick box next to it (and a one sentence
>>description of what it does). So I can untick iframes, untick fonts etc.
>
>
> That would be wonderful. Sure, you can (in some browsers) use user
> stylesheets to set display: none to certain unwanted elements, but
> eliminating CSS knowledge (by user) and proper CSS implementation (for the
> browser) as prerequisites would make this much more useful to mainstream
> users. Plus it might even get them thinking more about what the purpose of
> each element really is, why some suck, and the consequences of mis-using
> others.
Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
--> HTML form
--> PHP script
--> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
!?
Or better yet, does such an online resource already exist somewhere?
(x-posted c.i.w.a.h & c.i.w.a.s)
andkonDOTcom
> Why should mainstream users, who have no interest in learning CSS, be
> denied the option of using "user stylesheets"?
>
Monkey see, monkey do. Are style sheets supposed so complicated that
"mainstream" users are too stupid to learn?
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
>
> --> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
>
> --> HTML form
>
> --> PHP script
>
> --> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
Not quite sure what purpose you have in mind for this, but if you
mean what I think, it's the kind of thing that lurks on the Site Valet
wishlist. Accessibility Valet has some of the foundations for it
(the desktop version a little more so than the online service).
How would you relate your idea to Tidy's mechanistic conversion of
presentational HTML to CSS?
--
Nick Kew
Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Pete Wilson
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
>
>--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
Yes, I'm very interested, indeed!
But I'm not qualified to work on the other items you propose.
-- Pete Wilson
pe...@pwilson.net
Keith Bowes
> Why should mainstream users, who have no interest in learning CSS, be
> denied the option of using "user stylesheets"?
>
You're right. And why should I, having no interest of going to med
school, be denied of being a doctor?
William Starr Moake
<user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Why should mainstream users, who have no interest in learning CSS, be
>denied the option of using "user stylesheets"?
>> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
>Or better yet, does such an online resource already exist?
http://www.kazaap.com/kazaap.htm has some nice ready-made CSS scripts.
Zvonimir Erdelja
You are not denied of being _your_ _own_ doctor, i.e. making yourself
a cup of tea, when you're ill, and you shouldn't be.
--
================
Zvonimir Erdelja
Joel Shepherd
If the whole of medical practice -- diagnosis and treatment -- could
be abstracted away and wrapped by tools that provided robust
error-checking ... I agree, why should you be denied?
Reality check: writing correct HTML or writing correct CSS does not
begin to approach the complexity of competent medical practice. Apart
from developer laziness or lack of a market, there is no reason why
tools couldn't be made that allowed users to create valid HTML markup
without writing the markup themselves, or allowed users to create
valid stylesheets without writing actual CSS.
Now, writing tools that would be sophisticated enough for commercial
"design" work might be asking a lot. But for many purposes - just
getting information on the web in a readable format - such tools would
be adequate and could greatly broaden the pool of successful web
content providers.
Oh. Is _that_ what you're worried about?
--
Joel.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
wrote:
[..]
>Would anyone be interested in collaborating
Sure.
> on a project that went:
>
>--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
-- and maybe some more general options (disable form styling, colored
scrollbars etc)
>--> HTML form
>
>--> PHP script
>
>--> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
-- possibly with switches to optimize for the intended browser. User
stylesheets don't have to be crossbrowser.
>Or better yet, does such an online resource already exist somewhere?
I don't think so.
--
.. it should look right, but that's no more than | Rijk van Geijtenbeek
finishing the paintwork on that wrecked car. If | mailto:ri...@iname.com
the underlying structure is unsound, no amount of | http://rijk.op.het.net
polishing the paintwork is going to make it fit for the road. (Alan Flavell)
Karl Smith
>
> Not quite sure what purpose you have in mind for this, but if you
> mean what I think,
Well I was thinking of a form(s) along the lines of:-
Element type: FONT
This element allows page authors to change the size, colour or typeface
of text without specifying any reason for the change.
Do you want to implement this element type?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] Not for colour changes.
[ ] Not for text size changes.
[ ] Not for typeface changes.
Where ticking the boxes would cause a script to output CSS:-
Nothing.
font { color: inherit }
font { font-size: inherit }
font { font-family: inherit }
That someone could copy/paste to a user stylesheet. Or:
Element type: STRONG
This element is used for marking strongly emphasized sections of text.
Do you want to implement this element type?
[ ] Not at all.
[ ] By making the text bold.
[ ] By making the text blink.
[ ] By making the text UPPERCASE.
> How would you relate your idea to Tidy's mechanistic conversion of
> presentational HTML to CSS?
I wouldn't. Tidy's weakest feature, IMO, and not the sort of thing I was
thinking of here.
--
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
<user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>> Not quite sure what purpose you have in mind for this, but if you
>> mean what I think,
>
>Well I was thinking of a form(s) along the lines of:-
>
>Element type: FONT
>
>This element allows page authors to change the size, colour or typeface
>of text without specifying any reason for the change.
