CSS body tag

Change font-color: #0000ff; to color: #0000ff;

Also, instead of all of those break tags, , you can do this:
Hello There!
How are ya?
Glad to Hear It!
Goodbye.

Yeah, I had "{color: #0000ff;}" to begin with but, unfortunately, that didn't work either in the CSS body stuff.

THE BODY TEXT IS STILL BLACK (click here), though, and I just can't figure out why (I've faced this problem before, but just "worked" around it by inserting "p {color: #??????;}" in the CSS. However, the "body" CSS part should work, shouldn't it???

Here's the source code now, btw (is something, somewhere, cancelling out the CSS-body declaration, for some logical reason?):

Example 2

Example Two

Hello There!

How are ya?

Glad to Hear It!

Goodbye.

Is everyone else seeing black, default-sized (size 3 for me) body text, too, or is it just me?

Also, I read somewhere that using too many tags wasn't a good thing for some reason (browsers or something) . . . why I had so many 's. Also, though I didn't do it this time, I normally use the form, rather than (XHTML reasons, I believe).

P.S.: Thanks for the quick response, Sonia, just wish this thing that should work actually would work.

I see blue text in verdana and arial fonts with Mozilla and IE, top text is darker blue, and page has grey background

you might want to rethink Monaco and Geneva as they aren't common fonts

also 'sans-seriff' only has one 'f' I believe - sans-serif

Opps! Looks like you have the blue text problem fixed. Just disregard anything below that you don't need.
--------------------------

You still haven't changed the part in your CSS from font-color: #0000ff; to just color: #0000ff;

Remove the font- part. You don't need it. If you still don't follow me just copy the bit below that I have bolded and past it to your css.

body {font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #0000ff; background-color: #d3d3d3; text-align: center;}

The means paragraph. Anytime you have a paragraph it should be enclosed in the paragraph here. You can't overuse the paragraph tags if your text calls for a new paragraph no matter if it is one line of text or ten lines. Also, you should always have an opening and closing paragraph tag. Don't use either of them alone.

It is incorrect markup to use several and to create spaces or white space. For example - dont do this just to create spaces in between paragraphs:

some text

some text

some text

It works but technically it is incorrect markup.

Read the XHTML Style Guide. Information on 's and 's are HERE, HERE and also at Lines and Paragraphs from W3C.

Let me see if I can do an example here so that maybe you can follow what I am saying. Copy and paste the bit below and see how it formats.

Line Breaks and Paragraphs

This is paragraph one
This is a paragraph two.
This is paragraph three.
I don't want this line to start a new paragraph but I do want one line break below paragraph three.
Now I want a new paragraph.
Sincerely,
Sonia

If you want extra space between paragraphs, you can use css to do this. For example, put this in your style sheet:

p { line-height : 1.8em; }

Okay, this is what I have now:

Example 2

Example Two

Hello There!

How Are Ya?

Glad to Hear It!

Goodbye.

To beat it all, the body text IS blue (like it should be) when I preview it through the AF editor BUT, after I saved the page and viewed it, the body text became black again. I suppose this must be some sort of browser (or editor) issue.

In the "p {line-height: 1.8;}", is the 1.8 relative to the default line height? In other words, 1.8 what (I'm thinking it means 1.8 x default)?

I am still wondering if something may have "cancelled out" the CSS body property before (such as DIV, or something else), but if y'all see blue with the better browsers, then I'll just have to have faith that it is blue (even if I don't see it personally, that is). I do know that CSS is not completely compatible in all ways with certain browsers, so maybe that's just my problem with some of the attributes (most of them seem to work fine, as I have used them for quite a long time now).

Thanks Sonia and Busy!

P.S.: I think it may be best, for me anyway, to just forget about using the CSS body attribute for size and color, and simply us "p{blah,blah;}" instead. The background-color and background-image seems to work just dandy in it, though.

If only I had a Mozilla-Opera-IE5+-NS4+ viewer all rolled into one. :batman:

What browser are you using feisty?

