Forum Replies Created
September 30, 2014 at 8:48 am in reply to: [Solved] Footer floats behind content, not at bottom #185099
Thanks; I must have passed over that many times without noticing it, as I just wasn’t looking for that.
Fixed it, thanks again :)June 22, 2014 at 5:55 am in reply to: [Solved] Scroll error | sidebar + content scroll together #173431
The page itself doesn’t fill the height of the screen yet, as I haven’t worked on giving it content yet, but as far as I know it works as I wanted.
Thanks for the help.
From what you’ve described, it is possible that a transparent layer is above your form elements and hyperlinks (which only happens with relative, fixed and absolute positioning), which would not be letting the clicks pass through to the elements below.
Try giving positive
z-indexvalues to the containers of the element, or see if there is such a container that is below them in your HTML, which could be taking up the space and covering them up.June 22, 2014 at 5:39 am in reply to: [Solved] Scroll error | sidebar + content scroll together #173426
navwas constrained, but the
<body>tags were not. Applying
height: 100%to them fixed the problem.
This GitHub Wiki has a few: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/wiki/HTML5-Cross-Browser-Polyfills
Scroll down to about 80% of the page; it’s under “CSS, responsive design modules”
What I meant was that when a client goes online, the database looks for something that says what they have changed whilst offline. When it finds that information, the app then sends those changes to their places in the online database. The same thing would then happen from online to offline.
You could do this with some kind of XML file or maybe in a database table with one row per client, which contains the information as to what has been updated.
This technique would sort of be like git or svn, but not as complex. It remembers which values have been changed, but not the new or old values.
The problem with % is in padding and margin as it will shrink, leaving less white space.
I have done something similar in the past (two fixed columns on the left).
Both fixed-width columns were floated left and all columns had were `position: relative`.
I tried this but for some reason it wasn’t working; the floats were acting weirdly…
What might be easier for you is to position them both absolutely or fixed and then just give the underlying div 160px left and right padding.
The easiest way to do that is to have container divs and float them left. Three buttons go in each div.
The other way could be by setting three CSS columns, although you’d have to somehow limit the height.
Another thing is to order them by rows, which each have three columns (like a table).
How about first attempting to UPDATE the online version with the offline version. Then, what doesn’t UPDATE can be INSERTed. This would work in both directions.
The thing is that if people are using the WordPress version, there is a greater chance of it being cached, because WP will be using a fixed version.
Using the Google version, which is a CDN (so it’s very fast) may have more or less caching depending on the version you use, but its non-cached loading speed will be faster.
I don’t think that the speed makes too much difference unless you’re loading lots of js scripts and images, etc.
So I’d expect you’re trying to have it work in browsers that do not support multiple backgrounds, otherwise I would do that (and then position it though that).
Positioning absolutely should work. I just think that for semantics’ sake, you should use a `width: 100%` div with a repeating background, and not and img tag.
You could set it up so that it creates a local Apache server when offline which would run PHP and MySQL, so that you can use the exact same app both online and offline.
You would then need to sync both the local and online databases.
I can’t explain any more than that though; it’s just an idea.
The website seems to work.
If you want the site to remain the same, try using `em` units.
1em = font size of parent element.
They will probably stay the same at different resolutions, whilst allowing you to use non-% values. I would practice a bit with them first, as they take some getting used to.
Hmm, I must just be experiencing some weird bug then.
Thanks for the feedback.