COBOLdinosaur

To start with float and position:absolute are not compatible so decide on a positioning method; floated or positioned. Without a link to the page I can only guess; but from the very limited description, I suspect that floats ofr inline blocks will work. Position absolute seems a little extreme as we generally reserve that as desperation option for ordinary layouts.

If you expect all versions of all browser under all operating systems on computers from different manufactures to look the same; you are going to spend a frustrating eternity without ever being satisfied. If you have code that works and presents well in each targeted browser then it does not matter if they look the same because user generally are visiting with just one browser. It is likely no one cares about the difference except you. The fragment of code is out of context so there cannot be a definitive answer without seeing the entire code for the form. Using inline-block on form elements does not make sense; and inline-block is know to have vertical position differences cross-browser. You should not need it if you are using semantically correct tagging for the form and are managing the layout with fieldsets.

This site has "schools" in its name for a reason. It is a place to learn. If we just write the code for you; you learn nothing and we and the site fail to meet the objectives of the site. There are mysql and php tutorials and references right here on the site that should help you at least make an attempt at starting the code, then we can help you with specific questions as you run into problems. That way you will learn not just how to solve your immediate problem, but you will acquire some new skills that will help you with future problems.

All you are showing us is the markup. What does the php script you want to populate it with look like?

The validator reports 22 errors: https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.appleblossomentertainment.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 Most of them are serious structural error, plus you are using a very weak doctype and some errors are related to using non-xml formats in an XHTML page. You should not expect CSS properties to be consistently applied when the structure is broken. So start by fixing the errors and then see how much of a problem (if any) that you still have.

The first probelem I encounter is that that the site is very slow loading. You are going to lose at least half your traffic because visitors will not wait for the page to load. The second problem is you assume that I am wiling to view a video; you do not offrer it as an option, you simply impose it on me. That will result in the lose of even more visitors. Now the question is where are those visitors going to be coming from? Search engines? No you have no actual content on that page for them to index. As a TV add it might work, but for a web site where you are looking to make sales it is a failure as a design. People who are looking for your services want information, not a TV commercial. You need to go back to the design stage and design for the web, not TV. You nee to put real content on the page, you need to eliminate the bloat that is making it load slow. Finally if you have serious errors in the w3c validation; you have to fix those because they just push the page down in search engine rankings. If you are using something that prevents you from fixing errors, then it is a 100% worthless tool get rid of it and move to something that you actually have control of, because with what you have your chances for success are pretty much zero.

That is a timing issue. you have to wait until the transition completes before you modify the container. The scripting needs to set a class after the calandar has been moved off. You might need to test the position and fire the change after the widget is back to its original position. Some CSS properties are not animatable and if they are used during a transition the fire immediately and override the animation. This ia a list of the properties that CSS can animate: http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_animatable.asp

You can either create the elements in advance with a class that includes display:none, and when the event is fired change the className to a class with display:block; There is a more complicated way where you have a container for the button and on the event you set the innerHTML of the container to a string that contains the code for the button: document.getElementById('container').innerHYML='<button> your code...'; Or if you want to do even more work you cand use the DOM methods to create a new node and add it to whatever element needs to be its parent. BTW doing inline styling and event handling will create a lot of maintenance issues. All the CSS should go in a style sheet and the prefered best practice for the events is to use event listeners in javascript.

Several options come to mind all just require an addition property for each of the states of the element. You could use visibility with values of visible and hidden; you could use display with values of block and none; or you could use opacity with values on 1 and 0; or you could even set the width and height to 1px when you want it hidden.

The reply from dsonesuk is right on the money. It is not reasonible to expect a page to render corrctly when there are errors in the code. A browser will make a best guess to try and get arounfd errors, but even if the browser you are using manages correct rendering; there is no guarantee that other browsers or a different version of your browser will work, because browsers do not have a common standard for the code necessary to "fix" bad code. Please follow dsonesuk's instructions and if the problem does not correct itself as a result, we should be able to help.

If I understand what you are trying to do, I think you just need to target this way: .navbar-collapse a.active {background-color: blue; color: white; } .navbar-collapse a {background-color: white; color: blue;} But I not sure I understand what you are trying to do.