>Do you want to implement this element type?
>
>[ ] Yes.
>[ ] Not for colour changes.
>[ ] Not for text size changes.
>[ ] Not for typeface changes.
Maybe this could be written as an ignitum firewall plugin?
http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/developers.html
Karl Smith
>
> -- and maybe some more general options (disable form styling, colored
> scrollbars etc)
What sort of things do people most often include in user stylesheets?
Are they wanting to set some property that most page authors don't
include, or are they wanting to disable some nonsense that authors do
include?
Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
Pete Wilson
>Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
>Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
Rijk, I hate to admit it. I have no user stylesheet at all.
Why? Because <blush> I haven't yet found, in any of the browsers*
I'm using, the way to enable those rascals. And it's too much
trouble, compared with the benefit, to examine the browser docs.
To me, hearing and sighted, it's just not worth the effort.
If the page is illegible and of only casual interest, I just
blow right by it: see ya' later.
-- pwilson *IE5.01, Op6.05, Moz4, NS6.2
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
wrote:
>In article <3D85CE79...@domain.invalid>,
>>Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
No I didn't! :)
> *IE5.01,
Tools > Options > Accessibility
> Op6.05,
File > Preferences > Page style
> Moz4,
Wuzdat?
> NS6.2
For Mozilla:
Search your hard disk for a file called userContent-example.css. It
should be part of your Mozilla profile. Create a file called
userContent.css in the same directory. Save the file and restart
Mozilla.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
wrote:
>Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
>>
>> -- and maybe some more general options (disable form styling, colored
>> scrollbars etc)
>
>What sort of things do people most often include in user stylesheets?
>Are they wanting to set some property that most page authors don't
>include, or are they wanting to disable some nonsense that authors do
>include?
For me, the latter. And then there are user stylesheets to debug web
pages made by yourself or others.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
wrote:
..
>Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
>--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
>--> HTML form
>--> PHP script
>--> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
>!?
>Or better yet, does such an online resource already exist somewhere?
Just found this one, it is underway: http://fussy.kynn.com/css.php
... which seems to be exactly the project you were thinking about. Only
one thing against it: it has barely started. So we should volunteer.
Other resources:
http://www.squarefree.com/userstyles/
http://www.nic.fi/~tapio1/Teaching/UserStyleSheets.php3
http://www.meryl.net/articles/archives/001013.php and 001014.php
Amit Patel
Me? :-)
Typically I want body text to be serif and header text to be
sans-serif. And I want larger text because I like high density
screens. :) (On low density screens I prefer sans-serif everywhere.)
So I try to adjust for authors choosing "Arial" (ugh) everywhere
instead of the more elegant Georgia and Verdana. So I guess here I'm
disabling some nonsense font that the author chose.
I like to see where the cursor focus is, so I have used this rule:
input:focus { color:black; background-color: yellow; }
I do something similar with Motif and X Resources. So here I'm adding
some property that most page authors don't include.
I also tried surfing with Document fonts/colors turned off and only
styled by my user stylesheet
(http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/amitp.css) and the web was
much more pleasant. But a few things didn't work quite right so I
went back to my normal state (allow author stylesheets, but tweak them
with my user stylesheet settings).
- Amit
--
Amit J Patel, Computer Science Department, Stanford University
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/
``Parkinson's Other Law: Perfection is achieved only
at the point of collapse.''
Urban Fredriksson
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
<http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/user.css>
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A boundary between the known and the unknown always exists.
Karl Smith
> In article <3D85CE79...@domain.invalid>,
> Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
>
>
> <http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/user.css>
You don't like italics do you? :-)
Another person who can't see why H5 and H6 would be smaller than normal
text. That would have to be top of the list for any UserStylesheets.com
to fix.
Karl Smith
> Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
>>
>>--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
>
> Yes, I'm very interested, indeed!
>
> But I'm not qualified to work on the other items you propose.
Pick an element, any HTML element. In fact, pick two?
bit-b...@maney.org
[...]
: Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
I typically just override the color scheme and fonts. However that's
in Opera's User mode and I generally only go into that when the
idiot, err.. I mean designer, offends me.
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney my_last_name AT my_last_name DOT org |
| Do NOT send me HTML formatted E-mail or copies of netnews posts! |
| Address in header is a spamtrap. Use one in signature for replies. |
| Please review http://www.maney.org/uce/ before emailing. |
bit-b...@maney.org
: On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:43:57 +0800, Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid>
: wrote:
: ..
:>Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a project that went:
:>--> Simple (but correct) description of each element type.
:>--> HTML form
:>--> PHP script
:>--> CSS output ready to copy/paste to your user stylesheet.
:>!?
:>Or better yet, does such an online resource already exist somewhere?
: Just found this one, it is underway: http://fussy.kynn.com/css.php
: ... which seems to be exactly the project you were thinking about. Only
: one thing against it: it has barely started. So we should volunteer.
