www.webdeveloper.com
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: image gap in Netscape 6 ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5

    image gap in Netscape 6 ...

    I have a site using a css workaround for the Netscape 6 'gap under images in tables' problem. However, it is causing all images inline with hunks of text to display improperly. It is a massive site, so I don't want to retool the html. I would rather fix the issue in the stylesheet alone. My fix for the netscape problem is this:

    td img { vertical-align: top;}

    Unfortunately, an image inline with text will not allow text to wrap around it (align=left). The default attribute for the vertical-align is baseline, but this does not fix the problem. Only if the img style is completely removed does the problem go away. Is there any way to delete this style for a specific class? ie.

    .normal img {vertical-align: none;}

    Any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

    Quasi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    984
    Um, are you sure you are not looking for

    td img { vertical-align:bottom;} ?

    I've never heard about anyone using top, that seems be exactly the opposite of what you want to do.
    // Stefan Huszics

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5
    sorry, mistyped. I do have it set to 'bottom'.

    My issue is how to 'delete' this style for another part of the page so that text will correctly wrap around an image tag set to 'align="left"'.

    Q

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    984
    Originally posted by Quasidandy

    My issue is how to 'delete' this style for another part of the page so that text will correctly wrap around an image tag set to 'align="left"'.
    Firstly, you should be using style="float:left" instead of align.
    Also
    td img { vertical-align:bottom;}
    only applies to images in a <td>. That should be fairly uncommon on your page, unless you are abusing <table> for general page layout.

    For a proper fix suggestion you should probably post an url so I can have a look at the page.
    // Stefan Huszics

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5
    thanks for the editorial, but no thanks.
    <rant>
    I have to work in an actuall production environment for real clients. So 'Abusing' tables is not only necessary, it is standard and efficient. Not to mention that positioning in the standards world is still not free from bugs, and is not even close to being supported equally in current browsers. The reason my problem even exists is because of my desire to use standards compliant markup in my development - all I need to do is remove the DTD from my pages, and the problem dissapears. I, however, am trying to further the state of the art in web design, and set an example.

    So If you can't offer any worthwhile advice without thumbing your nose, please don't offer anything at all. If I wanted uninformed 'holier-than-thou' commentary, I could have found it many other places.
    </rant>
    Thanks for the float suggestion. I'll give it a try.

    Anybody else out there with some thoughts on my actual post?

    Quasi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    984
    Originally posted by Quasidandy

    I have to work in an actuall production environment for real clients. So 'Abusing' tables is not only necessary, it is standard and efficient.
    Abusing tables is neighter efficient nor is it nessecary. On the contrary, it leads to bloated code that is a PITA to update & maintain. Furher it might also be illegal resoulting in fines for your clients due to being inaccessible for disabled (if you happen to be working in the US).

    As for it being "standard" to abuse tables, yes it used to be, but there has been "some" progress since the mid 90ies.

    The reason my problem even exists is because of my desire to use standards compliant markup in my development - all I need to do is remove the DTD from my pages, and the problem dissapears
    That is an interesting viewpoint since the specs have stated that you shouldn't abuse table for layout since 1997 and the reason you page "works" without a DTD is becuse you are relying on browserbugs to acchive the desired look, not standards.

    So If you can't offer any worthwhile advice without thumbing your nose, please don't offer anything at all.
    If you want to be a bit more constructive then just attaking me for pointing out where you REAL problem lies, you should provide an URL (to at least a testcase if you can't show the original) showing the problem like I asked you to.

    The fact is, if you can't get your images to show where & how you want them in a Gecko browser using valid markup & CSS it's a 100:1 odds that you are doing something wrong. And I don't care if that offends you or not.
    Also I'm also not interested in playing "find the needle in the haystack", especially with people that have an attitude when you point out their mistakes.
    // Stefan Huszics

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5
    Originally posted by Stefan
    Abusing tables is neighter efficient nor is it nessecary. On the contrary, it leads to bloated code that is a PITA to update & maintain. Furher it might also be illegal resoulting in fines for your clients due to being inaccessible for disabled (if you happen to be working in the US).
    http://www.section508.gov/

    view source.

    Originally posted by Stefan
    If you want to be a bit more constructive then just attaking me for pointing out where you REAL problem lies ...
    for the record, let's take a look at who attacked whom
    Originally posted by Stefan
    That should be fairly uncommon on your page, unless you are abusing <table> for general page layout.
    I was simply looking for some helpful insight. I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult. These forums ususally do a wonderful job of creating a true sense of community between web designers and developers all around the world. It's unfortunate when they become a display area for bloated egos.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    984
    Originally posted by Quasidandy
    [B]http://www.section508.gov/

    view source.
    Is this the site you are working on or are you just trying to make a snotty remark?

    If it is your site, the page is still broken in mozilla even if you remove the doctype.

    If it isn't your site, you'd be well adviced to look at the source yourself and even more importantly how the page looks in eg Lynx. Greate care have been put into making the page degrade gracefully so it has good accessibility DESPITE abusing table for layout.
    It's still a unessecarily bloated way to do it though as well as looking ugly in modern standards compatinble webbrowsers. It could definitly need some attention to fix it.

    for the record, let's take a look at who attacked whom

    "That should be fairly uncommon on your page, unless you are abusing <table> for general page layout."
    Exactly what in that quote do you find insulting?
    I think it's a 100% accurate statement. If you are not abusing <table> for something it was not intended, the chanses are very slim that you will have many images in <td>s.
    Tables are for presenting tabular data, and that data is very rarely images.
    Last edited by Stefan; 01-13-2003 at 03:25 PM.
    // Stefan Huszics

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles