Ok...
I have a problem.
Not a big one, but still.
Probably, it'll be very basic, and I'll ashamed, and people will point their finger at me, laughing...
I'd like to understand why something shows differently on IE and the gecko browsers + Opera ( I haven't tested the mac browsers yet, but I'd rather not kill myself in despair after looking at IE for mac )
in my css, I specified :
img {
border: 0;
}
BUT, also :
li img {
border: 4px solid red;
}
then, on my images, of course, I don't have any border, which is obvious.
What's more surprising is :
I don't have any border on my images included in li tags in all browsers, except IE.
If I don't specify the li img { blablabla }, and leave it blank, I'll get a border which reacts like a link ( same hover colors and all ) on the images ( which are clickable ) on all browsers, except IE, where I'll get this horrible blue link color.
As soon as I specify anything concerning the border, the border disappears in FF, Opera, Netscape, but is pretty, nice and full of fun in IE.
Have I missed an episode ?
I had the impression IE was supposed to be the weird one...
If you really want to, I'll post my css, but it's long, complicated, and in three parts...
Ok, drop it, it's fixed. I don't know why, but it seemed the gecko browsers didn't like the :
li.il a img {blabla}
and prefered the .il a img {blabla}
( the code was :
<li class="il"><a href=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/archive/index.php/"#"><img></a></li>
)
Anyway, I still have two questions :
Why does the border in IE stay the color I assigned it ( which is what I want ) and behaves like a link in gecko browser ? This is not very annoying, mostly disturbing.
And what IS annoying is that if I hover on the images, it disturbs the alignment of my images, exactly like if I had put some text in bold on hover.
I think it might be because images behave like text, but still... strange, no ?Ok, I think I'm pretty much on my own in here...
I fixed the alignement of the images. It was indeed a matter of setting the font-weight to normal on hover.
But for the link-behaving borders, nothing to do.
I tried all logical solutions, and I think I'll need some help here.
FF and gecko like browsers don't consider my color-assignment for the border at all, and sadistically choose to pick up some random link color.I think it might be because images behave like text, but still... strange, no ?No. <img>s are inline elements just like text. Expect them to behave like text and be influnenced by text-related styles like line-height.
FF and gecko like browsers don't consider my color-assignment for the border at all, and sadistically choose to pick up some random link color.
Got link? The borders around <img>s inside <a>s seem related more to the <a> than the <img>. E.g. to remove them you'd use "li a img {border:none}". I don't know; this could also be related to the specificity of the styles, too. At any rate, it's hard to reply without being able to see the page.Ok, I see.
Indeed, I'm using the li a img to assign things to them
But still, it's true that they behave like a link, and not like an image...
The page is here : <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://enfantsdelo.free.fr/gal1.php">http://enfantsdelo.free.fr/gal1.php</a><!-- m -->
the css concerned are css1.css ( or whatever cssANUMBER.css ) and cssin.css
css.css is the layout css, normaly, nothing's there.
I knew that img did behave like text ( you can align an image with text-align ), but I was surprised to see they were affected by a font-weight : bold.Are the borders in question the ones around the thumbnails in the gallery? Do you want them to be consistently one color with no visited/hover/active support? Two things I did notice were that you've got some selectors that IE doesn't understand and you don't have the link styles in the love/hate sequence; link, visited, hover, active.
Bold letters are larger than normal so they will have sizing effects on their associates. I assume that's what was happening.Yeah, that's the border in question.
I wan't them to be the color I assigned them. ( no visited, active, hover reaction ).
It works fine in IE, I've problems only in gecko browsers.
I didn't have the impression that the position of active really mattered, but I'll try to chance it. ( actually, all my links work perfectly fine, so it's a bit strange... )so, i modified the order of my pseudo classes and tested that, and of course, it didn't change anything.
Any idea what's going on ?(cssin.css)
li.il a img {
padding:10px;
margin: 10px;
border: 4px solid;
}
do you need to add the colour onto the end of that border?The color is in the other css, so I'm not adding it here. This is cssin.css, the color is in cssNumber.css.
I have five different styles, and each goes with a color.css1.css:
/* Links */
a img { color:#ccc }eheh, ray326, it did the trick !!! yeah !!!
Thanks a lot !!!
So, the image border was reacting like text ???? Good to know
Apparently so. Doesn't sound kosher but I'm sure it's matching up with the spec somewhere.I'll have to look that up.
But, it's strange that if I specify a BORDER, and give it a border-color, it doesn't work. Because it IS a border, not an image...
