Errata

The Border Box Model diagram implies that the margin around the element gets squeezed into the 200px defined size. This is incorrect; even with the faulty box model the margin still goes outside the defined width.

Based on this error and the other error I submitted, this implies that the "Width" marker at the bottom of the diagram is too wide. 200px is the correct measurement but it shouldn't include the margin.

The page's code snippet defines the width as 200px, but the W3C Box Model diagram incorrectly implies it to be 160px.

As explained in the text, the padding of an element is *added to* its defined width, not subtracted from it. The W3C Box Model diagram is incorrect because it puts the padding (20px on each side) inside the element's width of 200px, whereas the padding should be added onto the element's width, just as the border width and margin are.

The paragraphs and code snippet are correct.

3rd line of code:

var div = document.getElementByID('content').innerHTML;
div.innerHTML += '<p>This is a paragraph added using innerHTML.</p>';

The var div should not have the innerHTML at the end of it.
Otherwise, the line after it would not work.

3rd line of code:

var div = document.getElementByID('content').innerHTML;
div.innerHTML += '<p>This is a paragraph added using innerHTML.</p>';

The var div should not have the innerHTML at the end of it.
Otherwise, the line after it would not work.

The text claims that the em unit is "a unit used in printing to refer
to the width of one capital letter M". This is not so, either by definition
or by practice coincidence.

You can see the practical incorrectness simply by comparing the width of
"M" with a box with declared width of 1em, using different fonts. The
proportion greatly varies by font, but generally "M" is clearly narrower
than 1em, often (e.g., in Courier New) much narrower. I wonder why the
incorrect statement gets repeated so often, when it can be falsified so
easily. (There is a _historical_ connection between "M" and the em unit,
but that's a different story.)

The incorrect statement is repeated on p. 292 in Table 16-1.

URL for HTML 4.01 Transitional given as:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.01/loose.dtd"

According to w3.org, it is supposed to be:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"

The error lies is the book using ". . . html4.01" rather than ". . . html4"

I'm a beginner, but (un)fortunately obsessive ; -)

The author gives this example of identifying media type and character encoding:

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />

I inserted the exact code in my own webpage. When it came time to have the W3C Markup Validation Service [http://validator.w3.org/] validate my code, it brought up numerous errors related to code that I had copied from Robbins' book -- including from the code I've typed in, above.

A link from one of the error explanations provided by the W3C Markup Validation Service [http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html] showed the problem: apparently, the "/>" ending notation Robbins uses (see her code, above) is not valid in HTML4.01 or lower -- it is only acceptable in a document that is 100% XHTML.

My explanation may not be 100% technically accurate, as I'm new to webdesign and HTML. However, I would urge you to check this for yourselves, by entering the above code at the W3C Markup Validation Service, and then reading the explanatory document provided by that validation, which says (3rd point):

"using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01 or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML, XML, and XHTML."

Safari DOES display alt attribute values but will only do so if you have stipulated a
width and height for the image large enough for the text to display.

For example: <DEFANGED_IMG src="example.gif" alt="An example image." width="130"
height="130">

The possible attributes of scope are: row, col, rowgroup and colgroup.
"column" is not a valid attribute as both the text and the code example suggest.

Second nested list show incorrect placement of </li>. Code should look like this:

<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.</p>
<ul>
<li>Lorem ipsum</li>
<li>Dolor sit amet</li>
<li>
<ul>
<li>Consectetuer adipiscing</li>
<li>Elit pellentesque
<ul>
<li>Pharetre urna</li>
<li>In laoreet tincidunt</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

The text (and the associated image on p. 320) does not correspond to CSS
specifications, and even less the CSS implementations.

CSS 2.1 says:
"A value of 'normal' selects a font that is classified as 'normal' in the
UA's font database, while 'oblique' selects a font that is labeled 'oblique'.
A value of 'italic' selects a font that is labeled 'italic', or, if that is
not available, one labeled 'oblique'.

The font that is labeled 'oblique' in the UA's font database may actually
have been generated by electronically slanting a normal font."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font-style

There is no reference to displaying a normal font "on a slant using mathematical
calculations". (In clause 15.2, CSS 2.1 says that for 'italic', if there is no
italic face, oblique shall be used, but this too deals with font faces.)

In implementations, 'italic' and 'oblique' are synonymous, and an italic or
oblique face will be used if available, otherwise algorithmic slanting is
applied to a normal face, often resulting ?n awkward results (e.g., for a
character like "|"). At least this is so on all versions of Internet Explorer,
Netscape/Mozilla, and Opera that I have ever used.

I have no idea why the book says that "At all small text sizes on low resolution
monitors, italic and oblique text look exactly the same". Are they any conditions
where they do _not_ look exactly the same, on CSS-styled web pages? How was
Figure 18-7 on p. 320 created? I suspect it was created using a typesetting
program that is able to slant a font.

For the image to be 100% from the top of the containing block, the top
of the image must be at the very bottom of the containing block (ie, the
image would be below the containing block).

This figure looks more like 40 or 50% from the top.

In the "CSS: Basic Box Properties" chapter, specifically, page 339 figure 19-1,it is
stated that the "width" quality should describe the content area alone. Padding,
border and margins are added to that to decide the final width of an element.
Figure 25-1 (and the verbal explanations that follow that) shows an element with
"width" set to 200px that seem to describe the width of both the content area and the
padding area (upper part of the figure).
I find it confusing that the padding should be included here.