: Other resources:
: http://www.squarefree.com/userstyles/
: http://www.nic.fi/~tapio1/Teaching/UserStyleSheets.php3
: http://www.meryl.net/articles/archives/001013.php and 001014.php
Hrmm.... I think I'll suggest (again) the concept of pre-built and
contributed "themes" or "skins" (much like Eric Meyer's presentation
sidebar) that the user's can examine and then download if they like
them.
Lauri Raittila
> Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
Better now than newer, but I got idea from this thread, about how to
apply style for special sites:
body {background:#F6FFF1;padding:0.2em}
p {max-width:60ex;}
p {max-width:100% !important}
/* Campridge <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=ridge*1+0>*/
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] {background:#F1FFEE
!important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"]
table[dwcopytype="CopyTableRow"] {display:none !important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] img {display:none
!important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"]
td[colspan="3"][class="small"] {display:none !important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] table[height="27"]
{display:none !important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] table
{display:inline !important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] tr {display:inline
!important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] td {display:inline
!important;}
body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] br {display:none
!important;}
The things after comment make Cambridge online dictionary fit "panel" in
Opera 6. Unfortunately this method for applying styles for sites is
dependant on sites code, and would be impossible for many sites, that
don't have unique attributes in their code. (The background is different
than normal so that I know if I go some site with similar onLoad
attribute.)
It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
[trimmed .html, not that this is too on topic here either...]
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Eric A. Meyer
Lauri Raittila <la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
'html' element in the site, so that one could target sites precisely. I
keep meaning to do this on meyerweb.com, so that people can set up user
stylesheets that target my site without disrupting others, but never
quite get around to it. Once I do, it will probably look something like
this:
<html id="www-meyerweb-com">
I could do the same thing on the 'body' element, except it's sometimes
useful to set a page-specific 'id' on the 'body', like 'book' or
'article', for site-style purposes.
--
Eric A. Meyer (er...@meyerweb.com) http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/
Author, "Cascading Style Sheets: The Definitive Guide,"
"Eric Meyer on CSS," "CSS 2.0 Programmer's Reference," and more
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/books/
Karl Smith
> Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
> 'html' element in the site, so that one could target sites precisely. I
> keep meaning to do this on meyerweb.com, so that people can set up user
> stylesheets that target my site without disrupting others, but never
> quite get around to it. Once I do, it will probably look something like
> this:
>
> <html id="www-meyerweb-com">
Okay, you get some brownie points to offset against the bad karma from
the microfonts *when* you do it. We'll be waiting.
--
"Karl is right."
- Jan Roland Eriksson
bit-b...@maney.org
: In article <MPG.17fdab198...@news.oulu.fi>,
: Lauri Raittila <la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
:> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
:> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
: Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
: 'html' element in the site, so that one could target sites precisely. I
: keep meaning to do this on meyerweb.com, so that people can set up user
: stylesheets that target my site without disrupting others, but never
: quite get around to it. Once I do, it will probably look something like
: this:
: <html id="www-meyerweb-com">
: I could do the same thing on the 'body' element, except it's sometimes
: useful to set a page-specific 'id' on the 'body', like 'book' or
: 'article', for site-style purposes.
Now *that's* a good idea.
fpsm, who will be adding that to his sites this weekend, time-permitting
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:48:21 -0400 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Eric A. Meyer wrote:
>: In article <MPG.17fdab198...@news.oulu.fi>,
>: Lauri Raittila <la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
>
>:> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
>:> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
>
>: Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
>: 'html' element in the site, so that one could target sites precisely. I
>: keep meaning to do this on meyerweb.com, so that people can set up user
>: stylesheets that target my site without disrupting others, but never
>: quite get around to it. Once I do, it will probably look something like
>: this:
>
>: <html id="www-meyerweb-com">
...
>
>Now *that's* a good idea.
..
It's an amazing idea. Is it likely to confuse elderly browsers?
Karl Smith
> Karl Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Hey you! Anyone reading this. What do you include in your user stylesheet?
>
>
> Better now than newer, but I got idea from this thread, about how to
> apply style for special sites:
>
>
> body[onLoad="document.forms[0].searchword.focus();"] {background:#F1FFEE
> !important;}
[snip]
> The things after comment make Cambridge online dictionary fit "panel" in
> Opera 6. Unfortunately this method for applying styles for sites is
> dependant on sites code, and would be impossible for many sites, that
> don't have unique attributes in their code.
Yes, but most older non-CSS sites do have a unique attribute in their
code. Conveniently placed on the BODY tag too. Ones like this with a
complete URL would be most useful
background='http://www.sbs.com.au/archive_goinghome/images/bg.gif'
That is absolutely unique to that particular site.
Ones like this are more common, but less useful:
<BODY background="/images/logo_bg.jpg">
It's these modern CSS using sites that are going to be troublesome, they
don't have anything as useful in most cases.
