CSS and Safari - Help Please
jsp...@gmail.com
(http://footprints.organique.com/ij-css-only2.html) to render properly
in Safari. It's fine in opera/IE/firefox/netscape but all messed up in
safari..
Can anyone offer some insight - I'd really appreciate it!
Larry Kilgallen
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ffootprints.organique.com%2Fij-css-only2.html
says that page has 31 violations of the html standard.
Tom Harrington
"jsp...@gmail.com" <jsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
No specific ideas, but the following sites may help:
"CSS Support in Safari",
<http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari/safari_css.html>
"Safari CSS Reference",
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/Saf
ariCSSRef/index.html>
And possibly also <http://www.quirksmode.org/>, which has all kinds of
useful info on this subject.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/
Eric Lindsay
"jsp...@gmail.com" <jsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd guess the first step would be to change your HTML so that you have a
valid page. http://validator.w3.org/ shows 19 errors in your HTML, so
if you clean up the ones that make it think you don't have a closing
tag, and fix the entity data that may get you closer. Otherwise Safari
is just guessing what you want done.
You might also fix the minor CSS error (although I am sure that isn't
the cause).
Tim McNamara
Well, your page seems to have problems according to the W3C
validators.
http://www.w3c.org and click on the CSS Validator
If you want your page to render correctly, you have to use correct
HTML and CSS.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://footprints.organique.com/ij-css-only2.html
Home this helps!
Josselin
but who's still using Safari ?
Steve Hix
Josselin <joss...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
A large fraction of Mac users.
Did you have something resembling a point to make?
Mike Rosenberg
> but who's still using Safari ?
Um, how about the vast majority of Mac users running OS X 10.3 and later
(not to mention a sizable portion of those running late 10.2.x
versions)?
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Sander Tekelenburg
Horatio Fudruckerton <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> NO web
> developer should be doing QA on a Mac
A professional Web developer develops for the Web, not for whatever
specific browsing environment happens to be in his face.
--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"
Doc O'Leary
> I almost never use Safari, and I sure as hell don't QA in it.
Yeah, the last thing you want to do is test your pages in the only
browser that actually passes the Acid2 test. Remind me to hire you to
design all my broken sites.
Mike Rosenberg
> If there's a compromise to be made in a site I'm developing, it's the
> Mac people who are going to see it funny. Sorry
How about just validating your code? That's all a lot of us are asking.
jsp...@gmail.com
Daniel Juarez
On 12/1/05 12:14 AM, "Josselin" <joss...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> but who's still using Safari ?
--
danj...@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/dan.juarez/allthingsmac
Switched to Mac in November 2004
Daniel Juarez
Mac/Linux and Windows, you have no right being a web developer. Period.
On 12/1/05 8:30 AM, "Horatio Fudruckerton" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Face it, it's a Wintel/IE world when it comes to web development. NO web
> developer should be doing QA on a Mac, and I'm a long-time, die-hard Mac
> user.
>
> If there's a compromise to be made in a site I'm developing, it's the
> Mac people who are going to see it funny. Sorry.
Daniel Juarez
On 12/1/05 10:57 AM, "Sander Tekelenburg" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> A professional Web developer develops for the Web, not for whatever
> specific browsing environment happens to be in his face.
--
Warren Oates
Daniel Juarez <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/05 12:14 AM, "Josselin" <joss...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > but who's still using Safari ?
> People who like synching their bookmarks with their .mac accounts. :-)
But who's still using .mac?
(That one counts as sarcasm).
Seriously, though, .mac isn't cheap; how valuable do you find it?
--
W. Oates
"I thought I was the last son of Krypton,
but you people keep popping up." -- Clark Kent
Sander Tekelenburg
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
[...]
> Yeah, the last thing you want to do is test your pages in the only
> browser that actually passes the Acid2 test.
(Internal builds aside) Safari is the third browser to pass Acid2. iCab
and Konquerer passed Acid2 back in May, or thereabouts.
