I don't know how strong the support of RadControls over here is, but it can't be worse than Telerik(there I'm lucky to get a response in 2-3 days), so I'm going to try here first.
Basically, I'm trying to do custom theming(using just CSS classes) throughout my application, so I tried setting the CSS classes needed on the telerik RadTab controls.
Well, when inspecting it in firebug, it adds an extra like 50 px of padding to each tab, which there seems to be no control over. This is their rendered markup
<li class="rtsLI rtsFirst">
<a href="#" class="rtsLink ui-state-default"> <!--This is the only place where I can put in my own custom CSS class-->
<span class="rtsOut">
<span class="rtsIn">
<span class="rtsTxt">
Common Application
</span>
</span>
</span>
</a>
</li>
Now, I know you can't see the style classes, but according to Firebug, every class prefixed with "rts" has the line padding-left: 9px in the style sheet which would of course explain the extra padding problem. (Why do they need all this nesting anyway?!)
Anyway, I would like to remove that padding. How would you do this? Also, is there some way jquery could help to remove the padding?
If you know which setting you need to change for which classes, then the best thing to do would be to build an own style sheet with those instructions, and include it after the original stylesheet.
The important thing is to specify the classes exactly as you see them in the original style sheet, because the more specific a rule is, the more weight it has when the browser determines which settings overrule which.
This is slightly more work than doing a simple .className xyz { padding-left: 0px !important } but much, much better for maintenance. Plus, IE < 8 doesn't respect important.
Related
This is a question regarding Angular 2 selectors, Custom tags vs. Custom attributes, SEO and browser rendering.
When I first started to look over Angular 2, the very first thing I did when following their quickstart, right of the bat, was to change my selector to '[my-component]' (attribute selector) instead of 'my-component' (tag selector), so I could have <div my-component></div> in my html instead of <my-component></my-component>, which isn't valid html. So I would write html according to standards. Well, at least pretty close to standards (because my-component isn't a valid html attribute, but I could live with only that html validation error)
Then, at some point in a video on youtube, someone from the angular team mentioned that we should use the tag selector, performance wise at least.
Alright I said, screw html validation... or shouldn't I?
So:
Say I ignore the W3C screaming about my html being completely invalid because of the <custom-tags>. I actually have another bigger and more real concern: how does this impact SEO?
I mean don't just think client-side app, because in the real world (and for my angular 2 project as well) I also have server-side rendering, for 2 very important reasons: SEO and Fast initial rendering of the site to the user for that initial view, before the app bootstraps. You can not have a very high traffic SPA otherwise.
Sure, google will crawl my site, regardless of the tags I use, but will it rank it the same in both scenarios: one with <custom-make-believe-tags> and the other with only standard html tags?
Let's talk browsers and css:
As I started to build my first SPA site in Angular 2, I was immediately faced with another concern:
Say (in a non SPA site) I have the following html markup:
<header>
<a class="logo">
...
</a>
<div class="widgets">
<form class="frm-quicksearch"> ... </form>
<div class="dropdown">
<!-- a user dropdown menu here -->
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="video-listing">
<div class="video-item"> ... </div>
<div class="video-item"> ... </div>
...
</div>
Angular 2 wise I would have the following component tree:
<header-component>
<logo-component></logo-component>
<widgets-component>
<quicksearch-component></quicksearch-component>
<dropdown-component></dropdown-component>
</widgets-component>
</header-component>
<video-listing-component>
<video-item-component></video-item-component>
...
</video-listing-component>
Now, I have 2 options. Let's just take the <video-listing-component> for example, to keep this simple... I either
A) place the entire standard html tags which I already have (<div class="video-item"></div>) within the <video-item-component> tag, and once rendered will result in this:
<video-listing-component>
<div class="video-listing>
<video-item-component>
<div class="video-item>...</div>
</video-item-component>
...
...
</div>
</video-listing-component>
OR:
B) Only put the content of <div class="video-item"> directly into my <video-item-component> component and adding the required class (class="video-item") for styling on the component tag, resulting in something like this:
<video-listing-component class="video-listing">
<video-item-component class="video-item"></video-item-component>
<video-item-component class="video-item"></video-item-component>
...