A good flat text editor, and collection of browsers, until they learn enough basics to understand how a web page actually works; have some idea of how to evaluate third party offerings; and are aware enough of standards and best practices. Until they know how to write error free code, validate it and fix errors; they are better off not using badly written third party tools. When you are helping someone learn a new set of skills you do not encourage them to do things that have a high probability of failure and frustration. So it does not matter if I come across as harsh or negative. On those occassion when I taught college courses I took students on a path along progrssively more challenging tasks, that they could succeed at. I do the same in forums, and I will ever recommend third party tools or code to a novice who still does not understand the basic well enough to manage the use of those tools Structural errors in markup are never acceptable. If a tool generates errors and the person using the tool has so little control that they cannot force correct valid markup then they should not be using the tool.

That is part of my point. WP does absolutely nothing to help developers determine the quality of themes and plugins. They don't have a certification process, and they don't do anything to limit what the plugins and themes do; including a complete lack of protection against themes and plugins that contain malware. They could enforce certification with about 15 lines of code. As for my experience with it; I have re-built several sites that used it and I have taken it apart down to its badly written core code. I answered enough question in the Wordpress topic on Experts-Exchange to be certified an Expert in the topic, but my experience with it is why I consider it to be defective. The fact that it is widly used has nothing to do with quality. If you look at the vast majority of those sites, they do not do well. As for the value of the skill; what we see are developers using it to do low end mom and pop sites on the cheap with little or no support. They do it because of a limited skillset that keeps them confined to the low end of the market where the only way to make a living is to do quick and dirty low cost sites using free off the shelf tools, CMS, themes. etc. In the hands of a gifted developer WP, like any such package can be used to build sites with some level of quality and security, but such gifted developers have the ability to take on much more lucrative contracts; and don't stay at the WP level very long. In the hands of a novice WP based development almost always leads to undesirable results; which is why on this forum and others support web development, there is a high ratio of WP related questions, not just from novices, but also from those who call themselves web developers with only a fraction of the skills necessary to do the job. With well written code the time it takes to do presentation changes can bemeasured in seconds and minutes, not hours and days. When I see a novice trying to use WP, I try to encourage them to stop doing that and acquire real skills that will make it possible for them to implement their own vision, and be able to maintain it.

I would not disable, and you would not disable but the OP is looking to disable; which is why I pointed out the design problem with that approach. I rarely bother with client side validation other than using the HTML input attributes, because you still have to sanitize and validate on the server in any case. I avoid Javascript whenever I can.

Using javascript for this is problematic in that it would not be very or even practical for the process as you describe it. The norm approch for such things is simply to use the click event listener for the button to fire a script that tests the fields. The way you desribe the requirement, the scripting required would need to be looking at every keystroke. It also has the problem that the button could be enabled and then they go back and remove the content from one of the inputs, unless as part of the enabling of the button you disable the inputs or make them read only. So you likely end up with usability and reliability issues; and possibly even an accessibility problem. While using the required attribute is the better approach; it also has a problem in that only one field gets reported as empty for a button click, so if the user leaves several blank they might feel they are being mistreated and just leave the site. The problem is the design. Having a dependency like that for the whole form is probably better handled on the server side so you send back a response with all problem inputs indicated after validating on the server.

Any software tool that generates code and as a normal practice generates code that contains errors is by definition defective. When it is promoted to novice developers as an "easy" way to build a site it borders on false advertising; and in my mind the company demonatrates a lack ethics and integrity by failing to have a certification process for addons that are the primary source of security issues and malware infection.

The fact that Wordpress generates code with errors, and limits your ability to fix things should tell you what a low quality, defective product you are using instead of investing the time to learn how to write your own code. In the hands of a gifted professional developer WP can be used to build a site that might be as good as mediocre; but a novice using it is almost always going to be a disaster. What you have there is nothing special, I have seen the same site a thousand times with different graphics and alternative color schemes. If the site is important to you, then you need to take control by learning enough basics to write your own layouts to enhance your content (not force them into weak presentation). At that point you wll be capable of evaluating the quality and limitations of "easy to use" tools ao you avoid a situation like we have here where the tool controls you. I never recommend WP for any project because it is a horrible product. For anyone new starting out i recommend just two tools and one optioal piece if they need it. First a good flat file straight text editor. Second a collection of the latest browsers for testing. If the site is graphics oriented then a basic graphics tool. Trying to develop a serious website without learning the basics is like thinking you can build your own house with learning how to use ahammer and saw. Virtually everything you need to learn the basics is available right on this site, and when you get to an advanced stage there are other sites like MDN that carry to a very high level of proficiency.