Add this to your css:
p { color : #0000ff; }

still to many f's in the h1 setting
aren't you using web tv ?
some colours, like #6a5acd aren't web safe colours meaning if the browser doesn't know it will resort to default, try using web safe colours for your example and see if that helps, maybe #FF0000 (red) and #808080 (dark grey), #C0C0C0 (light grey) or #0000FF (link blue) remember there are only 256 web safe colours

Yeah, I'll have to take out that extra "f" (it's a habit that I picked up when I first started viewing source codes and saw it spelled like "seriff" sometimes).

I do have what was formerly called Webtv. It's now MSNtv . . . Internet Explorer 2.8 external-nondebug is the browser name, though it seems to show up on "Stats" pages as MSIE 2.6 (don't know why).

As for the #6a5acd, I got it from THIS PAGE (a link provided by Julia a long time ago), although I see now that it's not listed in the websafe pallet. I had previously assumed (mistakenly, it appears) that all the colors on this page were websafe.

However, I can see the #6a5acd (slateblue) color in the h1 fine, it's the normal blue (#0000ff) that isn't showing up in the text.

I knew beforehand that I could easily make it show up in the text with "p {color: #0000ff;}" or even with a CSS class declaration, but I started this thread wondering if there was anyway to make it show up by using ONLY
body {color: #0000ff;} up in the CSS without using any "p" CSS stuff at all. Is "p" something that simply has to be there to declare the text color, no matter what (if one is to use CSS, that is)?

In other words, is just this
body {color: #0000ff;} possible WITHOUT this p {color: #0000ff;}? I notice that, for me, the p {color: #??????;} thing always seems to work, while the
body {color: #??????;} thing never seems to work. Does that make sense?

I'm guessing it's your browser, try this
body, p {color: #??????; }
and see what happens

Also, for line-height, you MUST have a unit if the unit measure is more than zero.

In this way, 1.8 means nothing, 1.8% or 1.8em mean entirely different things.

IE 2.8 supports CSS? Surprising! You're probably having trouble because you're trying to drive a pedal car on the highway.

p {color: #??????;} works fine with MSNtv, as does most other CSS features. Apparently, the
body {color: #??????;} does not work with MSNtv, yet the following "body" things work fine with it:

body {background-color: #??????;}
body {background-image: url("www.blah.gif");}

It seems that anything having to do with the actual text (i.e., font-size, font-family, color, etc.) does not work in the "body" declaration, so I guess it'll have to be p's, "classes", h1's, h2's, etc. up in the CSS for the text.

It also seems that the CSS
table {blah blah;} and td {blah;}
and border declarations don't work through the MSNtv (as we previously tried ).

So, Suzanne, I guess one could say that the IE 2.8 with MSNtv does support many of the CSS features and declarations, but not all (like the hover color, border stuff, etc.). Now, the hover color and border stuff might work, but I can't see them (others on actual computers do see hover colors on pages/sites I make). I'm not sure if line-height would be visible to me or not (?), as it is also a slightly deeper CSS concept.

Here's an example of some of the the things that do work (which could be put in the "p" part):

p {
font-size: 15px; color: #0000ff; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline; background: #c0c0c0; text-align: center;
}

. . . all of which covers most of what I usually need (there are likely other things that work also, but couldn't think of them at the moment).

Y'all do remember me, don't you?
I mean, I knew "p" worked for text, but still don't understand why, if I ever want to leave "p" out entirely, declaring how the text should look in the "body" CSS part doesn't seem to work (probably is the browser, though).

Hehe, MSNtv seems to be more like a souped-up (spelling?) pedal car, though, the main problems involving downloading/uploading things, and a slower connection speed (28.8 kbps).

For example, I can't upload a picture (say, from a digital camera) on the MSNtv classic (which I have), but I could on the MSNtv Plus. On the classic, however, I can work around this (if I ever want to) by uploading a picture on an actual computer, sending it to my yahoo mail in jpg, jpeg, or gif format, then using the MSNtv to transload it to some web page editor (such as Angelfire). In other words, one just has to work around things, if one can. :batman:

k, could you stop screwing with the posting options, it may look good for you, but it's painful for the rest of us.

ANYWAY -- I suggest you do some reading on CSS and inheritance. Since you're using a "souped up pedal car" (with what? a lawn mower engine?!), you'll have to do some historical research.

Besides which, there should not be loose text in the element -- ALL text should be tucked into other elements, like , , , et cetera.