</video-listing-component>
Either way (A or B), the browser renders everything just fine.
BUT if you take a closer look (after everything is rendered in the dom, of course), by default the custom tags don't occupy any space in the dom. They're 0px by 0px. Only their content occupies space. I don't get it how come the browser still renders everything as you would want to see it, I mean in the first case (A):
While having float: left; width: 25%; on the div class="video-item", but each of these divs being within a <video-item-component> tag, which doesn't have any styling... Isn't it just a fortunate side-effect that the browser renders everything as you'd expect? With all the <div class="video-item"> floating next to eachother, even though each of them are within another tag, the <video-item-component> which does NOT have float: left? I've tested on IE10+, Firefox, Chrome, all fine. Is it just fortunate or is there a solid explanation for this and we can safely rely for this kind of markup to be rendered as we'd expect by all (or at least most) browsers?
Second case (B):
If we use classes and styling directly on the custom tags (<video-item-component>)... again, everything shows up fine. But as far as I know, we shouldn't style custom components, right? Isn't this also just a fortunate expected outcome? Or is this fine also? I don't know, maybe I'm still living in 2009... am I?
Which of these 2 approaches (A or B) would be the recommended one? Or are both just fine?
I have no ideea!!
EDIT:
D'oh, thanks Günter Zöchbauer. Yeah, since my divs have float: left, that's why the (custom or not) tag they're wrapped in doesn't expand it's height. Seems I've forgotten how css works since I started to look over Angular 2:)
But one thing still remains:
If I set a percentage width on a block element (call it E), I would assume it takes x% of it's immediate parent. If I set float: left, I would expect floating within the immediate parent. In my A case, since the immediate parent is a custom tag with no display type and no width, I would expect for things to break somehow, but still... my E elements behave like their parent isn't the custom tag they're each wrapped in, but the next one in the dom (which is <div class="video-listing> in my case). And they occupy x% of that and they float within that. I don't expect this to be normal, I would think this is just a fortunate effect, and I'm afraid that one day, after some browser update... I'll wake up to find all my Angular 2 sites looking completely broken.
So... are both A and B an equally proper approach? Or am I doing it wrong in case A?
EDIT2:
Let's simplify things a bit. As I got part of my question answered, let's take another example of generated html (simplified a bit, with inlined css):
<footer>
<angular-component-left>
<div style="float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</div>
</angular-component-left>
<angular-component-right>
<div style="float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</div>
</angular-component-right>
</footer>
In the original, not yet implemented html (whithout <angular-component-...>, those divs should float left and each occupy 50% of the <footer>. Surprisingly, once they're wrapped in the <angular-component-...> custom tags, they do the same: occupy 50% of the footer. But this just seems like good fortune to me, dumb luck... Unintended effect.
So, is it or isn't it "dumb luck"?
Should I leave it like that, or rewrite so instead of the above code, I would have something like this:
<footer>
<angular-component-left style="display: block; float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</angular-component-left>
<angular-component-right style="display: block; float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</angular-component-right>
</footer>
Note that the inline styling is introduced here for simplicity, I would actually have a class instead which would be in an external css file included in the <head> of my document, not through style or styleUrls from my angular components.
The issue is your HTML validator. The - in the element name is required for elements to be treated as custom elements and it is valid HTML5. Angular doesn't require - in element names but it's good practice.
Check for example https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#registering-custom-elements (search for x-foo) or https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#custom-elements-custom-tag-example. I'm sure this dash rule is specified somewhere but wasn't able to find the spec. It is for example required in Polymer that depends on elements being proper custom elements while this doesn't matter much in Angular. The only difference as far as I know is that when you query the element, you get a HTMLUnknownElement when the - is missing in the name and a HTMLElement when it contains a -.
See also this question I asked a few years ago Why does Angular not need a dash in component name
BUT if you take a closer look, by default the custom tags don't occupy any space in the dom. They're 0px by 0px. Only their content occupies space. I just don't get it how come the browser still renders everything as you would want to see it
I'm not sure I understand this question. When Angular processes the template it adds the content dynamically. When you see the content in the browser than it's also available in the DOM and has actual dimensions.
