Can you mappy people tell me if you see the same thing here: [link] and [link] ?
Nope. The first one has non-transparent rectangles around the markers and the 2nd one doesn't have the rectangles but the markers look like they're in one of those funhouse mirrors that make you look tall and skinny.
You know what would be great for this effort? Some sort of tool that shows you what your browser is seeing--so if you hover your cursor over any element it tells you the class/id in effect so you can go off and edit your css sheet appropriately to hit that precise bit.
The Web Developer add-on for Firefox does exactly that. Among many other shiny things. I wouldn't touch code without it, anymore.
The first one has non-transparent rectangles around the markers and the 2nd one doesn't have the rectangles but the markers look like they're in one of those funhouse mirrors that make you look tall and skinny.
Okay, what about between here [link] and [link] ?
I don't notice any change from the first pair of links. I even refreshed each page after clicking.
I don't notice any change from the first pair of links. I even refreshed each page after clicking.
That's because I'm an idiot and typed the wrong stuff. I mean this:
[link] and [link]
That's a neat add-on, amy. Though it may be showing me a source of confusion. If I have
t div class=theclassinquestion
t p
t a href="thelinkinquestion"
linktext
t /a
t /p
t /div
shouldn't the effective class of the a tag be "theclassinquestion"? Both the add-on and my css tweaking say no, but I thought part of the point was that, yes, inheritable.
Still no change. What's the goal (as if I'll understand)?
I can see the difference between the two, and I think there may be a functional difference, but I can't tell what it is supposed to be.
ita, the css.buffistas.net and map3 versions are identical - markers are transparent and skinny.
map.php on the main site has round markers in white boxes.
I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Tiger, if that helps.