Why is it painful? I just enlarged the text on longer postings in an effort to try and make it not so painful (small) to read . . . unless maybe you're referring to scrolling a little more. I agree, though, that it probably is easier for me to scroll up or down, as I just point a remote (or use the keyboard) and push a button with a scroll-down or scroll-up arrow on it. I never cared much for using a mouse, but it does scroll a little more efficiently with a mouse on editors when scrolling through hundreds of lines of code, or something similar (like, when trying to look for one thing or get to one spot in hundreds of lines of code).

Why do you seem annoyed? If one can make decent, cross-browser compatible web pages and/or sites with an MSNtv system, then what's wrong with that? Plus, MSNtv is virus-free and can be replaced for less than fixing a computer might cost. The only major differences I've noticed include a slower speed, what one can download or upload, some compatibility issues (i.e., needing adobe acrobat or a version higher than Flash 4.0 to view certain pages, etc.), and reading certain formats (i.e., pdf, etc.). It's not that bad, really.

Quote: . . . there should not be loose text in the option -- ALL text should be tucked into other elements, like , ,, et cetera.

That does make sense. However, in HTML one can use loose text with something like so, with my first question in this thread, I was just wondering if CSS provided a similar function as that (apparently it doesn't).

The text size you changed to is very hard to read on a pc screen!

With CSS you need to think logically about what tag the text is within and control it with a style for that tag.

You can do many things, that doesn't make them the right things to do. While browsers allowed loose text in the body tag, that's not how HTML was designed.

I sound annoyed because instead of learning what is standard now, you persist (over a period of months, not just this thread) in thinking that MSNtv is a development tool. It's not.

Yes, CSS does provide such inheritance -- it's just that your very very much out of date browser doesn't support it.

Then I guess I will be the only one who doesn't see those certain little things (such as a CSS-declared hover color) on my screen . . . until I get to a computer, that is.

I can make pages and/or sites that are both XHTML valid and CSS valid. What's "out of date" about that? So what if I can't see the hover color on my browser (on a page/site I make) by using hover {color: ?;}? I know that others see it, so that's good enough for me. Not sure why I CAN see hovers on certain other sites (I believe it must be due to an "onMouseover" declaration on certain pages, rather than a CSS one).

I guess it's not a development tool because I don't use Dreamweaver or whatever to make logos? Maybe not, but I can still make logos, and I can still make sites and pages (valid ones, too, though some do have problems . . . i.e., ads). Therefore, it must be a development tool, just not a fancier one (no PHP, mySQL, or whatever, UNLESS I use an actual computer to use those . . . no need to do so as of yet).

I still don't see how making text larger (on this forum anyway) makes it harder to read either. Why bother having the posting options if one "isn't supposed to" use them?

Re: MSNtv being 8 years behind current technology

What's out of date is how your browser displays pages. That in and of itself isn't an issue, but you're not just DISPLAYING pages in it, you're making (incorrect) judgments about standards and web languages because of it, then stating them as fact on a learning board. I object strongly to this ongoing source of misinformation based on your casual disregard for the tools of this medium.

Re: Dreamweaver creating logos

Dreamweaver isn't a graphics editor, it's a HTML/XML/CSS editor. You cannot make logos or any other kind of graphics with it. If you have the suite, however, you can use the graphics editors that come with it to do so, and it's highly integrated. And yes, sometimes using the right tools for the job makes the end result better.

Re: PHP/MySQL being part of a development tool

PHP/MySQL are not languages that are affected by your "development tool" -- they are applications that run on the server. If you had access through MSNtv to a server that allowed you to create files, you could write PHP scripts and access a MySQL database through web-based forms or applications like PHPMyAdmin.

A good development tool will often colour tags and syntax to help you program, but it doesn't go further than that unless it's a programming environment (VERY different from Dreamweaver)!

Re: What does it matter if you can't see it?

If you can't see it, you don't know if it's working. Clearly by "designing" at such a limited resolution you are unaware of the issues that the average viewer sees. Also the quality they see.

MSNtv is not a development tool. A knife is not a screw driver. Just because you can fake it on occasion doesn't make it so.

Re: your modifications of text on the board:

I think it should be relatively obvious by now, but I guess it isn't. I can control my browser settings and my preferences for this board. When you choose to change the font and the size, you interrupt my choices. This is a public area.