There's a better way to make sure that the stylesheet doesn't
accidentally filter the wrong site without you realizing it. (I presume
that was the reason you changed the background colour to something gaudy
as you did.)
BODY[background="/images/logo_bg.jpg"]:before {
content: " CSS Filter for Gemini Observatory site applied. "
}
> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I was waffling (in
c.i.w.a.h about 2 weeks ago) about browsers needing "filtering"
capability instead of just presenting sites the way the author wanted.
But I couldn't seem to get people to understand what I meant, and
couldn't see how to implement it.
Thanks Lauri.
The way ahead is for webmasters to identify their sites using the id
attribute on the HTML element as Eric Meyer suggested. Just a little bit
of co-operation from webmasters and I can have the filtering browser I
want without any new technology being needed.
:-)
The boys down in marketing say that this practice should be called CSS
Namespacing for maximum buzzword compliance.
Karl Smith
> On 27 Sep 2002 20:14:57 GMT, bit-b...@maney.org wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:48:21 -0400 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Eric A. Meyer wrote:
>>: In article <MPG.17fdab198...@news.oulu.fi>,
>>: Lauri Raittila <la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
>>
>>:> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
>>:> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
>>
>>: Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
>>: 'html' element in the site, so that one could target sites precisely.
>
>>Now *that's* a good idea.
>
> ..
> It's an amazing idea. Is it likely to confuse elderly browsers?
Don't worry about those elderly browsers, everything confuses them. They
still think squabbling over the true meaning of alt text is the hot
intellectual issue of the day.
Oh, you mean elderly software? Nah, this won't affect MSIE at all.
Eric A. Meyer
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Okay, you get some brownie points to offset against the bad karma from
> the microfonts *when* you do it. We'll be waiting.
Gee, thanks. Can I ensure a place in style heaven if I say five Hail
Hakons and a Blessed Bert?
Karl Smith
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:48:21 -0400 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> : <html id="www-meyerweb-com">
>
> : I could do the same thing on the 'body' element, except it's sometimes
> : useful to set a page-specific 'id' on the 'body', like 'book' or
> : 'article', for site-style purposes.
>
> Now *that's* a good idea.
>
> fpsm, who will be adding that to his sites this weekend, time-permitting
Line 2, column 19:
<html lang="en" id="home.example.com">
^
Error: there is no attribute "ID" for this element (in this HTML version)
Sorry, this document does not validate as ISO/IEC 15445:2000 (ISO-HTML).
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!! GRR...
<!ATTLIST HTML
%i18n; -- Internationalization DIR and LANG -->
Anyone got any ideas what to do about this? (I keep telling you folks
validation is over-rated.)
Eric A. Meyer
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Line 2, column 19:
>
> <html lang="en" id="home.example.com">
>
> Error: there is no attribute "ID" for this element (in this HTML version)
>
>[...zap...]
>
> Anyone got any ideas what to do about this? (I keep telling you folks
> validation is over-rated.)
I just noticed this myself and was preparing to post when I spotted
your post, Karl. The only alternative I can see is to 'id' the 'body'
element and use classes for things like page-specific labels. Thus
instead of:
<body id="article">
... the page would have:
<body id="www-meyerweb-com" class="article">
It isn't a huge difference, conceptually speaking, and actually has some
benefits. For example, it forces me (as the site author) to say things
like:
body.article {font-size: 10px;}
The reader, on the other hand, gets to say in his stylesheet:
#www-meyerweb-com {font-size: 1em;}
This means that the reader wins even without bring '!important' into the
fray. Obviously, the reader will want to add in a '!important' jsut in
case I get devious and add one to the site stylesheet.
It also means that, as an author, I can more easily combine "page
classes" like so:
<body id="www-meyerweb-com" class="article webrev 1999">
You don't get to do that with ID values.
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
wrote:
>Jacqui or (maybe) Pete wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2002 20:14:57 GMT, bit-b...@maney.org wrote:
...
>> It's an amazing idea. Is it likely to confuse elderly browsers?
>
>Don't worry about those elderly browsers, everything confuses them. They
>still think squabbling over the true meaning of alt text is the hot
>intellectual issue of the day.
>
>Oh, you mean elderly software? Nah, this won't affect MSIE at all.
Ha!
<div class="ramble">
I'm a programmer by trade.
I kind of *looked* at html for years but figured, rightly, that it was
a bunch of garbage. About 3 months ago I read something from the
'browser upgrade campaign', checked google's stats on the browsers
people were using, & figured that none of my potential clients were
using neolithic browsers anyway. I subscribed to this group & read all
the referenced web pages. I asked a few questions, and received very
helpful answers. I try to answer other's questions, sometimes, in an
attempt to learn.
Whatever: it has been a total epiphany.
I now look after several (very small) commercial sites. None of them
are going to win prizes for design, but I like them & the effort of
maintaining them is minimal.
</ramble>
Critique away (I know the content is a bit crap).
