Looks good in IE but not Firefox...why?
ridergroov
the pages look different in one aspect in firefox than they do in IE.
They display correctly in IE but not firefox. Here is the link:
http://paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
If you look at the page (and osme of the others like it) you'll notice
that in firefox, it extends the blue "background" part and rolls the
graphic over to a repeat but in IE it just stops the graphic where it
ends. How do I fix this? THanks
squaredancer
to generate the following:? :
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
look at the list for W3C validation errors.... may not be big things,
but summing-up little things makes a big'un!
http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ie68dd.jpg shows what I see
in IE 6.0
reg
Rich
"ridergroov" <rider...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151609155.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
You have a bunce of space after "Home.........." Shorten it to "Home" then
the blanks won't overwrite the YMCA.
L...@its.invalid
Tell us more. What are you using to build the page?
Have you run the page thru one of the site verifier sites?
Lou
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know." --Mark Twain
»Q«
<news:1151609155.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>:
> They display correctly in IE but not firefox. Here is the link:
>
> http://paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
Looks exactly the same in IE6 and Firefox and Opera9, to me. I'd take
this to alt.www.webmaster, where you will get a lot of pointers.
--
»Q«
ridergroov
things and ask some follow up stuff:
Squaredancer.....I did noticde that the graphics bring up the toolbar
when you hover over them in IE...how do I get that to stop?
Rich.....I'm guessing you mean that I have a bunch of cells BEFORE
Home? I removed them and aligned the table vertically to the
bottom..that should take care of that...Is this what you were referring
to?
Lou....I am using Dreamweaver MX 2004 to build the page. I ran the
page through the verification thing in that and they didnt' all make
sense but I guess I have to fix them. I don't understand why it isn't
making it XHTML compliant though...why?
Q...Not sure what you are seeing...definitely way different in the
differnet browsers..
Thanks!
Chris Ilias
Looks the same here in both Firefox 1.5.0.4, and IE7beta2. IE also
indicates that there's a missing image.
Line 38 contains <img src=""
What exactly do you see, that is different?
--
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Chris Ilias
> _ridergroov_ spoke thusly on 29/06/2006 3:25 PM:
>> Hi folks. I've been working on our company's new website and a lot of
>> the pages look different in one aspect in firefox than they do in IE.
>> They display correctly in IE but not firefox. Here is the link:
>>
>> http://paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
>>
>> If you look at the page (and osme of the others like it) you'll notice
>> that in firefox, it extends the blue "background" part and rolls the
>> graphic over to a repeat but in IE it just stops the graphic where it
>> ends. How do I fix this? THanks
>
> Looks the same here in both Firefox 1.5.0.4, and IE7beta2. IE also
> indicates that there's a missing image.
> Line 38 contains <img src=""
>
> What exactly do you see, that is different?
I meant to put line 138. :-[
Ed Mullen
1. Using tables to lay out a page is asking for trouble. IE and other
browsers render tables differently.
2. Dreamweaver isn't bad but it is quirky. There's no substitute for
actually knowing how to make the CSS and HTML you want and doing it by hand.
3. Why are you using XHTML as a DOCTYPE? I dont' see anything in the
source that warrants that. XHTML is not nearly as well supported across
browsers as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict.
4. Two places to ask this question and get solid advice:
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
alt.html
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Show me a man with both feet firmly on the ground, and I'll show you a
man who can't get his pants off.
Splibbilla
news:1151609155.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
in ie6, th e little upfacing floodlight icon bops up and down as mouse moves over menus
in ff the icon is stuck at 2nd menu line.
you could try adding the icon as a style list-image (whatever is that
css) with a hover. i believe ie6 will ignore both of those css's
list-image and hover. i think ul:hover > li will also be ignored by ie6
(ignores three ways!)
you already have the blipping icon effect in ie6 via javascript.
you could put <!--[if ie]> blahhhh javascript stuff<[end...--> around
the script to prevent css browsers from seeing it, thereby providing
independent ways to provide the menu bopping icon (sing along, by following
the bouncing ball boop boop-de-boop
http://www.google.com/search?q=sing++~follow+%22bouncing+ball%22+boop+along)
---------
btw, the 295x75 img is broken somehow
http://paymca.org/newy3dex/ ??
Splibbilla
news:vc-dnd1jY7WBHznZ...@mozilla.org:
> ridergroov wrote:
>> Hi folks. I've been working on our company's new website and a lot
>> of the pages look different in one aspect in firefox than they do in
>> IE. They display correctly in IE but not firefox. Here is the link:
>>
>> http://paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
>>
>> If you look at the page (and osme of the others like it) you'll
>> notice that in firefox, it extends the blue "background" part and
>> rolls the graphic over to a repeat but in IE it just stops the
>> graphic where it ends. How do I fix this? THanks
>>
>
> 1. Using tables to lay out a page is asking for trouble. IE and
> other browsers render tables differently.
