|
Interesting. Commenting out hover-container worked for me. However, commenting out display:block also worked. Couldn't see any direct side-effects from either of these actions.
.hover-container
{
position:relative;
//display:block;
margin-right:1em;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - this also helps, but causes problems in other browsers.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Well done! What was the issue? Looks like you deleted an entire stylesheet.
|
|
|
|
|
a) It's gratifying that you noticed
b) The issue was a weird one.
In Gecko and WebKit, if you specify that a table cell is to be displayed as a block then the boundaries of that cell (at least the boundary where a border will be drawn) can be shorter than the height of the row.
I have a set of buttons that appear when you hover over a row (class=hover-row). The buttons are wrapped in a SPAN that is displayed when you hover over the row, and their position is constrained by the immediate container they are within (class=hover-container). To position the buttons correctly, the container needs to have position:relative and display:block, and the buttons themselves are position:absolute. If the hover-container element (the table cell, in this case) doesn't have relative/block then the bottons appear at the top right of the page. If they do have relative/block then the border of the cell is screwed up since the cell can now be shorter than the row.
It dawned on me around 1am that all I was trying to do was constrain the buttons to be within the table cell, so I wrapped everything in the table cell within a div, gave it the hover-container class, and bingo, everything worked.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
a. I've been in QA far too long. And my Math background makes me quite anal(ytical). 
b. Nothing like working at dawn for things to dawn.
That's the problem with adding CSS attributes to every minutia these days, everything requires a DIV tag around it. Glad you got it fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: 5. Always add a comma before etc.
Er...No.
Et cetera means 'and the rest'
You never put a comma before an And.
Et = And
Cetera = The Rest
(Latin roots)
However it is implicit that the rest refers to an undefined but related set.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Google it and you'll get this[^].
In some research papers, I have seen that there is no comma before etc. When is a comma used before etc.? A comma is used before etc. when it follows more than one listed item, for example, rivers, lakes, streams, etc. (comma used) but rivers etc. (no comma used). I've been taught this rule since grade school.
|
|
|
|
|
From that website :"Philadelphia, USA • Mumbai, India • Tokyo, Japan"
The defence rests, none of them speak English, merely some bastardized representation of it.
The Clue is in the Name.
You should learn English as she is spoke.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
She isn't here.
A, B, C, D, E.
A, B, C, etc.
Etc. implies all the rest, but actually stands for the things that are missing. Etc. = "D, E.".
What it's called and what it stands for are two separate things.
The Oxford Comma - standard US English usage is to put a comma before the and in lists of items, e.g. red, white, and blue; standard British English usage, however, is to leave it out, e.g: red, white and blue. More subtly "etc." (et cetera, i.e. and so on) should have a comma before it in US English; it shouldn't in British English but it is considered bad style to use abbreviations or latin terms so if you ever see etc. you should encourage the authors to try to rephrase things in a simpler and clearer way.
According to this, you shouldn't be using etc. Hope she forgives you.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: British English
See, there is your problem.
There is no such thing as British English.
There is English.
There is American English.
There is Australian English.
And so on.
English is the Only language that counts, and what other people do to it is criminal!
To say that in US English something is right is like saying driving on the right is right.
Do it in England and there will be trouble!
English comes from England and therefore the only people who speak it are English, so what we say goes!
The final arbiter is the OED.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
English is British English which is the Queen's English.
American or US English proves me right (which is where I am).
Australian English seems to be similar to British English.
But it all depends on the author. In this case, I'm invoking "creative license".
|
|
|
|
|
But there is no such thing as British English.
Which part of that are you having trouble with?
The Us probably call it that because they can't call it English because that would mean they are speaking anything other than English.
(Which they are)
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: But there is no such thing as British English.
A name by any other name is still a name.
Dalek Dave wrote: Which part of that are you having trouble with?
None. But we can call it whatever we want. Creative license.
|
|
|
|
|
spoke?
|
|
|
|
|
Irony[^]
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I said always, which isn't obviously true. However, I tend to use i.e. (not a fan of e.g.) when giving only one example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I've nailed this issue, though we're juggling 2 versions of IIS so more testing will be needed. Today hopefully.
[Edit] half nailed. IIS6 is annoying. With a capital A.
Dan Neely wrote: When did you add the code to put CP article names into the display text when pasting a URL?
Last year sometime. 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified on Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I really like the Chinese forum, but an hour after I've visited it, I feel like I have to visit again 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh behave! 
(And a 5!)
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Today I got astonished, when I was not able to find ASP.NET forum in one go in Programming Discussion section. Later I looked bit and found that now it is grouped under Web Develoment.
Then again, I found one more Web Develoment under Web Develoment, looked bit confusing as we already had a separate forum Web Develoment.
I think we should make it little clear..
Wat say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
... Silverlight is not WPF. WCF is not WPF. I will remove the WPF content from the WCF forum and put it in the Silverlight/WPF forum.
Now, write that down 100 times.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly WCF, WPF, WF are different but they were lumped under the same forum at the beginning because, well, probably because they were all new, all little known, and all had a WTF acronym. Clearly it stime they all agreed to just be friends and move on.
I know WPF and Silverlight are not the same - but they share a pedigree, and Silverlight did used to be called WPF/E, so I figured with the traffic they get combining makes sense.
Would splitting WPF/Silverlight be more valuable given that the split fora will get less traffic and I'd porbably remove one from the dropdown menu?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think they should all be separated. In fact, I think that someone who wants to post a question should be made to go through a wizard (like article submissions) that asks them to idientify the question category via the careful selection of a few checkboxes, and then allows them to post the question, after which, it is applied to the appropriate section of the web site.
I have an idea on how to implement it, but it would take too long to describe it in detail in a message. Painting with broad strokes, the wizard would be a cascading series of actions or placeholders that are made visible depending on what was selected in the previous panel. The user would ultimately be permitted to actualy enter a message, and that message would be placed according to how he progressed through the wiard. That would ensure that the question was posted in the most approrpiate place on the site. This would only apply to programming forums and quick answers.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