Karl Smith
> In article <3D948AA...@domain.invalid>,
> Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Okay, you get some brownie points to offset against the bad karma from
>>the microfonts *when* you do it. We'll be waiting.
>
>
> Gee, thanks. Can I ensure a place in style heaven if I say five Hail
> Hakons and a Blessed Bert?
>
No, you're on my shit list again because it doesn't validate and more
importantly it doesn't work!
So it has to go on the body tag, not the html tag, where it does work
(and validate coincidentally - does anyone else think Opera takes
standards adherence too far?).
And you don't even get the prize for being the first working
implementation :-p
Karl Smith
>
> I just noticed this myself and was preparing to post when I spotted
> your post, Karl. The only alternative I can see is to 'id' the 'body'
> element and use classes for things like page-specific labels. Thus
> instead of:
>
> <body id="article">
>
> ... the page would have:
>
> <body id="www-meyerweb-com" class="article">
Works for me! Now how about some informal "standards"?
Is there a technical reason you're using hyphens, not dots:
meyerweb.com? Or is that just a personal style thing?
Because dots seem to work okay...
Bertilo Wennergren
> The only alternative I can see is to 'id' the 'body'
> element and use classes for things like page-specific labels.
'id' on 'body' should do just great. This is actually an excellent idea.
It's a pity though that only HTML geeks like us folks here will ever do
this. What we really want is for the big guys (Google, Yahoo...) to do
it. But that will never happen. (OK, Google perhaps...)
Anyway: As from one minute ago, all the pages at my site have
'id="www.bertilow.com"' in the body tag. Not that I think many of you
will read any of my pages, but it's beautiful thing anyway.
So just go ahead and add '#www.bertilow.com * {display:none} to your
stylesheets. It's all on me!
--
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Eric A. Meyer
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Works for me! Now how about some informal "standards"?
Oh good, maybe I can at least reach style purgatory now. Glee!
> Is there a technical reason you're using hyphens, not dots:
> meyerweb.com? Or is that just a personal style thing?
>
> Because dots seem to work okay...
Mostly because dots are separators in class selectors. For example:
.www.meyerweb.com {...}
...means "any element with a 'class' that contains the words 'www',
'meyerweb', and 'com' in any order." That's not really what I want
here, and it might have unexpected side effects. Plus the expected side
effects, like IE/Win not being able to deal with chained class names
like that. Underscores are out for historical reasons, so hyphens it
was.
Bertilo Wennergren
>> Is there a technical reason you're using hyphens, not dots:
>> meyerweb.com? Or is that just a personal style thing?
> Mostly because dots are separators in class selectors.
Oops! I was a bit to quick there in my adoption of this new wonderful
technique (It needs a name!). Hyphens it must be. Now all my pages have
'id="www-bertilow-com"' in the body tag.
Karl Smith
>
> 'id' on 'body' should do just great. This is actually an excellent idea.
>
> It's a pity though that only HTML geeks like us folks here will ever do
> this. What we really want is for the big guys (Google, Yahoo...) to do
> it. But that will never happen. (OK, Google perhaps...)
Let's see if we can direct the Opera folks attention to this thread?
> Anyway: As from one minute ago, all the pages at my site have
> 'id="www.bertilow.com"' in the body tag. Not that I think many of you
> will read any of my pages, but it's beautiful thing anyway.
>
> So just go ahead and add '#www.bertilow.com * {display:none} to your
> stylesheets. It's all on me!
better change it to www-bertilow-com ? I was using a selector like:
body[id="www.bertilow.com"]
which will work, and hadn't realized that #www.bertilow.com looks very
suspect.
Eric A. Meyer
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Oops! I was a bit to quick there in my adoption of this new wonderful
> technique (It needs a name!).
Site branding? Site identifier? Site naming? Body branding?
>Hyphens it must be.
Well, possibly not "must," although I've yet to crawl throught the
grammar far enough to see if it's legal, but I think in order to avoid
confusion it's better not to use dots. Otherwise we risk people
thinking IDs and classes are the same thing, or something equally
silly... not to mention the possibility that a poorly written parser
would try to do something incorrect. Not that browsers ever have poorly
written parsers, heavens no...
> Now all my pages have 'id="www-bertilow-com"' in the body tag.
Very cool. Now I'll have to do the same thing this weekend or else
risk being left behind by my own idea.
Karl Smith
> Oops! I was a bit to quick there in my adoption of this new wonderful
> technique (It needs a name!).
You didn't like CSS Namespacing? Okay how about X-CSS? (The X means
"kewl" so I've been told.)
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
wrote:
>Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>>
>> 'id' on 'body' should do just great. This is actually an excellent idea.
>>
>> It's a pity though that only HTML geeks like us folks here will ever do
>> this.
Those are the same people using User stylesheets in the first place :)
>> What we really want is for the big guys (Google, Yahoo...) to do
>> it. But that will never happen. (OK, Google perhaps...)