There is nothing wrong with making choices that affect only you (i.e. YOUR SETTINGS), but in a public arena, making choices for others is rude and annoying. It's the same argument against using font tags and pixels for sizing -- you inappropriately put YOUR preferences ahead of everyone else's by doing so. (pixel sizing is not as heinous as font tags for some, but regardless!)

As for why its available? Well for some cases it's helpful. I would think that you'd notice that 99.9% of the people here do not modify the regular text, only their signatures or to add something for emphasis like this:

Do not change large blocks of text to match your own personal asthetic on a public board!

(1). Okay, if I'm "making (incorrect) judgements about standards and web languages because of it," how (exactly) am I doing so?

For example, I know that a table with a width of 70% will take up (or span) 378 pixels on my screen, but will take up 560 pixels on an 800-resolution screen, about 753 pixels on a 1,076-resolution screen, and 840 pixels on a 1,200-resolution screen (any larger than that, I don't worry about). I also know that a table with a width of 5% will look wider on my 540-resolution screens than it will on higher-resolution screens.

(2). Then I'll correct myself to say I can't use Dreamweaver OR the graphics editors that come with it. Simple.

(3). Then I suppose I could write PHP scripts and access a MySQL database through MSNtv (in theory anyway, but I haven't tried it, so I don't know).

(4). I CAN see it on an actual computer (and correct what needs to be corrected while I'm on it, if necessary).

(5). The rest seems like a personal issue, so I'll not address that. Please do not say "Do Not" without "Please" for that is in the form of a command (I don't spout commands off at you, do I? No, because I'm not your boss, nor are you mine). I don't particularly care for red text either (yet you used it). If the "size" commands aren't to be used, they should not be there (also simple). However, I will admit to not considering that anyone would have to adjust their browser preferences . . . my mistake, but an honest mistake and certainly NOT worth all the attitude.

P.S.: I also didn't see it anywhere in the posting requirements that one must have the latest, greatest technology available to post or respond to other posts here. Maybe we should put up a poll seeing just how many people are using ALL of the latest technology to build sites. I think the results would be surprising.

A poll is pointless. We all know everyone has different hardware/software, so, maybe we could put this thread to rest ...

But hey, I'm just the guy in a cheap suit standing behind the curtain - oh look an old sock

Yes, I think this thread has gone far enough...

*goes to close thread...*
*realises I'm not a moderator...*
*bangs head on monitor...*

This thread has too much potential to get into a flame war...

Agreed (I think so, too). Shucks, I even have a late-80's model Buick that we drive 4-5 times per week (but it only has around 70,000 miles on it). The newest one we have (a truck) needs repair work.

Sorry about all of this, and no flames are/were intended (but I would have at least liked an answer, if there is one, to #1 in my last post).

*could bang head on THIS monitor, but it's fairly large and might actually hurt . . . plus, it's all the way over there*

I thought you (Renegade) were a moderator (?). Of course, I also thought I'd get more sleep during the last 48 hours. The *comic relief . . .* was a nice touch, btw, and just what the thread needed.

Btw, my coding part of the original "Example 2" page from the first post is now valid CSS and XHTML coding . . . of course, there were still 16 errors (I believe) in the little Yahoo ad code that gets put in there, LoL (thinking, apparently Y's "webmasters" aren't quite up-to-speed either. Anyway, I know the "entire page" is not actually valid XHTML (the ad part doesn't validate), but it's nice to know that AT LEAST my part of the code can validate. Hmmm, maybe I should write them about that ad code?

Note: I can't see the ad on MSNtv at all, but I can see the code for the ad when validating. However, I still know it will likely show up on actual computer monitors (looks like it will be at the bottom of the page).

I believe it would be a neat experience for some of you to try out MSNtv . . . not as a "standard" tool, but just as a neat way of viewing some of the websites/pages you've seen previously on flat computer screens. I'm sure that not ALL pages (perhaps most, though) will look decent . . . some may look better (since the screen isn't flat and the color on the TV seems more true).

Have a nice day.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
(1). Okay, if I'm [B]"making (incorrect) judgements about standards and web languages because of it," how (exactly) am I doing so? [/B]

By stating that something doesn't work when what you can only state with any degree of accuracy is that it doesn't work in your browsing situation.