Search engine crawlers are able to process pages that are generated by JavaScript. If this isn't enough, server-side rendered pages can provide static HTML to crawlers that contain the whole view.
I'm using this good script from CodyHouse to set up a filterable portfolio: http://codyhouse.co/demo/content-filter/
I'm using AngularJS to parse data via JSON and everything is fine, except for the fact that the CSS is not applied properly to the dynamically loaded elements.
You can see the differences in this image:
As you can see, the first row, which is loaded via Angular, has no css applied at all. The second row, which is already placed in the HTML, is working fine.
How is it possible? All the elements in both rows have the same CSS selectors and the same CSS rules applied.
Here you can find a Plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/mFtMpm5CJOiPcu3tRVOj?p=preview
This is the generated markup from Angular:
<li class="mix color-1 check1 radio2 option3 ng-scope" style="display: inline-block;" ng-repeat="drawing in drawings"><img src="img/img-1.jpg" alt="Image 1"></li>
And this is the html static markup:
<li class="mix color-1 check1 radio2 option3" style="display: inline-block;"><img src="img/img-1.jpg" alt="Image 1"></li>
This is the css applied:
.cd-gallery ul { text-align: justify; }
.cd-gallery li { width: 23%; }
There is absolutely no difference between them and I'm getting a bit crazy on this. It's the first time that I get issue with css applied on dynamic and static elements. Thanks in advance for any help.
Ok, I found the solution to the problem.
Basically the whitespace between the (necessary for the justification) is not emitted with Angular's repetition so you also have to wrap the whitespace so it gets repeated, like:
<span ng-repeat-start="drawing in drawings"></span>
<li></li>
<span ng-repeat-end></span>
Thanks to this thread: Angular: Why doesn't CSS justification work with ng-repeat?
Of course it's not optimal, because it forces you to add a ton of useless markup but at least it works. If anyone can suggest a best solution it will be appreciated.
I am trying to learn fundamentals of html and markings.
I want to create an anchor which containes two lines of information.
first line: the name of the link
second line: short explanation
e.g.
<a href='#'>
<span>Studies</span>
<span class="alt">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
Is this correct?
How should the following (2nd span) be modified if necessary?
Thank you
PS. Both lines need to be surrounded with span for css-styling.
First off, don't rule out using a br tag. This is a semantically-appropriate place for a br tag (forcing a hard break inside a line or paragraph of text). Plus, if you use a br tag, it may no longer be necessary to put either of the two lines of text in separate tags, unless you want to style them differently.
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
Second, try viewing the HTML with stylesheets disabled (I do this in Firefox by pressing ctrl-shift-S, with a little help from the Web Developer extension). Is the browser able to render the content in an easy-to-read way based solely on the HTML provided? To some extent, the more readable the "unstyled" content appears, the more semantically-correct the HTML is.
Given that the second line of text seems to be secondary to the first line (a subtitle, not as important, possibly redundant or not entirely essential), putting the first line in a strong tag or putting the second line in a small tag are a couple ways to establish the relative importance of the two lines, if you wish to do so.
<a href='#'>
<strong>Studies</strong><br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
<small>-Information about studies</small>
</a>
There's some room for personal preference here. These are just two approaches.
It may be a little bit of a stretch using a small tag in a case like this, but it's not entirely inappropriate. A small tag is typically used for "fine print", attribution, disclaimers, or side comments. It doesn't semantically mean the text is small, but it does tend to be used for content that's secondary to something else (that clarifies something else). It should though only be used for text that's short in length.
And a strong tag doesn't have to be styled bold. In fact, that's the whole point of semantic markup: It doesn't specify or imply how the content will be styled; all it does is offer a hint to the meaning or context of the content. A strong tag can reasonably be given a style of font-weight:normal.
In order to achieve that those are in separate lines, try using the <div> tag instead. You can still specify a class for styling, the only difference is that <div>s are block-elements; each of them is rendered on a separate line. Here's the modified version of your code:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<div class="alt">-Information about studies</div>
</a>
Another, slightly more preferable way of doing that is by styling the elements to be block-elements. That can be used by setting the CSS display property to block. Something like:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<span class = "alt block">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
(Note that class = "alt block" means the element has both classes alt and block, and note also that the first <span> is removed because there's no need to style that node with anything).