>
>Let's see if we can direct the Opera folks attention to this thread?
You rang?
What do you want? Opera to add 'www-opera-com' to all its body tags?
--
.. it should look right, but that's no more than | Rijk van Geijtenbeek
finishing the paintwork on that wrecked car. If | mailto:ri...@iname.com
the underlying structure is unsound, no amount of | http://rijk.op.het.net
polishing the paintwork is going to make it fit for the road. (Alan Flavell)
Bertilo Wennergren
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:37:06 GMT, Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>>Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>>> 'id' on 'body' should do just great. This is actually an excellent idea.
>>> It's a pity though that only HTML geeks like us folks here will ever do
>>> this.
> Those are the same people using User stylesheets in the first place :)
Yes, but we too need the sites out there to have those ids, otherwise it
won't even work for us - with the exception of those of us who only read
the pages of othere HTML geeks. :-)
Karl Smith
> In article <an2ltb$6g2$02$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Oops! I was a bit to quick there in my adoption of this new wonderful
>>technique (It needs a name!).
>
>
> Site branding?
logo.jpg
> Site identifier?
> Site naming?
Example.com Online
> Body branding?
Pervert.
I think the phrase we're looking for is "CSS signature", okay?
>>Now all my pages have 'id="www-bertilow-com"' in the body tag.
In messages refer to your CSS signature like this:
#home-kjsmith-com
So it is the same as it would appear in a CSS file, not as it appears in
HTML. (Immediately copy/past-able this way, and avoids "What do I need
to write in my stylesheet?" questions.)
Isofarro
CSS4US -- CSS for User Styles. :-)
(That might be a problem for people running toy-enabled worlds instead
of css-enabled).
CSSUIC -- CSS: User In Control.
(sounds like a Police Academy movie rip-off)
uCSS - user's CSS
eCSS - Eric's CSS :-)
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
AnyBrowser Campaign: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
Isofarro
> Rijk van Geijtenbeek:
>> Those are the same people using User stylesheets in the first place
>> :)
>
> Yes, but we too need the sites out there to have those ids,
I'll add it to my todo list for my faq's CSS layout revamp.
Isofarro
> In article <MPG.17fdab198...@news.oulu.fi>,
> Lauri Raittila <la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
>
>> It's shame that there is no build in way in browsers (AFAIK) to apply
>> special stylesheets to some sites that are very much used.
>
> Or, failing that, the inclusion of a site-specific 'id' on every
> 'html' element in the site, [...]
> like this:
>
> <html id="www-meyerweb-com">
Excellent idea!
What would be nice is a "style-vocabulary" of class names, such that
class names of "article", "content", "main" can be identified as the
content someone is looking for, and menus have the names "menu"
"rightmenu" "leftmenu" -- at least some common ground to work with.
Karl Smith
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:37:06 GMT, Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>Let's see if we can direct the Opera folks attention to this thread?
>
> You rang?
>
> What do you want? Opera to add 'www-opera-com' to all its body tags?
Er, YES! The sooner the better. You shouldn't need to add it to "all
your body tags", I just added it to /includes/iso-html-header.stm and it
mysteriously turned up on every page :-)
And add something like "Our CSS signature is #www-opera-com" to that
small print at the bottom of pages along with the copyright notice and
stuff.
Eric A. Meyer
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Eric A. Meyer wrote:
>
> > Body branding?
>
> Pervert.
Thank you. We could always go with "body signature," as in, "Does
Justin Timberlake sign body parts?"
> I think the phrase we're looking for is "CSS signature", okay?
Not bad, certainly no less awkward than saying "double-you double-you
double-you." I'll go with it until someone invents a better name.
> In messages refer to your CSS signature like this:
>
> #home-kjsmith-com
>
> So it is the same as it would appear in a CSS file, not as it appears in
> HTML. (Immediately copy/past-able this way, and avoids "What do I need
> to write in my stylesheet?" questions.)
Good idea. My CSS signature is now #www-meyerweb-com, at least on
nearly all the public pages. I may have missed a few pages here and
there, and will update as I find them. Oh, and I intentionally didn't
sign css/edge at all, so don't bother to tell me I didn't. I may sign
it in the future, but for now I'm leaving it as is. Nobody around here
really needs to visit it anyway.
Thanks to Bertilo for shaming me into signing meyerweb this weekend,
as opposed to sometime around Christmas, and to you, Karl, for your
validation work and suggestions.
By the way, so far as I'm aware the first example of a CSS signature
is Mark Irons' site at <http://www.rdrop.com/~half/>; Mark came up with
this idea around the same time I did, back in April or May. Mark uses
underscores in his signature, which I don't think is a great idea but
it's certainly not forbidden (not any more, that is). There's also a
signature on the css-discuss public archives
(http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/), which were given the
signature '#css-d-archive' at my request before the site went live. So
if you don't like the default presentation of the css-discuss archives,
feel free to change them to suit you.
