RE: Issue 2: Horizontal Rule properties

Noted.  We've done a lot of work since pp2 - I'm not sure if this has
been fixed, and I am out of the office this week on vacation - I'll
check into it when I get back.

	-Chris
Chris Wilson
cwilso@microsoft.com
***

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	E. Stephen Mack [SMTP:estephen@emf.net]
> Sent:	Sunday, July 27, 1997 5:24 PM
> To:	www-style@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Issue 2: Horizontal Rule properties
> 
> David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > This _should_ get the rule you want:
> > STYLE TYPE="text/css">
> > HR.fancy {
> >     background: transparent;
> >     border: 0;
> >     margin: 0;
> >     border-top: 10px solid blue;
> >     margin-left: 50%; }
> > </STYLE>
> 
> I've just tested David's suggested rule-group for horizontal rules.
> I'll add screen shots for this and the below background stuff
> soon.
> 
> Navigator 4.01 gets the correct alignment and left-margin (therefore
> getting the right width, 50%), but the rule has no blue border.
> Navigator's list of known issues says that border must be applied for
> all four sides, not just one side, so I'm not surprised this didn't
> work.  When I change "border-top" to "border" Navigator puts the
> border
> *after* the rule.  Bizarre!
> 
> IE 4.0 pp2 bungles David's rule group completely.  The horizontal rule
> appears full-width, with no border at all.  Every property/value is
> ignored, particularly margin-left.  If Microsoft developers are
> listening
> (are you?), pay attention to margins for PP3, since I think that's
> the most problematic part of your current implementation.
> 
> IE 3.02 just places an ordinary rule with no blue border, but it is
> correctly right-aligned and 50% width.
> 
> 
> > By declaring HR block, an author could define some very fancy rules
> > with minimal markup using background images and different color
> > borders. Provided, of course, height is a valid property.
> 
> I like the idea of background images for the rules; hadn't thought of
> that
> before.  Finally a replacement for HTML 3.0's lamented
> <HR SRC="foo.gif">.  But, upon testing, this wonderful idea is
> not yet a reality.  In a STYLE element I declared:
> 
> .green {
>      height: 10px;
>      background: green;
>      color: blue; }
> .clouds {
>      height: 20px;
>      background: url(clouds.gif); }
> 
> In the document, I used:
> 
> foo-4 <HR CLASS="green"> foo-5 <HR CLASS="clouds"> foo-6
> <P CLASS="clouds">foo-7
> <P>foo-8
> <P CLASS="green">foo-9
> <P>foo-10
> 
> No go.  This resulted in:
> 
> IE 4.0 pp2:
> A blue (not green) horizontal rule of 10 pixels appears between foo-4
> and foo-5.  The next horizontal rule was the correct height (20 
> pixels), but was transparent: no cloud image.
> The text "foo-7" and "foo-9" both have the appropriate background,
> extending the full width of the screen.
> I'm not sure if the height is supposed to be ignored here (it's
> not CSS1 core to change the height of non-replaced elements), but
> it is.
> 
> IE 3.02:
> Very strange.  The two horizontal rules appear with two pixels of
> height on top of a rectangle of line height that shows the 
> color and background image.  The background color of foo5 and
> foo6 distorts the rules' background color.
> The "foo-7" and "foo-9" text is only as wide as the text itself,
> not the full width of the screen.
> 
> Navigator 4:02:
> The horizontal rules are absolutely plain, without the specified
> height or background.  The text "foo-7" and "foo-9" appears
> the same as IE 3.02 does it, with the background only behind
> the text itself, not full-width.
> 
> 
> > The results you are getting are very disheartening, as was a recent
> > attempt to use CSS1-defined rules with NSN4.01.
> 
> Yup, I'm quite disheartened.  (Although I'm very interested
> by these incorrect interpretations -- it's like watching a
> car wreck.)  These partial and conflicting implementations
> are very frustrating.
> -- 
> E. Stephen Mack <estephen@emf.net>    http://www.emf.net/~estephen/

Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 10:51:59 UTC