?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Weird Cravings

weather: raining
outside: 8°C
mood: bizarre
Other women have weird food cravings, like children's gym shoes, chocolate with salad dressing and prawns in ice cream. This is usually associated with pregnancy, although not always; it could be hormones; it could be a nutritional defficiency. And it happens to men too.


_I_, on the other hand, have WEIRD CSS STYLING FEATURE CRAVINGS. O_o Kinda like this. This morning, in the shower, I suddenly reallyreallyreally wanted to be able to use the anchor style but non-clickable.

In the <style type="text/css">, I'd have:

a {
text-color:#800000;
text-decoration:none;
font-weight:bold;
}

Then in my body text, I can go something like:

<span class="a">Hello World</span>

And the result would be:

Hello World

Why don't I just change the colours inline? Because it would show up in MY colours in YOUR Friends view. Everyone has a different Friends view layout that uses different colours and styles for links. I want it to pick up whatever link styling comes in everyone else's Friends view.

That's also why making another style definition of my own, that duplicates the anchor style definition, isn't what I want either. There would be no equivalent in everyone else's Friends view style sheet and it would default to the regular body text.

I could just make an anchor with an empty HREF. That would automatically style it correctly according to the style sheet definition wherever it is. But that makes the link clickable and, even though it only makes the page reload, I didn't want that either... especially with dynamic data pages, like a Friends view.

I don't know why I want this. I don't know when I'd EVER need to use this. BUT I WANT IT NOW. IWANNITIWANNITIWANNIT. *ahem* Sorry.

I'm terrified for userinfoHusband Guy when I do get pregnant. =O

0300h on a work night: "I want a Reverse Dictionary Utility. Now! GO WRITE ME A REVERSE DICTIONARY!!! *crywailcry* NOOOO IT HAS TO BE AN ORACLE ENTERPRISE BACKEND!!!!!!!! *LOUDSHRIEKING*" ... =O =D

Tags:


Comments

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
yueni
Mar. 7th, 2004 01:00 pm (UTC)
This terrifies me, because I only know basic CSS, which is just barely enough for me to understand what you're doing. And suddenly, I have the urge to implement this.

Is it possible for craving to spread? O.o
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 01:28 pm (UTC)
As far as I know, this isn't possible... unless someone else knows of a way to do it that I haven't tried.

But yes, I think cravings can spread =D Yawns do =)
shashin
Mar. 7th, 2004 02:18 pm (UTC)
Don't text style inherit? In that browser regresses up the current nodes until finds a match to the parameters required for rendering the text? At least on mine it seems to.

01   <html>
02   
03     <head>
04       <title></title>
05   
06       <style>
07           body {
08               background-color : #ffffff ;
09               font-family      : arial, helvetica, tahoma ;
10           }
11   
12           r {
13             font-size: 24pt;
14           }
15   
16       </style>
17   
18     </head>
19   
20     <body>
21       hi there <r>are <f>we</f> working?</r>
22     </body>
23   
24   </html>
shashin
Mar. 7th, 2004 02:25 pm (UTC)
Whoa, talk about nasty grammer there.

What I meant to say: Perhaps by creating custom tags with styles attached you can get what you want. Browsers are generally configured to ignore all unrecognized tags. So, on your friends friends pages your styles will be transparent while on your landing page, you can have the proper CSS setup to style it the way you like.
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 02:36 pm (UTC)
Nope, I don't want it transparent though. I want it to use your link style without making it a link.

So, on your friends page, I want that "Hello World" to be in Times New Roman, black, bold and underlined, just like your links. Not just plain Times New Roman, black.
shashin
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:16 pm (UTC)
Ahh, I getcha. Naughtiness! Probably would of been fairly easy with javascript but since that's been disabled... :/ interesting problem though. Related, it's too bad we couldn't do something like

style1 {
font-size: 12pt
}

content {
font-size: style1.font-size ;
}

Since that would make designing stylesheets much nicer and easier. (one single location to make changes to the styles rather than having to edit each individual style class or rely on the hocus pocus of inheritance)
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:22 pm (UTC)
I think that's partially a performance issue. How boggy would it be to load a page if you had nested property definitions like that, that all have to be evaluated on the fly every time the page is reloaded?