Bertilo Wennergren
> Thanks to Bertilo
You're welcome!
> for shaming me into signing meyerweb this weekend,
> as opposed to sometime around Christmas,
I had a slightly easier task though, since there were only two files for
me to edit (one for the XHTML 1.0 docs, one for the XHTML 1.1 docs).
Using PHP does help sometimes. :-)
This is the dawning of a new age, right? The CSSS age. (Well, maybe not...)
Karl Smith
> By the way, so far as I'm aware the first example of a CSS signature
> is Mark Irons' site at <http://www.rdrop.com/~half/>; Mark came up with
> this idea around the same time I did, back in April or May. Mark uses
> underscores in his signature, which I don't think is a great idea but
> it's certainly not forbidden (not any more, that is). There's also a
> signature on the css-discuss public archives
> (http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/), which were given the
> signature '#css-d-archive' at my request before the site went live.
( http://www.rdrop.com/~half/ uses #www_rdrop_com-half, I would have
done the opposite: #www-rdrop-com_half )
I can see no obvious transformation that derives #css-d-archive from
http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/
That leads directly to the next order of business if the practice is to
become widespread: a way to avoid name collisions for people who do not
have their own domain names?
--
"Maybe we can meet up and talk guns and web design."
- Fredrich P. Maney
Karl Smith
> I had a slightly easier task though, since there were only two files for
> me to edit (one for the XHTML 1.0 docs, one for the XHTML 1.1 docs).
> Using PHP does help sometimes. :-)
Please explain:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stilo/stilo1.css" type="text/css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="eo">
<head>
<title>La TTT-ejo de Bertilo</title>
<meta name="Description" xml:lang="eo" content="La TTT-ejo de Bertilo"/>
<meta name="Author" content="Bertilo Wennergren"/>
<link rel="icon" type="image/ico" href="/favicon.ico"/>
</head>
<body>
That should type="image/x-icon"(?) and what is missing from this picture?
Bertilo Wennergren
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>> I had a slightly easier task though, since there were only two files for
>> me to edit (one for the XHTML 1.0 docs, one for the XHTML 1.1 docs).
>> Using PHP does help sometimes. :-)
> Please explain:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <?xml-stylesheet href="/stilo/stilo1.css" type="text/css"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="eo">
> <head>
> <title>La TTT-ejo de Bertilo</title>
> <meta name="Description" xml:lang="eo" content="La TTT-ejo de Bertilo"/>
> <meta name="Author" content="Bertilo Wennergren"/>
> <link rel="icon" type="image/ico" href="/favicon.ico"/>
> </head>
> <body>
> That should type="image/x-icon"(?)
Thanks. I'll look into that.
> and what is missing from this picture?
I have no idea. You tell me.
Bertilo Wennergren
> Karl Smith:
>> <body>
>> and what is missing from this picture?
> I have no idea. You tell me.
Ok, Ok, I see the light now. You're not getting my new shining CSSS
header, but the old mouldy one.
Probably you had my page in your cache, and never got a new one from the
server. I only updated the header file, and the decisive date-time stamp
is the one of the main file.
It should work now.
Now, Karl, I had no idea you had been checking out my pages before. What
do you now...
Karl Smith
> Karl Smith:
>
>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>><?xml-stylesheet href="/stilo/stilo1.css" type="text/css"?>
>><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
>></head>
>><body> <<<<<----------------
>
>>and what is missing from this picture?
>
>
> I have no idea. You tell me.
Ur CSS signature d00d!
Karl Smith
> It should work now.
>
> Now, Karl, I had no idea you had been checking out my pages before. What
> do you now...
Did you mean,"What do you see now..."
"CSS Filter for Bertilo Wennergren's site applied."
Or did you mean,"What do you know..."
I know that Mozilla only reloads userContent.css when it starts up, so I
have been restarting it over and over all evening while I experiment.
I *don't* know what language "eo" is, I thought you were German?
--
/* CSS FILTERS FOR SPECIFIC SITES */
/* Bertilo Wennergren http://www.bertilow.com */
#www-bertilow-com:before {
display: block;
content: "CSS Filter for Bertilo Wennergren's site applied."
}
/* Eric Meyer http://www.meyerweb.com */
#www-meyerweb-com:before {
display: block;
content: "CSS Filter for Eric Meyer's site applied."
}
#www-meyerweb-com {
font-size: 1em !important;
}
Bertilo Wennergren
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>> It should work now.
>> Now, Karl, I had no idea you had been checking out my pages before. What
>> do you now...
> Did you mean,"What do you see now..."
Ooops! I meant "What do you know...".
> "CSS Filter for Bertilo Wennergren's site applied."
Is that "#www-bertilow-com * {display: none; }"?
> I know that Mozilla only reloads userContent.css when it starts up, so I
> have been restarting it over and over all evening while I experiment.
Poor you!
