[sam]

I have noticed a lot of inconsistencies across browsers when its comes to ul and ol. This happens inspite of the reset * {margin: 0; padding: 0}. I am aware of the yui browser reset. But doesn't * cover everything ? If anybody has more information on this aspect please post. I assume * covers everything and inspite of that if they have taken the pains to list out each element, there must be a reason I suppose.

[marcamos]

Once you've used the asterisk/reset 'feature' that you've described, it certainly pulls all browsers into alignment in regards to... well, margin and padding.

After that, though, you should then define what you want what the ul, ol, and li's will do. Like so...

* {margin:0; padding:0}
ul, ol {padding-left:1.5em;}
li {margin:.25em .5em;}

etc.

[sam]

But I see inconsistencies even after using the asterisk reset feature in ol' and ul' between IE6 IE7 and firefox. I am guessing its line height that is different but I am not sure. I will have to test that sometime. But this is after the reset before any margin or padding is given.

Edit - can't reproduce what I was talking about right now... I guess I will come back when I run in to it.

This post has been edited by sam: 26 April 2007 - 04:05 PM

[marcamos]

Are you using a Strict DOCTYPE?

[sam]

Any advantages using a strict doc type in this regard ?

This post has been edited by sam: 26 April 2007 - 10:28 PM

[Ryan Fait]

I use this one, personally. Maybe this will help:

* {
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
  list-style: none;
}

[marcamos]

sam, on Apr 26 2007, 11:08 PM, said:

Any advantages using a strict doc type in this regard ?

There certainly are, and while I'm not entirely sure of the hows and whys, I do know that using a Strict DOCTYPE helps the browser to render the code in ways more expected to you.

If it's convenient for you to change the DOCTYPE, it can't hurt, at the very least to see if it solves this one problem you're having.

[sam]

Ok I have switched to XHTML 1.0 strict. Didn't seem to make any difference but I agree and will stick with XHTML strict from now on. The situation that I mention above in this thread pops up when you <a> nested in <li>'s. Firefox and Opera agree while IE's have their style or mess, whatever one would like to call it.

Thanks Ryan that piece of code is always up top my style sheets by default.

[marcamos]

sam, on Apr 27 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

Ok I have switched to XHTML 1.0 strict. Didn't seem to make any difference but I agree and will stick with XHTML strict from now on. The situation that I mention above in this thread pops up when you <a> nested in <li>'s. Firefox and Opera agree while IE's have their style or mess, whatever one would like to call it.

Thanks Ryan that piece of code is always up top my style sheets by default.

Ahar, I didn't know there were anchors in there... this might help ya: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/2006...st_items_in_ie/

[sam]

Thanks Marc you are the man ! I have used negative top margin to beat IE devils in to place. But this solution seems promising. I see that many others have reported other solutions on the same page. Which one works for you the best ?

[marcamos]

sam, on Apr 27 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

Which one works for you the best ?

I personally use the one Roger recommends in the posts itself. Glad it worked out for you

[sam]

But with Roger's method the a element becomes like a button with the area around a text becoming "clickable". How would you do it if you would like just the text and not the area around it to be active ?

[marcamos]

sam, on Apr 27 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

But with Roger's method the a element becomes like a button with the area around a text becoming "clickable". How would you do it if you would like just the text and not the area around it to be active ?

I'm way too tired at the moment to look into his method, but I can tell you that anywhere it says 'display: block;' in the CSS, is what is doing it. If not 'display: block;', then it is some other block-level value. Removing that will remove the effect you mentioned, but then it may ruin the IE6 fix.

May I ask why you'd like only the text to be clickable? In general, the more of a target area you can give to your visitors, the better.

[sam]

I agree with the greater target area. Its easier for people to click around. But sometimes people happen to want only the text to be clickable... Thanks for the info and the link Marc. I learned some new stuff reading that post.

[lwaxhaxnc]

I have used negative top margin to beat IE devils in to place. But this solution seems promising.