Sitepoint - Html Utopia, Designing without Tables (manual) by Shafer

Having this reference, 2003 copyright, by Dan Shafer, “complete css2”.

Brushing up on the css, converting one site in particular, am wondering how up-to-date this manual now is?

For example, z-index stacking orders. (p.144) But of course other topics and especially browser compatibilities. (IE7 introduced October 18, 2006)

Have not used this much but now want to, given the emphasis on css design.

CSS2 hasn’t changed since then, so in principle, it should be OK. However, browsers have come a long way since then, so the solutions offered may well be out of date. I’d recommend getting something more up-to-date.

If you are not sure about something then you can always check in the Sitepoint reference which covers up to IE8 and will be updated in the future.

Thats a nice reference.

What about the three letter color abbreviations – anyone know of a conversion chart for this?

Not sure what you mean. Could you give an example?

If you mean things like #fff then that’s just equivalent to #ffffff.

Where their are three pairs of characters in a color you can omit the duplicate character of each.

e.g. #ffccee would become #fce.

If you were referring to rgb colours then there are many conversion tools around.

More info in the reference here. :slight_smile:

Where their are three pairs of characters in a color you can omit the duplicate character of each
Thank You

That’s handy. I might use that. Normally I open the Photoshop color palette and type in the RGB values to get the hex, but it’s a bit of a pain.

I’ve always been a big fan of Color Cop. You can use the eyedropper to explore a site, and ferret out the color codes, or you can just type in the RGB or hex codes for some quick conversions.

Windows only, however.

Whereas I just work in hex in the first place… it’s the easiest/most convenient (for me). Especially the three letter version which gives you a 4096 color palette – more than sufficient for the markup side of things… of course that I do my layout before I even think of opening up the goofy paint program, it’s easy enough to move the colors over from the CSS when making the images to hang on my layout.

Yeah, me too. It’s just that I get a lot of pre-designed layouts from graphic designers with everything in RGB/CMYK values, so I’m having to convert all the time. I find hex more intuitive (and prettier), for some reason, though with RGBa coming into the picture, it makes some sense to use that instead, I guess. [Ducks for cover.]

I don’t get on RGBA why they couldn’t just let us use two more digits for the hex version.

RRGGBBAA (8 digit)
or
RGBA (4 digit)

I mean, that would make sense, wouldn’t it? Be a hell of a lot easier to deal with… though much like RGB() I suspect RGBA() exists entirely for the people using Javascript to do CSS’ job… that or the people too {expletive omitted again) stupid to understand hex.

Hear, hear!

I suspect RGBA() exists entirely for the people using Javascript to do CSS’ job… that or the people too {expletive omitted again) stupid to understand hex.

Not sure if you are against the whole idea of transparency here or just the way they’ve implemented it. I certainly find that little “a” on the end a hell of a lot more convenient than all that opacity nonsense.

Transparency itself is fine so long as it’s not overused to the point you can’t even scroll the page in FF… though if you compare to IE9 or Opera it becomes more of a gecko issue than anything to do with the CSS. (with webkit falling somewhere between the two extremes).

I was more referring to rgba(###,###,###,###) – but I was NEVER a fan of rgb(###,###,###) either. But then I’m the nut who uses multiples of 4px on the vertical and 8px on the horizontal when doing paddings, widths and heights so that the math is easier for the computer to deal with… or on images so that you take advantage of the block-interval in jpeg or the compression block width of .png

Sometimes it’s just better to use a numbering system closer to what the computer uses… frankly, decimal sucks… but what do I know? If I had my way we’d all be using sexagesimal. What other base can you divide by 2,3,4 and 5 without EVER needing fractions or irrational numbers? See why I don’t “get” metric…