More specifically, by implying that CSS inheritance doesn't work because you're using a browser that wasn't designed to support it.

No, people (even here) have told me that they see some of the stuff I can't see (i.e., CSS hover colors), so that tells me it is working in their browser, just not through mine. The stuff like td, table, etc. up in the CSS don't seem to work either (in my browser and in others' browsers) . . . never really figured that one out. Renegade might recall that.

Are there any good links (that make sense) out there on CSS inheritance? I often see it mentioned in tutorial-type stuff, but it seems they don't really go into any detail about it. I can do a search, but thought some of you might know of one that's more straight-forward (doesn't jump around from one topic to the next with a bunch of links in-between, etc.).

By the way, the page I'm talking about that is now valid CSS and XHTML is not at the original (Angelfire) location . . . forgot that I moved it. I haven't validated the Angelfire one anymore (as it has ads at the top of the page, and may be erased by me soon anyway, not sure). I actually moved the page (copied the code, then corrected it) into Yahoo, HERE'S THE PAGE where my code (but not the Yahoo ad code) is valid CSS and XHTML. Sorry about that. Here I am stating that the original (Angelfire) page is valid CSS and XHTML, but I was actually referring to the new page at Yahoo (duh, for me).

There's still the matter of things like align="center" (i.e., ) which, from what I understand, is now deprecated (?). But that was covered in another thread, I think.

CSS Centre:
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
As I stated on another thread (I think that was the other thread you mentioned) although to get this working in IE you need to text-align: center; the parent element.

Although Suzanne may sound a little "short" you shouldn't worry about her - she's very nice really I'm sure it's just that she gets bored of telling people the same things again, and again...Trust me, it's boring, I get to spend all day doing it (when I'm not scyving on these forums )

If I was you I would be thinking of getting a PC, it will make life a lot easier...Heh, you could use MSNTV as a 'worst case scenario' viewer

Good to see you have stopped altering the font sizes of your posts, it was hard to read - as with everything on the web (if not life): Everything in moderation!

Another thing about Suzanne: She knows what she is talking about! She's the closest thing this forum has to a Guru - especially when it comes to accessibility issues.

Yeah, I was in that thread, as was mjrajk I believe. That was a "doozy" (old slang term) to say the least.

Oh, I haven't had the "pleasure" (hopefully, not pain) of trying out the CSS margin-left: auto/margin-right: auto stuff yet.

Actually, I've been "thinking" about a computer for a long time (as Abhishek knows ), but that won't make it happen, unfortunately. Plus, if/when I do get one, I want it to be the best possible (for my needs, including designing sites/pages) and at or near the price I'm willing to spend, otherwise I can just use the ones at the library a couple of minutes away from here.

As I mentioned earlier, the truck's in need of repair work now, unless the O-2 (oxygen) converter did the trick(?), so that "need" will have to take priority over "wants." Then, there's those ever-present student loan payments (from well over 8 years ago), health insurance premiums (this ain't Canada), etc., etc. I finally paid one student loan off a few weeks ago, though. Only took a little over $2,000 US (cash I'd saved up over a period of time) to do so after paying on it for several years, too.

See my point? If I go get a computer that doesn't do EVERYTHING I want/need it to do, then I've basically wasted money (not a lot of which my wife and I can't afford to waste right now).

Yeah i can see your point, these things must be prioritised.

Perhaps you should change the default font on MSNTV to a larger size...That way you change the settings on your own system, without affecting anyone else (as Suzanne said - in a roundabout way).

For the record, you can get much more powerful fantastic machines -- like new -- if you buy refurbished pieces. Unless you're doing 3D graphics rendering or editing music on your computer, you do not need a top-of-the-line-so-fast-it-melts-silicone machine.

Talk to someone who knows, spend the money on things you really need. And do consider used, if for nothing else but testing.

Suzanne has got a point, you can get what you need for much less than you think...And if you don't go down the used road have a look at building one yourself, you can cut back on a lot of things that way - and it really is very easy.

Yeah, at the beginning, I didn't consider that the sizing option would affect anyone's default settings, I just thought it would make the post easier to read if it were larger. Btw, MSNtv has 3 default settings for viewing text . . . small, medium, and large (ours is set to "large").

