section width with margin: auto issue

[coothead]

As an aside, thank you all for your feedback! I appreciate it!

Thank you for helping us to keep out of mischief.   

coothead

[John_Betong]

I’ve just checked the links and noticed I had incorrect abbreviations, they should have been LVHA:
https://css-tricks.com/almanac/selectors/v/visited/


Did anyone check to see the LAVH meaning? I did and it raised more than just  a chuckle

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I’ve just checked the links and noticed I had incorrect abbreviations, they should have been LVHA:
https://css-tricks.com/almanac/selectors/v/visited/


Did anyone check to see the LAVH meaning? I did and it raised more than just  a chuckle

🤦🏽‍♂️🤔😂😂 A google search on the first lot provided a interesting set of results

[GrumpyYoungMan]

As an aside, thank you all for your feedback! I appreciate it!

Thank you for helping us to keep out of mischief.   

coothead

I can’t quite work out if that’s an typo or was meant to be..  as both versions work! 🤔😂😂😂😂

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Did anyone check to see the LAVH meaning? I did and it raised more than just  a chuckle

Yes! And I didn’t get past page one!! 🤦🏽‍♂️😳

[John_Betong]

Regret the delay, I've had three FREE domains expire and the Domain Registrar now wants about twelve dollars each to release the domain

What do you reckon to this method of displaying the button/tabbed information?

https://this-is-a-test-to-see-if-it-works.anetizer.com/sp-a/jb-swatch/gym/ver-005/

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Thanks!

Ill have proper look later!

Hope you get your domain names sorted quickly...

[Jason Knight]

Regret the delay, I've had three FREE domains expire and the Domain Registrar now wants about twelve dollars each to release the domain

OUCH.  Though welcome to why I stopped using free domains 12 years ago. The providers are what you get if you remove all the Jews, Arabs, Africans, and Immigrants from a creche... A bunch of sheep led by a jackass.

What do you reckon to this method of displaying the button/tabbed information?

The use of the checkbox is fine, though those label should probably be inside numbered headings for each of those subsections. Probably as those H3 that you have empty with non-breaking spaces for Christmas only knows what. The extra "div for nothing" don't look like they're doing any favors either, or at least not with the pointless cryptic classes on them. You seem to have a lot of garbage non-breaking spaces for **** knows what.

The big problem is your animation is a broken wreck because you're trying to use that broken max-height trash to do something CSS just can't do without JS assistance.

And as always, crapping style into the markup is just making it harder to understand and work with as well.

You MIGHT be better off overall though for this type of content to use <details> and <summary> instead.

[John_Betong]

@Jason Knight,

What do you reckon to this method of displaying the button.tabbed information?

I have moved that page to the following link:
https://this-is-a-test-to-see-if-it-works.anetizer.com/sp-a/jb-swatch/gym/ver-005-ORIGINAL/

Changes now made and created CSS Detail/Summary Version
https://this-is-a-test-to-see-if-it-works.anetizer.com/sp-a/jb-swatch/gym/ver-005/

Probably as those H3 that you have empty with non-breaking spaces for Christmas only knows what.

The empty Divs were to remove the W3.org HTML Validator warning messages about missing H# tags inside a <section>.

The extra "div for nothing" don't look like they're doing any favors either, or at least not with the pointless cryptic classes on them. You seem to have a lot of garbage non-breaking spaces for **** knows what.

The script was quickly copied from another web page that used the additional Divs. The idea was to see if @GrumpyYoungMan liked the alternative layout. It was not optimised.

You MIGHT be better off overall though for this type of content to use <details> and <summary> instead.

The new version uses <details> and <summary> and the CSS had drastically been reduced. Thank you

And as always, crapping style into the markup is just making it harder to understand and work with as well.

The "crapping style" is for the benefit of the right-hand Vertical Validation links. The following single line is added to the web page and dynamic links to W3.org validation tools, etc which I find far easier than continually having tp copy and paste links into the validation pages.
[/size]

Code: [Select]

<?php require '/var/www/footer-side.php'; ?>
I like to see the green flash indicating there are no errors or warnings

[Jason Knight]

The empty Divs were to remove the W3.org HTML Validator warning messages about missing H# tags inside a <section>.

Which is a poster child for why I keep saying simply validating is insufficient and misleading. You should have made them sections with a proper H3, not in H3 with empty non-breaking spaces and DIV soup. you have obvious headings, MAKE THEM HEADINGS!

Just like how the heading orders are complete gibberish, such as the h1 being after the content it describes... and "older version" likely NOT being the header that "everything on EVERY page of the site is a subsection of"... well, unless the site is actually called "older version".

I don't know if that's on you or GYM, either way the use of numbered headings in there is broken nonsense.

And again, the W3C can give my big stick a suckles on the BULLSHIT change to HTML 5 SECTION "requiring" headers, defeating the entire reason it was introduced as an ALTERNATIVE TO HEADERS!

More reason HTML validation is now a giant steaming pile of manure much akin to what CSS validation was in the '00's. A pipe-dream of wishful thinking and bad advice.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The empty Divs were to remove the W3.org HTML Validator warning messages about missing H# tags inside a <section>.

Which is a poster child for why I keep saying simply validating is insufficient and misleading. You should have made them sections with a proper H3, not in H3 with empty non-breaking spaces and DIV soup. you have obvious headings, MAKE THEM HEADINGS!

Just like how the heading orders are complete gibberish, such as the h1 being after the content it describes... and "older version" likely NOT being the header that "everything on EVERY page of the site is a subsection of"... well, unless the site is actually called "older version".

I don't know if that's on you or GYM, either way the use of numbered headings in there is broken nonsense.

And again, the W3C can give my big stick a suckles on the BULLSHIT change to HTML 5 SECTION "requiring" headers, defeating the entire reason it was introduced as an ALTERNATIVE TO HEADERS!

More reason HTML validation is now a giant steaming pile of manure much akin to what CSS validation was in the '00's. A pipe-dream of wishful thinking and bad advice.

If it’s based on a code sample from me, the H*’s numbering is probably my fault - although I have and did alter the H’s after your feedback, Jason!

So are we to ignore the w3 validator error messages as I too have seen the message about section and lack of headers?

[John_Betong]

@Jason Knight, @GrumpyYoungMan,

Confusion has arisen and won the day…

This is the new web page and not “Old Version”:

Changes now made and created CSS Detail/Summary Version
https://this-is-a-test-to-see-if-it-works.anetizer.com/sp-a/jb-swatch/gym/ver-005/

Edit:
It would be easier if the exact content was known rather than guessing and try to cater for all eventualities.