Steve Hix
Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-1C...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Yeah, the last thing you want to do is test your pages in the only
> > browser that actually passes the Acid2 test.
>
> (Internal builds aside) Safari is the third browser to pass Acid2. iCab
> and Konquerer passed Acid2 back in May, or thereabouts.
Yes, but the passing builds were not publicly released versions.
Doc O'Leary
Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> (Internal builds aside) Safari is the third browser to pass Acid2. iCab
> and Konquerer passed Acid2 back in May, or thereabouts.
Get back to me when they actually *ship* a broswer that not only passes,
but works for day-to-day use. Hell, iCab hasn't shipped anything for 2
years!
Sander Tekelenburg
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
[...]
[iCab]
> Get back to me when they actually *ship* a broswer that not only passes,
> but works for day-to-day use.
iCab is the only one that works for day to day use. Even OmniWeb, which
I gave a full month's try, failed in the end.
Sure, some other browsers offer features that are nice and not in iCab.
(I like Safari a lot. It makes using the Web much easier for
non-techies.) But in the end none of them offer enough control, which to
me in the end is what counts. It also helps that iCab3's HTML 4 and CSS
2 support is at least at the same level of other browsers, but often
better (very useful for Web develeopment). There are some javascript
issues here and there, as compared to other browsers. But that may well
be due to the site's developer aiming at a specific browsing
environment, instead of at the Web.
> Hell, iCab hasn't shipped anything for 2
> years!
There have been 2 or 3 public releases of iCab 3 this year.
Sander Tekelenburg
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> In article <user-563B6C.1...@freeloader.wanadoo.nl>,
> Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> > iCab and Konquerer passed Acid2 back in May, or thereabouts.
>
> Yes, but the passing builds were not publicly released versions.
Not true if you're referring to iCab. iCab3 build 270 passed Acid2. IIRC
build 272 or thereabouts was publicly available. Since then build 352
has been publicly available for several months.
Daniel Juarez
rules, calendar, address book entries, keychain settings, and bookmarks
between three Macs. No matter which Mac I use I have the same email settings
and addresses as well as bookmarks. That alone is worth the price to me.
Additionally, I use the backup program that is provided .mac members, which
is now much better than it used to be.
On 12/2/05 5:57 AM, "Warren Oates" <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously, though, .mac isn't cheap; how valuable do you find it?
--
Warren Oates
Daniel Juarez <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The value I find in .Mac is the seamless synchronization of my mail, mail
> rules, calendar, address book entries, keychain settings, and bookmarks
> between three Macs. No matter which Mac I use I have the same email settings
> and addresses as well as bookmarks. That alone is worth the price to me.
> Additionally, I use the backup program that is provided .mac members, which
> is now much better than it used to be.
That all makes good sense. We've only got one Mac, so we don't really
need that kind of synchronization.
Daniel Juarez
are more cost effective solutions that provide IMAP email accounts and web
space, even bookmark synchronization. But for multiple Macs, I think .Mac is
cool.
On 12/3/05 5:29 AM, "Warren Oates" <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That all makes good sense. We've only got one Mac, so we don't really
> need that kind of synchronization.
--
Doc O'Leary
Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-AF...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > Get back to me when they actually *ship* a broswer that not only passes,
> > but works for day-to-day use.
>
> iCab is the only one that works for day to day use. Even OmniWeb, which
> I gave a full month's try, failed in the end.
Which says little. There are all kinds of reason not to like a
particular browser. All I'm interested in is what the developer thinks
is stable enough to ship to regular users.
> > Hell, iCab hasn't shipped anything for 2
> > years!
>
> There have been 2 or 3 public releases of iCab 3 this year.
A beta is not a public release. Hell, it's not even a release
candidate. The Safari developers had the balls to ship, and until iCab
does I don't even bother testing sites with it because 2.9.8 sucks so
bad.
Wes Groleau
> A professional Web developer develops for the Web, not for whatever
> specific browsing environment happens to be in his face.
