Viewing Thread:
"Inheriting CSS properties"

Tyla wrote:
> Kill the
You mean use

in it's place?? The problem with that is it seems Explorer and Netscape have different attitudes towards the positioning properties. Netscape likes to put items lower than Explorer does, even with the same top: px; values. Or is there a simple solution to that as well?

cjh wrote:
> Just to ask though, on your test.php page, when you click the links,
> was it intended that in Explorer that they go dark, but in Netscape
> they stay normal??

IE/NN bug... they're null links so IE/NN handle the out come differently


> http://www.chrisjhaig.co.uk/SR_Sample/
> ... think I'm moving in the right direction with this CSS stuff?

Kill the it's a depricated tag and should never be used.

That makes perfect sense, as that's the sort of thing I had :).

Still, it through the text links at the top of the page. But, I'll give it another go, chances are I probably miss typed part of it which it didn't like.

Just to ask though, on your test.php page, when you click the links, was it intended that in Explorer that they go dark, but in Netscape they stay normal??


And if you get bored, take a quick look at this. Just wanted to have a go and re-doing a site in CSS rather than TABLES, (just not one of my own) so borrowed this page ... (didn't do the search bit yet though)

http://www.chrisjhaig.co.uk/SR_Sample/

... think I'm moving in the right direction with this CSS stuff?

cjh wrote:
> The problem I came across though using that method was the actual text
> links wouldn't position correctly.
>
> The boxes were fine, but the text links which should have gone inside
> them just placed themselves at the top of the page. As if they had
> just been wrote into the HTML document one after the other, and the
> background colour (white) would span the whole page when the relevent
> link was clicked.
>
> I couldn't see why this was occuring, so for now have gone back to the
> DIV method, but does the problem I've described above sound familier??
> Would you know why this may have occured???


You have to define the initial container DIV for the relationship to work:






CSS:

.menuitem {
display:block;
width:150px;
height:15px;
border:1px solid #999999;
font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:11px;
margin:2px;
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
text-align:right;
font-style: normal;
line-height: normal;
font-weight: normal;
padding-right: 5px;
right: 5px;
left: 35px;
position: relative;
}

.menuitem:hover {
background-color:#333333;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
font-style: normal;
line-height: normal;
font-weight: bold;
color: #FFFFFF;
text-decoration: none;
}

#menu {
width:197px;
height:150px;
position: absolute;
top:5px;
left: 1px;
visibility: inherit;
z-index: 3;
}

The CSS is directly from my site, so will need adjusting for your needs. As long as you always define the inital container DIV you can use the class for the boxes anywhere and they will always be relevant to that container including the correct text formatting.

hope that makes sense?

The problem I came across though using that method was the actual text links wouldn't position correctly.

The boxes were fine, but the text links which should have gone inside them just placed themselves at the top of the page. As if they had just been wrote into the HTML document one after the other, and the background colour (white) would span the whole page when the relevent link was clicked.

I couldn't see why this was occuring, so for now have gone back to the DIV method, but does the problem I've described above sound familier?? Would you know why this may have occured???

cjh wrote:
> Do you mean rather than having a > class="Link-Box" within each
Exactly... Your trying to get to complicated with your positioning when there's more simple ways around things.

Do you mean rather than having a