h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

DNS and I've got a terrible memory for abbreviations, domain name service maybe, is certainly complicated. So my host has DNS1 and DNS2 but gives no information further than that, and indeed recommends using subdomains.

The only way you can transfer a domain is to set up a new account, with the new domain.

The only way you can get a TLN domain is to have two nameservers, details presumably obtained after setting up a new account with the new domain? or pay for webhosting.

Doesn't matter now and its irrelevant because symmetric.info has gone.

However, if your interested itsonly.info and itsonly.eu and itsonly.me.org are available I think.

whats wrong with arithmetic.890m.com anyway

"However, if your interested itsonly.info and itsonly.eu and itsonly.me.org are available I think."

Not any more, if you searched for them. Almost all domain search engines are part of a scam where they register any names ten minutes or so after you search for them. If you register it yourself the moment you find it's available there is no problem, but if you come back for it the next day, or even later the same day, you'll find someone else has taken it and will "reluctantly" sell it on to you for "only" $200.

Life's a ladydog.

Oops, that means all those names I came up with are gone, its unethical, any way I put $44 on my internet card and it was burning a hole in it, so I ordered an XP SP2 professional edition disc (web only) from microsoft for £6 instead.

I only had XP SP1a, bought years ago to do a course in programming in the OU and didn't get on the web until a couple of months ago.

My antispyvarious would like to make a rescue disc but requires an SP2 disc to do it, will this work?

It is generally a good idea because some panels of IE fell off this morning whilst using a domain name search engine.

How wierd is that?

When installing anything I instruct anti to prevent startup keys being altered, is this a good idea

I ordered an XP SP2 professional edition disc (web only) from microsoft for £6

You wuz robbed.

You *do* realise that is just the service pack, not the operating system, don't you? And, it'll be less than a week before you'll be able to buy Service Pack 3 for the same price. (The £6 is just the shipping cost for a single CD...)

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/04/windows-xp-serv.html

Maybe this won't work for anti then, I already got SP3. All downloaded from the web.

I've got five or six "Service Pack 2" CDs lying around the house; when it was released three or four years ago it was given away on the cover of every computer magazine. Of course, it was only less than six months ago when I actually got an XP system. And it already had SP2 installed.

I've got a div.function that renders correctly in IE7 but is all wrong in the rest, what's going wrong.

http://www.arithmetic.890m.com/stylesheetOpFire1.css

and the main page is in its usual place.

Which div are you having problems with? Remember, I'm on Linux so I can't just load it up in IE7 and compare...

I've changed it, but don't understand why it wouldn't work as before, when it had an image float left and a div supposed to be on the right.

The div was called 'function' but now functiontext now as a child of diagram and the image img.function is forced to be a child of div.diagram.

I'm never happy with this sort of bodge up fix, and can't understand how the style was completely dropped, which it was because my authoring tool in opera on 'show blocks' didn't even display the div.

Thankyou

There's a recurring typo, where you have "div.diagram>img.function" instead of "div.diagram,img.function"...etc.

One of the ">" instead of "," occurrences comes before "div.functiontext", which is why it hasn't been defined.

Ahh passed all my pages through W3C validation for xhtml, that thing you said about typo, it had already passed CSS3 validation before it went up. Don't know what was going wrong but it wasn't that. It should have worked as it was. If you keep your nose in W3C's site long enough you find little gems like ' !important' and '>' are syntax in CSS, the latter means is strictly a child of, and should be used to over-ride browser decision making as does the former.

The jumbled up mess on the page is actually supposed to look like that, wonder why nobody would take me on as a designer

Thankyou for your help

I'm trying to find some interesting plugins for my website, a mathematical encyclopedia, a guestbook, but every time I send them for validation they fail. The last rather substantial code failed on 141 points.

The trouble is after altering the code to pass, (they almost always fail because of an undeclared type),and going to all that trouble, the plugin only works until the vendor sees it and then it works no more.

I wonder if it's all worthwhile, why should I bother if somebodies browser has a fit.

But I do care, its what makes it all worthwhile

"... !important' and '>' are syntax in CSS, the latter means is strictly a child of..."

Oooh, I didn't know that. You must be using more up-to-date references than I am. CSS3?

It's easier to validate to CSS3, since opacity is allowed, frames will cease to exist soon, unsupported in HTML5, but it is generally hard to get a frames page validated. The way I did it was to validate a frame then paste a URI to the index file on my pc, and re-evaluate.

Search engines are thick , they recognise a frames page but then search noframes, even with a robots.xml file; you sort of have to tell them where to look, and if in business that means your going under unless you pay dosh to somebody to do it for you every day.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#x13

child selectors

Ah...

Did you notice the big bar on the left? The one that says "W3C Candidate Recommendations"?

That strongly implies that these are suggested additions that haven't been implemented yet. Could explain why they aren't working properly in all browsers...

Well, W3schools suggest that opacity is in the specifications, but that won't validate at CSS2.1 . Everything about the web is guesswork, and I've seen the '>' used in a designers CSS forum.

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/

Without it my table on page 0 is skewed, the coset 2x2 overlay jumps to the top of the page.

I tried to use the default style to line up a box display inline, next to an image, that is without '>' and very little style. The whole page became jumbled in all but IE. The fix using '>' is a bodge up and will definitely still work as div'diagram div.functiontext , however the table didn't work without it??

Another list can be found at:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_intro.as

"Can I have a 'p', please, Bob...?"