CSS:
.block {
display: block;
}
Hope that helped you!
I found many different views on many articles on presentation tags, with some people thinking all tags are presentational, but some others do not think so.
For example: in the HTML 5 specification, they do not think <small> is presentational.
In this list of tags - which are all HTML 5 supported - which tag is presentational and which is not?
<abbr>
<address>
<area>
<b>
<bdo>
<blockquote>
<br>
<button>
<cite>
<dd>
<del>
<dfn>
<dl>
<dt>
<em>
<hr>
<i>
<ins>
<kbd>
<map>
<menu>
<pre>
<q>
<samp>
<small>
<span>
<strong>
<sub>
<sup>
<var>
Who decides which HTML tag is presentational and Which is not - and how do they make that decision? Is it a particularly large group such as the W3C or is it based on groups of web developers, i.e. the web community? Also, between the two, which advice we should follow for deciding which tags are presentational?
If a tag is valid as according to the W3C in accepted doctypes, then what are the pros to not using any xhtml tag from any point of view?
in user/usability/accessibility point of view
if we use more HTML tags then pages without CSS will better.
in developer point of view
if we make use of more available tags in HTML, than we do not need to use <span class=className">
it takes more time to write and it uses more charter space than tags in HTML and CSS both.
For example:
instead of using:
<span class="boldtext">Some text<span>
.boldtext {font-weight:700}
We can use:
<b>Some text<b>
b {font-weight:700}
it looks cleaner, it is easier to use , it uses less characters - which will reduce the page size - and it is more readable in source. It also does not break the rule of content and presentation separation.
We can also do this:
<b class="important">Some text<b>
b.important {font-weight:700}
and whenever we want to change font-weight then we can change css only in both examples.
If a tag is considered valid by w3c in their recognized doctypes, then what are the pros to not using any X/HTML presentational tags which are not directly recognized by either the W3C, or by the HTML specifications?
Can we change any design parameters without changing anything in HTML? Does this fit within the meme of content and presentation separation?
If any HTML tag breaks the rule of separation, then does not the css property Content break as well?
see this article.
Why are the HEIGHT and WIDTH attributes for the IMG element permitted?. does it not break the rule of separation? A good debate on this matter can be found here.
W3C decides the semantics of tags. The specification documents of HTML5 gives conditions on the use of the various tags.
HTML5
To continue with your example, there is nothing wrong with using <b> to bold some text unless:
The text being bolded is a single entity already represented by a tag:
Incorrect:
<label for="name"><b>Name:</b></label>
Correct: (Use CSS to style the element)
label { font-weight: bold; }
<label for="name">Name:</label>
The text is being bolded to put added emphasis and weight on a section or words of a block of text.
Incorrect:
<p>HTML has been created to <b>semantically</b> represent documents.</p>
Correct: (Use <strong>)
<p>HTML has been created to <strong>semantically</strong> represent documents.</p>
The following is an example of proper use of the <b> tag:
Correct:
<p>You may <b>logout</b> at any time.</p>
I realize that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between the above example and the one using <strong> as the proper example. To simply explain it, the word semantically plays an important role in the sentence and its emphasis is being strengthened by bold font, while logout is simply bolded for presentation purposes.
The following would be an improper usage.
Incorrect:
<p><b>Warning:</b> Following the procedure described below may irreparably damage your equipment.</p>
Correct: (This is used to add strong emphasis, therefore use <strong>)
<p><strong>Warning:</strong> Following the procedure described below may irreparably damage your equipment.</p>
Using <span class="bold"> is markup-smell and simply shouldn't be allowed. The <span> element is used to apply style on inline elements when a generic presentation tag (ie.: <b> doesn't apply) For example to make some text green:
Incorrect:
<p>You will also be happy to know <span class="bold">ACME Corp</span> is a <span class="eco-green">certified green</span> company.</p>
Correct: (Explanation below)
<p>You will also be happy to know <b>ACME Corp</b> is a <em class="eco-green">certified green</em> company.</p>
The reason here why you would want to use <em> as opposed to <span> for the word green is because the color green here is used to add emphasis on the fact that ACME Corp is a certified green company.