Me, build a computer (I just barely passed electricity in high school)?
I'm seeing me turning the thing on and it blasting off through the roof or something, LoL!

Anyway, I do see your points. I'm sure even half of that $2,000 could have bought a decent computer, but it's gone now.

At least one of my goals is to one day have a computer that will allow me to be able to upload songs I've written and recorded to a website and offer albums (well, CD's and cassettes) for sell. Of course, I still want the Mozilla-Opera-IE-Netscape viewers (assuming one can have all that) along with that. My wife wants a swimming pool, too (one deep enough and wide enough to actually swim in).

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
I thought you (Renegade) were a moderator (?)...

Haha, yeah, I wish

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Actually, I've been "thinking" about a computer for a long time (as Abhishek knows ), but that won't make it happen, unfortunately. Plus, if/when I do get one, I want it to be the best possible (for my needs, including designing sites/pages) and at or near the price I'm willing to spend, otherwise I can just use the ones at the library a couple of minutes away from here.

As already mentioned, you don't need to get the state of the art computer to do web designing and other stuff. But if you want one, to really get your moneys worth, you would have to build it yourself. Next year, I'm planning on building my own computer (don't know where I'm gonna get the money from though...) which as of posting is "really good". Fast for what I need it for - Web Designing. In terms of CPU speed its only just about average (~2GHz) but I can almost guarantee it'll run faster than a ~3GHz All this for how much? An arm and a leg? Nope, for around about $1000 (excluding GST)

I have a little over $200 saved up so far (since paying off the one college loan), so I guess I might get there sometime. The truck has to come first, though (it's an early-90's Mazda).

I do understand that the computer I get doesn't have to be the very best, though. However, most of my computer knowledge/experience (aside from the internet) came from a few college classes (no programming, just word processing, spreadsheets, etc., and applications of those . . . such as payroll accounting).

Is GST something having to do with games (like "Game System Transfer," or something similar)? I'm not familiar with that term. Actually, I'm not really too familiar with the concepts of GHz, etc., either, other than it has to do with speed (possibly speed per second or minute?).

There's always hope at Wal-Mart, too, I guess, but I don't know if those computers would do everything I want either. Guess I'll have to find out. I have seen new computers (with warranties) for as little as $499, but I don't think they came with a printer (just a monitor, keyboard, and drive/CPU . . . whatever it's called).

You know, it's almost as if, by the time I find out everything that can be done on these things (and maybe even how to do them), there's a whole bunch of new things that can be done. It's very difficult to keep up with technology (especially for those of us facing other financial challenges on a weekly/daily basis). So, I guess one can do only that which one can do.

Thanks for the tips, btw.

GST is tax we have down under (NZ & OZ) - general service tax - 12.5%
you needed worry about it

I hope that covers health care for you all, too. Here (in TN), we pay sales tax on things we buy . . . usually either 9.25% or 9.5%. BUT, I can cross the state line into Virginia and pay only 4.5%.

By the way, none of that (the sales taxes) covers health care. We either have to get health insurance through companies that offer group plans ($$$ deducted from each paycheck for that) or, if we're self-employed or work for a company that doesn't offer health insurance, we must get our own from an independent insurance agency, which can easily run as much as $350-$500 per month (or more). In other words, health insurance basically must be in the top 5 "priorities" . . . and can significantly interfere with those computer "wants" (not to mention the unexpected expenses that tend to come along, even when one allows for those).

Any good books on building a computer out there (I still think it might shoot through the roof when I'm finished with it, though)?

ok, *close thread* this thread has been hijacked.

lol, can't stand people getting along, Renegade?

just an fyi on components, unless something changes with the p5s and the next generation of amd chips (both will be 64 bit) amd costs lets and works better... operating systems use a greater percentage of the chip, unlike the p4, the athlons have an l3 (intel is copying that for the p5s) and since the heat issue was fixed, there's no reason to buy a 3.5 ghz p4 when you can get a 2.5 ghz athlon for $200 or more less, and all the tests i've seen by places like pcworld and pcmagazine prove the athlon systems still outperform the p4s, sometimes with inferior other components.

(fyi: i own more intel stock than amd stock, so...)