As I surf the web, it seems to me that unfortunately
far too many "professional" web developers test their
pages only on the latest Internet Explorer on Windows XP
with a T1 connection.
--
Wes Groleau
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
Wes Groleau
> The value I find in .Mac is the seamless synchronization of my mail, mail
> rules, calendar, address book entries, keychain settings, and bookmarks
> between three Macs. No matter which Mac I use I have the same email settings
> and addresses as well as bookmarks. That alone is worth the price to me.
I am not sure what "seamless" means, but five minutes
with NFS configuration, and all four user accounts see
the same everything no matter which Mac they login on.
If I billed for my time, that would be a heck of a lot less
than a year of .Mac
> Additionally, I use the backup program that is provided .mac members, which
> is now much better than it used to be.
My backup is basically free, too. Also powered by NFS.
--
Wes Groleau
You're all individuals!
Yes, we're all individuals!
You're all different!
Yes, we are all different!
I'm not!
("Life of Brian")
Leonard Blaisdell
Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> As I surf the web, it seems to me that unfortunately
> far too many "professional" web developers test their
> pages only on the latest Internet Explorer on Windows XP
> with a T1 connection.
The people who care about access to all, lose to the IE specific effects
and poor markup skills of the _developer_ . And to visual Flash and
Javascript left unsupported by available HTML alternatives. I have a
vested but waning interest in the subject.
leo
Sander Tekelenburg
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <user-770859.2...@freeloader.wanadoo.nl>,
> Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <droleary.usenet-AF...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Get back to me when they actually *ship* a broswer that not only passes,
> > > but works for day-to-day use.
> >
> > iCab is the only one that works for day to day use. Even OmniWeb, which
> > I gave a full month's try, failed in the end.
>
> Which says little.
Ah, so you noticed.
[...]
> A beta is not a public release.
It is when it's a public release.
> Hell, it's not even a release
> candidate.
{shrug} There is plenty of "final" software that is buggy as hell. It's
just a label (, often not decided upon by developers but by marketing
departments). There's no reason to care whether it says beta, preview or
final. All that counts is how well it works.
> The Safari developers had the balls to ship, and until iCab
> does I don't even bother testing sites with it
No need to test with any specific browsing environment. Just develop for
the Web.
> because 2.9.8 sucks so
> bad.
iCab pre-3's CSS indeed sucked. That's why it's worth pointing out that
iCab 3's CSS rocks.
Doc O'Leary
Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-4A...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > A beta is not a public release.
>
> It is when it's a public release.
No, it isn't. A lot of shitty developers will try to tell you that beta
is the new 1.0, but that's just a cop out.
> {shrug} There is plenty of "final" software that is buggy as hell. It's
> just a label (, often not decided upon by developers but by marketing
> departments). There's no reason to care whether it says beta, preview or
> final. All that counts is how well it works.
What counts is what happens when it *doesn't* work. Beta software is
treated like "Ha ha, you used the beta; now you're fucked!". At least
with a "final" release you *can* call it a bug.
> No need to test with any specific browsing environment. Just develop for
> the Web.
I do, and that's why iCab 2.9.8 looks like such a shitty browser.
> iCab pre-3's CSS indeed sucked. That's why it's worth pointing out that
> iCab 3's CSS rocks.
That's why it's worth pointing out that iCab 3 is in perpetual beta.
Sander Tekelenburg
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <user-2DE215.1...@freeloader.wanadoo.nl>,
> Sander Tekelenburg <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <droleary.usenet-4A...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2h2005.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A beta is not a public release.
> >
> > It is when it's a public release.
>
> No, it isn't.
You're funny :)
Wes Groleau
Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> {shrug} There is plenty of "final" software that is buggy as hell. It's
> just a label (, often not decided upon by developers but by marketing
:-)
Microsoft says they're going to create "fault tolerant" software.
Why bother? They've spent two decades developing fault tolerant customers.
(source unknown)
--
Wes Groleau
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
-- unknown