The following would be a good example of the use of a <span> tag:
Correct:
<p>You may press <kbd>CTRL+G</hbd> at any time to change your pen color to <span class="pen-green">green</span>.</p>
In this example, the word green is styled in green simply to reflect the color, not to add any emphasis (<em>) or strong emphasis (<strong>).
The whole distinction between "presentation" elements versus "structure" element is, in my opinion, a matter of common sense, not something defined by W3C or anyone else. :-P
An element that describes what its content is (as opposed to how it should look) is a structure element. Everything else is, by definition, not structural, and therefore a presentation element.
Now, I'll answer the second part of your post. I understand this is a contentious topic, but I'll speak my mind anyway.
Well-made HTML should not concern itself with how it should look. That's the job of the stylesheet. The reason it should leave it to the stylesheet, is so you can deliver one stylesheet for desktop computers, another one for netbooks, smartphones, "dumbphones" (for lack of a better term), Kindles, and (if you care about accessibility, and you should) screen readers.
By using presentation markup in your HTML, you force a certain "look" across all these different types of media, removing the ability of the designer to choose a look that works best for such devices. This is micromanagement of the worst sort, and designers will hate you for it. :-)
To use your example, instead of using <b>, you should ask yourself what the boldness is supposed to express. If you're trying to express a section title, use one of the header tags (<h1> through <h6>). If you're trying to express strong emphasis, use <strong>. You get the idea. Express the what, not the how; leave the how to the stylesheet designers.
</soapbox>
It's not that presentational elements should be avoided, it's that markup should be as semantic as possible. When designing a document structure, default styling should be considered a secondary affect. If an element is used solely for presentation, it's not semantic, no matter what element is used.
The example usage of <b> isn't semantic, because <b> imparts no meaning. <span class="boldtext"> also isn't semantic. As such, their usage is mixing presentation into the structure.
I'm trying to make a "clickable" region.
<a
style="display: block"
href="http://stackoverflow.com">
StackOverflow
</a>
A is an inline element but the CSS made it a block.
If the above is valid, then the following should be valid too:
<a
style="display: block"
href="http://stackoverflow.com">
<div>Some DIV that links to StackOverflow</div>
</a>
But validator.w3.org shouldn't be flagging it as invalid (which it is right now).
If it is invalid, what would be the most proper way to make a block element "clickable" and redirects to an arbitrary page. I'm aware I can use JS onclick to achieve this behaviour, but how will Google see this?
The validator is correct - you can't put <div> inside <a>, no matter what you do afterwards with CSS.
The proper thing to do is what you did in your first code block - <a style="display: block;">
If you want something inside that you can do <a style="display: block;"><span style="display: block;">
Don't confuse valid HTML with valid CSS. It is valid to use the display css property to make inline elements block. It is not valid to put block HTML elements within inline ones.
It doesn't follow that the one being valid implies the other has to be. There are nesting rules for HTML, and div-within-anchor doesn't fit them, which is why validator.w3.org is giving you a hard time.
If you truly must have a div, rather than text, images or <span style="display: block">s, that's clickable, then yes, you will have to use an onclick event. Google will not understand or acknowledge the existence of the link. (You may be able to cope with this by having an anchor on something that anchors can apply to, in addition to the onclick div.)
Something I've done in the past with this sort of problem is invoke the click on the parent element (My example uses jQuery):
<div class="link">
Visit Google
</div>
$(".link").click(function(){
document.location = $(this).find("a:first").attr("href");
});
With styles you could make the entire area appear to be the link by setting the cursor, a roll-over state, etc.
First you need to know whether you want to use strict or transitional XHTML (frameset is not useful here). Then you look into the DTD (link) and you'll see that A cannot have a DIV inside.
Why don't you use an area tag for this? It is supposed to define the clickable area in an imagemap.
Google bots now follow simple javascript links, so using JS on the onClick event of your div is an option. Other search engine bots don't do that, but sooner or later they will.
More info in this article.