Professional Web Applications Themes

DOCTYPE - Macromedia Dreamweaver

I have been researching css-p and following example tutorials on PVII. Now... if I use the entire DOCTYPE declaration that PVII suggest, I get problems -- if I leave it as DW creates it, I get no problems. Here's an example: [url]http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest.htm[/url] - uses DW DOCTYPE declaration [url]http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest2.htm[/url] - uses the additional "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd" in the DOCTYPE declaration. What gives? I'm using the same type of css that PVII uses, except there's no tables - all div's...

  1. #1

    Default DOCTYPE

    I have been researching css-p and following example tutorials on PVII.

    Now... if I use the entire DOCTYPE declaration that PVII suggest, I get problems -- if I leave it as DW creates it, I get no problems.

    Here's an example:

    [url]http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest.htm[/url] - uses DW DOCTYPE declaration


    [url]http://www.williamlatimer.com/csstest2.htm[/url] - uses the additional "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd" in the DOCTYPE declaration.

    What gives? I'm using the same type of css that PVII uses, except there's no tables - all div's


    shelton webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    your page renders just find here in both net 7 and IE 5.1.6 for a mac. You should use the proper doc type. css-p needs the proper doc type to work........as for the <div> tags and no tables....ccs-p has no tables........layers.....



    discman webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    Gary,

    But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it, or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full declaration.

    Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results. All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.

    Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?



    shelton webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:31:13 +0000 (UTC), "shelton"
    [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    >But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it,
    >or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full
    >declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full
    >declaration.
    What that means is that your code is not right. ;-)

    >Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results.
    >All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set
    >to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.
    Exactly!

    >Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?
    Not sure why would you want to, but yes. You just need to remember
    that the inner layer will be relative to its container, not the page.


    Gary
    Gary White Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    Gary,

    I have tried various things and all have problems with IE6 and NN7, except the partial DOCTYPE declaration version on 'csstest.htm' page on IE6.

    But... after looking closer at Al's examples on PVII, it looks like there is a better solution that would follow after his QuickDraw MacFly example. [url]http://www.projectseven.com/grafitti/jan2003/cssdirect_page2.htm[/url]

    Looks like using static layers(Divisions, not layers {div's} actually) is simpler, and you can nest other layers or Divisions within. In his MacFly example, he made a 'sidebar' Division a nested static Division with a float (for positioning)and gave it a safe place on the page by defining the 'p' margins of the nested 'content' Division to coincide with the size of 'sidebars' content.

    I guess if you make the layers static therefore becoming Divisions they will by default be 100% in width? -- because the content Division has no size property, just margins.

    So... Div's without x and y properties are static. Meaning you don't give them x and Y in a #rule either. Static = Division (div) not a layer. And static div's by default will take up 100% of the window it appears? And they are actually different than layers (maybe no z-index to consider?) -- they are truely Divisions of the page.

    Do static div's have a default z-index of 1, or no z-index at all?

    Am I getting warmer here?


    shelton webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    Also remember that nested layers must always be fully quantified css-p. That
    is, you must always put their positioning in either an embedded style sheet or
    an external style sheet, but never within the body.

    --
    --
    DiMa
    --------------------
    WEB FORUM USERS: Please log on to the Newsgroup for quicker replies to your
    posts:
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url]
    For Answers, check here first:
    [url]http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:macromedia.dreamwea ver[/url]
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/dreamweaver/technotes.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/faqbase[/url]
    [url]http://www.dreamweaverFAQ.com[/url]

    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/etiquette.htm[/url]
    DiMa Design > From Lines...to Designs
    [url]http://www.dimadesign.net[/url]


    "Gary White" <replynewsgroup.please> wrote in message
    news:ke8dhvkv2aocnooecva99jgcvgiqkbfg3u4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:31:13 +0000 (UTC), "shelton"
    > [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    >
    > >But the funny part is that on IE6/PC the quirck modes as you put it,
    > >or partial DOCTYPE declaration is rendering it better than the full
    > >declaration version. But... in NN it does do better with the full
    > >declaration.
    >
    > What that means is that your code is not right. ;-)
    >
    >
    > >Ofcourse, I probably could adjust my layers to get better results.
    > >All 3 layers have the same z-index, with the sidebar (nav) layer set
    > >to 100% height which I'm sure is causing some problems.
    >
    > Exactly!
    >
    >
    > >Also, is nesting layers perfectly valid?
    >
    > Not sure why would you want to, but yes. You just need to remember
    > that the inner layer will be relative to its container, not the page.
    >
    >
    > Gary

    DiMa Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: DOCTYPE

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:24:46 -0700, "DiMa"
    <dianaYOURHATANDCOATdimadesign.net> wrote:
    >Also remember that nested layers must always be fully quantified css-p. That
    >is, you must always put their positioning in either an embedded style sheet or
    >an external style sheet, but never within the body.
    Good point!


    Gary
    Gary White Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Doctype and Port 80 problems
    By Tomas717 in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 3rd, 12:45 AM
  2. DOCTYPE bug?
    By colinwalton in forum Macromedia Dynamic HTML
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 9th, 02:35 PM
  3. PHP Code above DW Template doctype?
    By DianeV in forum Macromedia Dynamic HTML
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 19th, 10:30 PM
  4. cfcache, generated comment, & DOCTYPE
    By sonoflight in forum Macromedia ColdFusion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 9th, 02:05 PM
  5. is there a DOCTYPE that validates EMBED tag?
    By Caroling in forum Macromedia Flash Sitedesign
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 27th, 03:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139