You cannot expect correct responsive behaviors in a page that has serious structural errors like duplicate ids. Validate the code here: https://validator.w3.org/ Then fix the errors. I didn't bother trying to work through the CSS. When I see nonsense like 7 classes on the body tag and multiple classes on other tags it is clear the CSS is a broken mess. Properly done CSS inherits or CASCADES. That is what the C is about. If all you are going to do is try to draw the page because you think presentation is more important than the integrity of the content you are on a wrong path, and you are going find things keep breaking because of the lack of structural integrity in both the markup and the CSS.

more than 20 hours have been wasted with guessing games because you ignore the request for a link or full code. I see no point in continuing follow the game of "guess what the code looks like", but as long as the OP gets pointless guessing there is no need to do thing right.

Yes that rally ia a disaster. Trying to test or fix anything in a layout with such an unstable structure is a waste of time and effort, because it will be completey unreliable. Plus you have issues beyond structure and into semantics. It will make zero sense to anyone using a reader which brings up the other accessibility and that is contrast. You already have some text that has a high enough luminosty value that it will be difficult for some to read on a light background, and probably a dark one os while because it is in a mid range that can be problematic the difference in the forground and background is around 100, At that level it is about 50% too light. A difference if 125 to 150 is marginal, below 125 about 35-40% of people will not be able to read it without zooming and where you have it it becomes unradable for anyone with even minor vision problems. If you are looking at doing additional things to reduce contrast, you are really going in the wrong direction. If the site is just for you own pleasure, then it does not make much difference what it looks like to others, but if you want others to use the site you need to put usability and accessibility ahead of what you think looks nice. What I see is typical of Wordpress sites. It is absolutely the wrong way to learn because it encourages bloated badky written and unmaintainable code.

Well it is never too late to start and you are on a site that has been the starting point for a lot of web developers. If you are in over yout head because you cannot understand the code necessary to do what you want to do then you have several options. Spend the time to learn the skills necessary to get the work done by using the training resources on this and other sites. Don't expect others to do all the work for you. Hire a professional to do the work for you Drop what you are trying to do and move on to something else The person who told you to "code it in" is doing you a favor because you either need to learn on the fly not just for this but for anything else you want to advance in; or you can just depend on others and never have the satisfaction of solving big challenges yourself. As for using that plugin: it might or might not solve the immediate problem. What it will do is help you learn how to do things the wrong way and just make you more dependent on the work of others.

Well it is nice that you posted some code; there is no way of knowing what that code should do without context. We need to see the whole thing. Your question is like showing someone a brick and asking them if the building it will go ito is a good design. Post a link to the page or complete because everything in a webpage ties together.

If you don't own the content then you might want to try contacting the owner of it and see if they have an API you can use to get the content. Otherwise you can forget getting it client side becausse it would require cross domain scripting that will be blocked in the browser. If you have enough server side skills you could acquire the page server side and then parse out the content you want. However, if the owner of the content does not wanty to share the content, they may block your access to their site if they detect what they consider inappropriate use of their content.

Anything that is prefixed with "-webkit" is an experimental implementation. generally for Chrome, Safari, and some versions of Opera. Normally you would expect Firefox and IE to ignore it and work fine, but edge is a new enough browser that we still don't know all the bugs, quirks, and broken pieces. It generally take Microsoft 18+ months to get all the bugs out. In any case using hyphen hacks is always a risk, because they are not necessarily to standard and are subject to change without notice.

You need something that comes a little closer to being valid code. Instead of an onclick event in the button you would be better to trigger by adding an event listener in the script , Finally we would all appreciate it if you used the <> icon on the reply box to submit code as "code" instead of text. If what you posted is the complete code, then you have some work to do because that is badly malformed.