Also, they would have to deal with the case of circular references. I wouldn't put it past a user to do something like this:

style1 { font-size: content.font-size; }

content { font-size: style1.font-size; }

That's a trivial example, but when you have a hillion-jillion definitions, it could be easy to loop it up somewhere.
shashin
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:40 pm (UTC)
Hmm... my guess would be that they wanted it to keep any more complexity out of it. It's pretty scary, I just took a look at the CSS spec and it's pages and pages long. (Learned somethings too, cool!) DOM already seems like a nasty beast as it stands and the complexity it demands would make something like this relatively trivial. There is already support for things such as position: absolute, relative, top: y, left: x and so on that must make the browser boggier in even bigger ways ;) (I'd hate to be a browser writer these days...)

Circular references may be a problem but as forward declarations aren't typically allowed, style1 should probably fail in its attempt to pick up content's style. Nothing stopping users from using import or iframe to create a circular loading of pages either... Javascript support would make things scary though, especially if it required cascading updates across the board. Eeek!
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:43 pm (UTC)
my guess would be that they wanted it to keep any more complexity out of it.

Well, yeah, that too =)
shashin
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:55 pm (UTC)
Yeah... I'm wondering now if CSS was more of a really lightweight tweaking language with more dramatic style changes reserved for the domain of XSLT.
axiem
Mar. 7th, 2004 02:26 pm (UTC)
That would also be fairly evil, because it would also underline the link as a default for most browsers...so it will look exactly like a clickable link, but wouldn't be.

However, I don't think you can especially get away with it. I don't think CSS allows for cross-calls. Although it would be cool to be able to do something like "make the background color for span class "foo" be whatever the foreground color of span class "bar" is". But I don't think that's possible in the current CSS.

A pity, too. It would make some things so much easier.

Sorry, dunno how to help you :P
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 02:32 pm (UTC)
That would also be fairly evil, because it would also underline the link as a default for most browsers...so it will look exactly like a clickable link, but wouldn't be.

That's exactly what I want. I want it to look exactly like a link, but with no mouse-over cursor change.

I'm not sure why that's evil... sure, we're conditioned to move our mouse over text that might look like a link, but does it really hurt/inconvenience anyone to find out that the cursor is still a carret?

It would currently only work, if everyone had the same style definition name, but mapped to different properties. But I can't guarantee that.
struiling
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:37 pm (UTC)
But since you have text color specified, won't that make it show up as #800000 all the time, regardless?
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 03:39 pm (UTC)
Yes, that's just the example output for my journal, because this feature is not currently supported (or I can't figure out the syntax to make it happen the way I describe).
incognita
Mar. 7th, 2004 05:15 pm (UTC)
You are such a GEEK!! But I can't help loving you for it :D heheheheh
bride
Mar. 7th, 2004 05:22 pm (UTC)
Heeheehee, s'anks =)
rcantilles
Mar. 8th, 2004 09:54 am (UTC)
CHILDREN'S GYM SHOES????
bride
Mar. 8th, 2004 10:02 am (UTC)
Yeah, apparently! =O =D

And people with an iron defficiency will say they want to eat dirt (like, potting soil dirt). I distinctly remember this because I asked my doctor why I seem to crave brussel sprouts all the time and "is it because I'm craving the iron").
rcantilles
Mar. 8th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
man, that makes my constant cravings for pickles and ramen (seperately, not together!) look pretty normal.
bride
Mar. 8th, 2004 10:11 am (UTC)
I love pickles too. Whenever we get catering, the Office Manager Lady gives me the whole bowl of pickles =)
incognita
Mar. 8th, 2004 12:03 pm (UTC)
pickles and olives are my downfall. Black olives. Straight out of a refrigorated can. yummyummyumm :D
bride
Mar. 8th, 2004 12:05 pm (UTC)
OMG. Black olives!!! Fresh, whole, just pitted. That's it, I'm getting a bucket of rabbit food for lunch today.
jenny_rambles
Mar. 9th, 2004 10:10 am (UTC)
He can go hide out in the woods somewhere with my husband. I get weird food cravings all the time and I'm not pregnant (popcorn and milk is my recent top one).
When I'm pregnant I'm going to be a disaster.
bride
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:56 pm (UTC)
He can go hide out in the woods somewhere with my husband.

BWAHAHAHA!!! =D I don't know why, but that sentence is so funny to me. I can just picture a bunch of men sitting around in a forest doing nothing. A new guy walks in and says, "Avoiding your wives? M'kay, I'm in the right place." =D
( 24 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

eLouai
bride
The Bride of the First House

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031