IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Internet Forum / Know it fixes problems related to well-formedness
Post #196,616
by ChrisR
2/28/05 11:35:12 AM
Reply
New Know it fixes problems related to well-formedness
But I ran the 4 examples though the W3C validator and they all check out. Which begs the question of why the height attribute on the DIV tag is ignored in the XHTML document.
Post #196,625
by JayMehaffey
2/28/05 12:05:05 PM
Reply
New Seems to be the lack of unit identifier
The CSS spec requires that measurements have a unit identifier, such as px for pixels or pt for points.

It appears to be a case where Firefox just assumes pixels when rendering HTML but ignores the incorrect declaration when rendering in XHTML. This passes the W3 validator because the CSS validator is a seperate utility.

If you put ".div {height:20;width:100%;overflow:auto;}" into the CSS validator it kicks it out for not having a unit on the height.

Jay
Post #196,627
by ChrisR
2/28/05 12:07:48 PM
Reply
New That was what I was trying to grok. Thanks.
     Question on Height attributes for DIV/SPAN tags - (ChrisR) - (12) - Feb. 26, 2005, 12:59:54 PM EST
         OS X Firefox has scrollbars for HTML 4.0 DIV - (SpiceWare) - Feb. 26, 2005, 03:52:06 PM EST
         Re: Question on Height attributes for DIV/SPAN tags - (admin) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2005, 08:52:51 PM EST
             That'll do the trick. Thanks. -NT - (ChrisR) - Feb. 26, 2005, 11:05:30 PM EST
         Height means nothing on a span tag - (JayMehaffey) - (6) - Feb. 28, 2005, 09:07:21 AM EST
             Makes sense for the most part - (ChrisR) - (5) - Feb. 28, 2005, 09:43:14 AM EST
                 Re: Makes sense for the most part - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - Feb. 28, 2005, 11:06:35 AM EST
                     Know it fixes problems related to well-formedness - (ChrisR) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2005, 11:35:12 AM EST
                         Seems to be the lack of unit identifier - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2005, 12:05:05 PM EST
                             That was what I was trying to grok. Thanks. -NT - (ChrisR) - Feb. 28, 2005, 12:07:48 PM EST
                 Have a rummage in here. - (static) - Feb. 28, 2005, 10:39:10 PM EST
         20 what? - (ubernostrum) - (1) - March 3, 2005, 04:53:40 PM EST
             Well, you'd think that have a default. - (ChrisR) - March 3, 2005, 04:55:15 PM EST

Please do not spit too loud, thank you.
61 ms