> I *don't* know what language "eo" is, I thought you were German?
I'm a Swede actually.
Here's my page with all them two-letter language codes:
<http://www.bertilow.com/lanlin/isoling.php>
(But you'll have to take away "#www-bertilow-com * {display: none }"
first - and restart Mozilla again. Sorry!)
Eric A. Meyer
Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> ( http://www.rdrop.com/~half/ uses #www_rdrop_com-half, I would have
> done the opposite: #www-rdrop-com_half )
>
> I can see no obvious transformation that derives #css-d-archive from
> http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/
Both of them were done months ago, before we started worrying about
things like conventions. In the case of the archive, I don't remember
if I suggested that value or Simon came up with it, but either way it
seemed to make sense.
> That leads directly to the next order of business if the practice is to
> become widespread: a way to avoid name collisions for people who do not
> have their own domain names?
Feel free; I myself don't have a whole lot of interest in that sort
of thing, being content to have applied a signature that's likely to be
unique on the Web. In fact I probably would have just labeled my site
with #meyerweb (as it's easier to type than #www-meyerweb-com) if I'd
done it before this thread erupted. But if someone wants to come up
with a formalized procedure for creating signatures, I'll be happy to
point to it.
On the topic, it occurred to me over breakfast this morning that
there are some useful rules for generic signature detection, which I'll
share here:
body[id] {border-top: 1em solid red;}
/* sets an obvious flag that an 'id' is in use on the 'body'
element so the reader can investigate further */
body[id]:before {content: "Site signature: #" attr(id);
display: block; border: 3px double red; background: yellow;}
/* writes out the signature at the top of the document */
Those are just my grab-the-optic-nerve styles, and obviously they could
be made more subtle/pleasing/whatever. In any case, they make it
possible to discover signatures without having to look at the source of
every site one visits.
Steve Catto
<er...@meyerweb.com> wrote:
>In article <3D95DB4C...@domain.invalid>,
> Karl Smith <user...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ( http://www.rdrop.com/~half/ uses #www_rdrop_com-half, I would have
>> done the opposite: #www-rdrop-com_half )
<snip>
> Both of them were done months ago, before we started worrying about
>things like conventions. In the case of the archive, I don't remember
<snip>
> On the topic, it occurred to me over breakfast this morning that
>there are some useful rules for generic signature detection, which I'll
>share here:
>
> body[id] {border-top: 1em solid red;}
> /* sets an obvious flag that an 'id' is in use on the 'body'
> element so the reader can investigate further */
>
> body[id]:before {content: "Site signature: #" attr(id);
> display: block; border: 3px double red; background: yellow;}
> /* writes out the signature at the top of the document */
>
>Those are just my grab-the-optic-nerve styles, and obviously they could
>be made more subtle/pleasing/whatever. In any case, they make it
Very eye catching, now to make my own colors etc.
Rgds
Steve
--
see reply address for email addy instructions
bit-b...@maney.org
[...]
"Maybe we can meet up and talk guns and web design."
- Fredrich P. Maney
I'm not certain, but I believe that's the first time I've ever been
quoted in someone's signature. Cool.
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney my_last_name AT my_last_name DOT org |
| Do NOT send me HTML formatted E-mail or copies of netnews posts! |
| Address in header is a spamtrap. Use one in signature for replies. |
| Please review http://www.maney.org/uce/ before emailing. |
Karl Smith
> body[id]:before {content: "Site signature: #" attr(id);
> display: block; border: 3px double red; background: yellow;}
> /* writes out the signature at the top of the document */
Put this in your Mozilla stylesheet and then "view source" on any page
whatsoever...
Lauri Raittila
> I know that Mozilla only reloads userContent.css when it starts up
That's not fun. Especially if using some old machine like I am doing.
I noticed that in Opera you don't need to restart it over and over, but
insted you can go to preferences, page style, and click button to change
it, cancel and then hit apply/ok. That is faster than restarting whole
thing on my computer.
It's pretty hard to test user stylesheet when applying it takes ages.
Maybe we get some command for reloading user style in coming versions of
browsers.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
bit-b...@maney.org
: In article <3D95E7B5...@domain.invalid>, Karl Smith wrote:
:> I know that Mozilla only reloads userContent.css when it starts up
: That's not fun. Especially if using some old machine like I am doing.
: I noticed that in Opera you don't need to restart it over and over, but
: insted you can go to preferences, page style, and click button to change
: it, cancel and then hit apply/ok. That is faster than restarting whole
: thing on my computer.
: It's pretty hard to test user stylesheet when applying it takes ages.
: Maybe we get some command for reloading user style in coming versions of
: browsers.
I'm still waiting for the ability to have multiple user style sheets
(or "skins"). Then a nice little button (or drop-down maybe?) like
Opera's "Author/User mode" button to toggle between them. That way
you could tailor multiple sheets to solve specific problems instead
of having to apply all of the fixes to all sites.