Rounded corners

[Guest denied]

I want to make a rounded corner. I use this: border: 1px solid gray; How to make it?

[johnmendel]

heres a tutorial. http://kalsey.com/2003/07/rounded_corners_in_css/Google, and thou shall recieve.

[mcgrath]

heres a tutorial. http://kalsey.com/2003/07/rounded_corners_in_css/Google, and thou shall recieve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is there anyway making rouded corners with out using images

[johnmendel]

yup. again i take no credit. http://pro.html.it/esempio/nifty/, that uses multiple margins going in a pixel on each side, sucessivly, to round the corner. again, google is your friend if you get to know him.

[aspnetguy]

yup. again i take no credit. http://pro.html.it/esempio/nifty/, that uses multiple margins going in a pixel on each side, sucessivly, to round the corner. again, google is your friend if you get to know him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that is friggin awesome!!!!!

[Jonas]

Rounded corners, no pictures, pure css:http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/snazzy.htmlhttp://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/curves.htmlOther corners:http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/krazy.htmlhttp://www.cssplay.co.uk/ is the best css demonstration site out there, IMO.

[~Shinta]

Woah, that is awesome. I will be using this all the time now!

[Eric]

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/ is the best css demonstration site out there, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their examples could be better though, I think.

[Jonas]

Their examples could be better though, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, then why don't you make a site and do it better.CSS generated snowman picture

[mcgrath]

its really awesome!!!

[Eric]

Ok, then why don't you make a site and do it better.CSS generated snowman picture

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least I don't send XHTML 1.1 as text/html :)Also, I HAVE made a better site to learn advanced CSS skills, I just don't go around advertising my successes like some other people on here...... :(Quite a number of different professional-level CSS layouts, and other things.

[aspnetguy]

Jonas, Eric you are being petty...your energy could be better used helping people with your vast knowledge instead of this pissing match.

[plantigrade]

Stu Nicholls is a living god.IMHO.plantigrade

[aspnetguy]

I wish I had as much time as he does to play with this stuff...lol....oh what...I probably do I just spend it playing GTA3.

[Jonas]

At least I don't send XHTML 1.1 as text/html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/snowman.html<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" />Seems like application/xhtml+xml to me though. Anyhoo, I love his site, you don't. Whatever.

[Eric]

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/snowman.html<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" />Seems like application/xhtml+xml to me though. Anyhoo, I love his site, you don't. Whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't tell me you're THAT (I won't say it)META DOES NOT DETERMAND THE CONTENT TYPE. THE SERVER HEADER DOES, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THIS IN .HTACCESS OR PHPThat reply just made me lose respect points for you Jonas http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&ur...%2Fsnowman.htmlLook there, that is what the server header is putting out.The site is being sent as text/htmlOMGWTF NOOB!!!!Please Note: Anything I said in this post in just in joke. I'm supprised you didn't know that about <meta> actually NOT determanding content type, but I didn't mean the "noob" or "respect" comments. I still like you

[aspnetguy]

Eric...you have some anger issues...but you are right.At the risk of being verbally bashed by you.... What are the REAL advantages/disadvantages of send XHTML 1.1 as text/html instead of XML???I know IE does not support it if sent as XML but really what is the big deal??? I send 1.1 it as text/html all the time...it isn't any different then 1.0 strict (so I guess it defeats the purpose) but so what?

[Eric]

The advantage is it's correct.The disadvantage is that W3C said in the XHTML 1.1 Specification that you're not allowed to use text/html. Using text/html is in violation of the specification.The validator has limitations (as noted by the W3C) so it will say your page is valid, but it truely isn't if sent in text/html

[aspnetguy]

The advantage is it's correct.The disadvantage is that W3C said in the XHTML 1.1 Specification that you're not allowed to use text/html.  Using text/html is in violation of the specification

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

enough said, thx

[Eric]

Glad I could help

[Jonas]

Please don't tell me you're THAT (I won't say it)META DOES NOT DETERMAND THE CONTENT TYPE.  THE SERVER HEADER DOES, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THIS IN .HTACCESS OR PHPThat reply just made me lose respect points for you Jonas http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&ur...%2Fsnowman.htmlLook there, that is what the server header is putting out.The site is being sent as text/htmlOMGWTF NOOB!!!!Please Note: Anything I said in this post in just in joke.  I'm supprised you didn't know that about <meta> actually NOT determanding content type, but I didn't mean the "noob" or "respect" comments.  I still like you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:DRiiiiight.Ok, so strike one for me. How many respect points does that leave me with actually? <meta> doesn't set content-type. So what's the point of meta code? Why include it, why does the w3 html validator demand it?

[Eric]

W3 html validator asks for it for the character setExample:<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />The part in red is what is really read when going thru the validator.If you use .htaccess or PHP to set the character set, then the <meta> tag isn't needed at all.If you'd like, I can show you a webpage with no <meta> tag at all, and still 100% valid by the validator.

[Jonas]

Shoot.

[aspnetguy]

I was confused about that too. thx

[Eric]

Shoot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*edits out website*I decided I don't want any trace of websites I've worked on to be linked to this website Edited February 9, 2006 by Eric