I’m playing with a CSS menu. I’ve followed the instructions and created my list, and created a style (.mainmenu) which I want the menu items to follow. That works, mostly. However, when I implement the menu, something messes with my body style (p.body).
If I change the size of .mainmenu, for instance, the size of my body text changes too. If I change the link format in the CSS menu Action, the link format changes in the body too.
Can anyone explain what’s going on here please. I’m wondering if it has something to do with having or not having a style tag before the period (.mainmenu as against p.body)
Well the “p” tag and the “body” tag are usually in separate tags. Since Freeway wraps everything text in a “p” tag you’d be better off setting each one specifically. For instance you could set your “body” tag to have your default font, font-size, and color…etc. Then in your “p” tag set your text-alignment default and your leading a.k.a “line-height.”
So it’d look like this:
body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px
color: black;
}
p {
line-height: 22px;
text-align: left;
}
Try that and see what happens. Remember save first, publish and trial and error it before you re-save it. Just in case something goes goofy you can revert back to saved.
I will try that. I do get confused between the purposes of the ‘tag’ and ‘name’ fields in the style definition dialog. Tags I understand, but what’s the purpose of names? Why can we have a style that is just a name (e.g. ‘.menuitem’)?
Apologies if this is getting a bit general and/or off topic but I haven’t found a good explanation in the Freeway documentation.
I’ve just tried what Dan suggested and I’ve come back to a problem I’ve struck before. As soon as I take the ‘name’ part out of the style (i.e. by creating a ‘p’ tag and a ‘body’ tag), I get the “This Style Cannot be Applied to Text” error.
This is because these styles become the default for anything that is contained within P or Body tags - you do not have to physically apply them to text for them to work.
In FW “Name” refers to Class (ex .myclass) which is the proper terminology. Why FW uses Tag (correct) but Name instead of Class is beyond me, it makes me mental. So if you have a ul Tag with the Class ‘myclass’ it looks like ul.myclass.
Todd
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:41 PM, David Brewster wrote:
I do get confused between the purposes of the ‘tag’ and ‘name’ fields in the style definition dialog. Tags I understand, but what’s the purpose of names?
Thanks Todd. In the meantime I’ve been reading tutorial on styles which makes the distinction between tags and classes clearer - and your post makes that clearer for FW.
Others might like to check out CSS Styles for a not-bad explanation of the difference.
Yeah, I should have slipped that in there that you won’t be able to apply the style to text, it’ll just default your styles out for things between your “” tags.
I’d give Softpress a huge thanks if they changed “Name” to “Class” and put the rest of the CSS properties and attributes in there as options (and changed leading to line-height) rather than begging for a new CSS visual upgrade. I’d be even happy if “body” was added to the tag dropdown. It’d be a great way to set a “body” Tag for your site without having to create a new style and then having it double up in your code.
You wonder if they haven’t done it because they’re teeter-tottering on the idea of keeping it more DTP friendly rather than being a full-on web-design software. Sort of tackling it’s market more than it’s purpose. Course I have been surprised before.
D.B - Thanks for sharing the link…a good refresh never hurts…except for that word Dreamweaver.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s bothered by the inconsistent terminology.
Todd
On Oct 29, 2008, at 3:27 AM, Dan J wrote:
I’d give Softpress a huge thanks if they changed “Name” to “Class” and put the rest of the CSS properties and attributes in there as options (and changed leading to line-height) rather than begging for a new CSS visual upgrade.