Anyway...
I have a problem.
Not a big one, but still.
Probably, it'll be very basic, and I'll ashamed, and people will point their finger at me, laughing...
I'd like to understand why something shows differently on IE and the gecko browsers + Opera ( I haven't tested the mac browsers yet, but I'd rather not kill myself in despair after looking at IE for mac )
in my css, I specified :
img {
border: 0;
}
BUT, also :
li img {
border: 4px solid red;
}
then, on my images, of course, I don't have any border, which is obvious.
What's more surprising is :
I don't have any border on my images included in li tags in all browsers, except IE.
If I don't specify the li img { blablabla }, and leave it blank, I'll get a border which reacts like a link ( same hover colors and all ) on the images ( which are clickable ) on all browsers, except IE, where I'll get this horrible blue link color.
As soon as I specify anything concerning the border, the border disappears in FF, Opera, Netscape, but is pretty, nice and full of fun in IE.
Have I missed an episode ?
I had the impression IE was supposed to be the weird one...
If you really want to, I'll post my css, but it's long, complicated, and in three parts...
Ok, drop it, it's fixed. I don't know why, but it seemed the gecko browsers didn't like the : li.il a img {blabla}
and prefered the .il a img {blabla}
( the code was :
<li class="il"><a href=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/archive/index.php/"#"><img></a></li>
)
Anyway, I still have two questions :
Why does the border in IE stay the color I assigned it ( which is what I want ) and behaves like a link in gecko browser ? This is not very annoying, mostly disturbing.
And what IS annoying is that if I hover on the images, it disturbs the alignment of my images, exactly like if I had put some text in bold on hover.
I think it might be because images behave like text, but still... strange, no ?Ok, I think I'm pretty much on my own in here...
I fixed the alignement of the images. It was indeed a matter of setting the font-weight to normal on hover.
But for the link-behaving borders, nothing to do.
I tried all logical solutions, and I think I'll need some help here.
FF and gecko like browsers don't consider my color-assignment for the border at all, and sadistically choose to pick up some random link color.I think it might be because images behave like text, but still... strange, no ?No. <img>s are inline elements just like text. Expect them to behave like text and be influnenced by text-related styles like line-height.
FF and gecko like browsers don't consider my color-assignment for the border at all, and sadistically choose to pick up some random link color.
Got link? The borders around <img>s inside <a>s seem related more to the <a> than the <img>. E.g. to remove them you'd use "li a img {border:none}". I don't know; this could also be related to the specificity of the styles, too. At any rate, it's hard to reply without being able to see the page.Ok, I see.
Indeed, I'm using the li a img to assign things to them
But still, it's true that they behave like a link, and not like an image...
The page is here : <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://enfantsdelo.free.fr/gal1.php">http://enfantsdelo.free.fr/gal1.php</a><!-- m -->
the css concerned are css1.css ( or whatever cssANUMBER.css ) and cssin.css
css.css is the layout css, normaly, nothing's there.
I knew that img did behave like text ( you can align an image with text-align ), but I was surprised to see they were affected by a font-weight : bold.Are the borders in question the ones around the thumbnails in the gallery? Do you want them to be consistently one color with no visited/hover/active support? Two things I did notice were that you've got some selectors that IE doesn't understand and you don't have the link styles in the love/hate sequence; link, visited, hover, active.
Bold letters are larger than normal so they will have sizing effects on their associates. I assume that's what was happening.Yeah, that's the border in question.
I wan't them to be the color I assigned them. ( no visited, active, hover reaction ).
It works fine in IE, I've problems only in gecko browsers.
I didn't have the impression that the position of active really mattered, but I'll try to chance it. ( actually, all my links work perfectly fine, so it's a bit strange... )so, i modified the order of my pseudo classes and tested that, and of course, it didn't change anything.
Any idea what's going on ?(cssin.css)
li.il a img {
padding:10px;
margin: 10px;
border: 4px solid;
}
do you need to add the colour onto the end of that border?The color is in the other css, so I'm not adding it here. This is cssin.css, the color is in cssNumber.css.
I have five different styles, and each goes with a color.css1.css:
/* Links */
a img { color:#ccc }eheh, ray326, it did the trick !!! yeah !!!
Thanks a lot !!!
So, the image border was reacting like text ???? Good to know
Apparently so. Doesn't sound kosher but I'm sure it's matching up with the spec somewhere.I'll have to look that up.But, it's strange that if I specify a BORDER, and give it a border-color, it doesn't work. Because it IS a border, not an image...
Anyway...