Comments on: CSS Test Post http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post grep understanding Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:44:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Elpres http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-77141 Elpres Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:08:18 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-77141 <p>Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.</p> Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.

]]> By: Elpres http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-248979 Elpres Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:08:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-248979 <p>Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.</p> Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-76611 Daniel Miessler Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:07:03 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-76611 <p>@Jon Henshaw No, your comments are greatly appreciated.</p> <p>@Marcin Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get it taken care of.</p> @Jon Henshaw No, your comments are greatly appreciated.

@Marcin Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll get it taken care of.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-248978 Daniel Miessler Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:07:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-248978 <p>@Jon Henshaw No, your comments are greatly appreciated.</p> <p>@Marcin Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get it taken care of.</p> @Jon Henshaw No, your comments are greatly appreciated.

@Marcin Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll get it taken care of.

]]> By: Marcin http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-76604 Marcin Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:39:13 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-76604 <p>In your .codeblock style, the text can traverse out of the background block by at least 4 characters. 'eq 0' will actually reach * UNIX's find Command.</p> <p>This has been tested on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu 7.04 running NoScript</p> In your .codeblock style, the text can traverse out of the background block by at least 4 characters. ‘eq 0′ will actually reach * UNIX’s find Command.

This has been tested on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu 7.04 running NoScript

]]> By: Marcin http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-248977 Marcin Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:39:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-248977 <p>In your .codeblock style, the text can traverse out of the background block by at least 4 characters. 'eq 0' will actually reach * UNIX's find Command.</p> <p>This has been tested on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu 7.04 running NoScript</p> In your .codeblock style, the text can traverse out of the background block by at least 4 characters. ‘eq 0′ will actually reach * UNIX’s find Command.

This has been tested on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu 7.04 running NoScript

]]> By: Jon Henshaw http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-76598 Jon Henshaw Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:32:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-76598 <p>In general, you shouldn't name your IDs and classes by their attribute. For example, .red { color:red; } is a no no. Instead, call it by it's function, like .alert or .warning. That way, if you want to apply other attributes to it and even change the color completely, you can. Otherwise, there's really no difference between doing class="red" and doing an inline style of style="color:red;"</p> <p>Now you may be up to something else that I'm not aware of and this may all just be a test that you're doing, but I couldn't let it go when I saw it. Especially since the rest of your code is excellent. That is all. I hope you don't take my comment the wrong way. If you do, please ignore me ;)</p> In general, you shouldn’t name your IDs and classes by their attribute. For example, .red { color:red; } is a no no. Instead, call it by it’s function, like .alert or .warning. That way, if you want to apply other attributes to it and even change the color completely, you can. Otherwise, there’s really no difference between doing class=”red” and doing an inline style of style=”color:red;”

Now you may be up to something else that I’m not aware of and this may all just be a test that you’re doing, but I couldn’t let it go when I saw it. Especially since the rest of your code is excellent. That is all. I hope you don’t take my comment the wrong way. If you do, please ignore me ;)

]]> By: Jon Henshaw http://danielmiessler.com/blog/css-test-post/comment-page-1#comment-248976 Jon Henshaw Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:32:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/css-test-post#comment-248976 <p>In general, you shouldn't name your IDs and classes by their attribute. For example, .red { color:red; } is a no no. Instead, call it by it's function, like .alert or .warning. That way, if you want to apply other attributes to it and even change the color completely, you can. Otherwise, there's really no difference between doing class="red" and doing an inline style of style="color:red;"</p> <p>Now you may be up to something else that I'm not aware of and this may all just be a test that you're doing, but I couldn't let it go when I saw it. Especially since the rest of your code is excellent. That is all. I hope you don't take my comment the wrong way. If you do, please ignore me ;)</p> In general, you shouldn’t name your IDs and classes by their attribute. For example, .red { color:red; } is a no no. Instead, call it by it’s function, like .alert or .warning. That way, if you want to apply other attributes to it and even change the color completely, you can. Otherwise, there’s really no difference between doing class=”red” and doing an inline style of style=”color:red;”

Now you may be up to something else that I’m not aware of and this may all just be a test that you’re doing, but I couldn’t let it go when I saw it. Especially since the rest of your code is excellent. That is all. I hope you don’t take my comment the wrong way. If you do, please ignore me ;)

]]>