>
> 2. Dreamweaver isn't bad but it is quirky. There's no substitute for
> actually knowing how to make the CSS and HTML you want and doing it by
> hand.
color syntax editor. ime, crimson editor is slightly glitchy, but has nice macro and
features.
> 3. Why are you using XHTML as a DOCTYPE? I dont' see anything in the
> source that warrants that. XHTML is not nearly as well supported
> across browsers as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict.
i wonder if there's no drwaback to HTML 4.01 Transitional vs Strict
> 4. Two places to ask this question and get solid advice:
>
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
> alt.html
solid answers, possibly with some abuse :-)
they seem more Strict than Transitional or Quirky :-)
squaredancer
> ridergroov wrote:
>
>> Hi folks. I've been working on our company's new website and a lot of
>> the pages look different in one aspect in firefox than they do in IE.
>> They display correctly in IE but not firefox. Here is the link:
>>
>> http://paymca.org/newy3dex/news.htm
>>
>> If you look at the page (and osme of the others like it) you'll notice
>> that in firefox, it extends the blue "background" part and rolls the
>> graphic over to a repeat but in IE it just stops the graphic where it
>> ends. How do I fix this? THanks
>>
>
> 1. Using tables to lay out a page is asking for trouble. IE and
> other browsers render tables differently.
>
> 2. Dreamweaver isn't bad but it is quirky. There's no substitute for
> actually knowing how to make the CSS and HTML you want and doing it by
> hand.
>
> 3. Why are you using XHTML as a DOCTYPE? I dont' see anything in the
> source that warrants that. XHTML is not nearly as well supported
> across browsers as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict.
>
> 4. Two places to ask this question and get solid advice:
>
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
> alt.html
>
Ed..
The "not XHTML" was the first thing the Validator came out with... I did
wonder, but thought maybe the OP was still in the "dev-stage", as he
seems to be testing (as he should, of course) on a variety of browser
setups!
reg
squaredancer
>Thank you all for your help. Let me go back and comment on a few
hallo again...
sorry, but my knowlege is quite limited... and I didn't read the page
source, so I don't know if you used CSS, XML, JAVA or WotNot to do that,
but it seems to be looped with something else!
When I try my hand at anything, I have 27 *MTL manuals on the side (at
*least* 27) and then run the HD-file through the W3C Validator - sort
out the Error-List and continue (all this before uplaoding).
As to CSS - well, I have about 15 manuals, but haven't read them yet...
so I only know what I gather here (and on the MM-Testgroups - you can
take your question to one of the MultiMedia groups - those gals 'n' guys
know their stuff...
Click on one of the links below, and subscribe - the sec-news is faster
than the newer news.mozilla)
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia
news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.test.multimedia
reg
Pete Holsberg
A visit to validator.w3c.org yields "Result: Failed validation,
48 errors"
--
Pete Holsberg
Columbus, NJ
"Having a smoking area in a restaurant is like having a peeing
area in a pool."
--Thomas Pfeffer, American Heart Association
»Q«
<news:Xns97F21...@216.196.97.169>:
>> 3. Why are you using XHTML as a DOCTYPE? I dont' see anything
>> in the source that warrants that. XHTML is not nearly as well
>> supported across browsers as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict.
>
> i wonder if there's no drwaback to HTML 4.01 Transitional vs
> Strict
Strict will put browsers in stardards compliance mode. IIRC,
Transitional puts Opera in quirks mode and puts Firefox in 'almost
standards compliance mode' or somesuch. I don't guess this is a
drawback, but it does cause browsers to behave differently.
--
»Q«
Ed Mullen
>>
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
>> alt.html
>
> solid answers, possibly with some abuse :-)
ROFLOL. Um, yeah, to put it mildly. Especially the stylesheets group.
>
> they seem more Strict than Transitional or Quirky :-)
>
Very true.
First to come are the midgets, a monkey and a kid. Followed by those two
one-armed jugglers, the ego and the id - Gordon Lightfoot
»Q«
<news:Xns97F21...@216.196.97.169>:
> i wonder if there's no drwaback to HTML 4.01 Transitional vs
> Strict
The Transitional doctype will take most browsers out of standards
compliance mode. I don't know if that counts as a drawback, but there
it is anyway. ;)
--
»Q«
C A Upsdell
The Transitional DOCTYPE does NOT trigger quirks mode if the URL is
included in the DOCTYPE.
»Q«
<news:kIadnRGVKIC1ATjZ...@mozilla.org>:
Not quirks mode, but 'almost standards compliance mode'. See
<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla%27s_DOCTYPE_sniffing>.
--
»Q«
C A Upsdell
'Almost standards mode' is a Gecko thing (and perhaps Safari, I don't
know), and with Gecko there is only once small difference between
Gecko's standards-mode and almost-standards-mode, whereas the
differences between these and quirks mode are vast. See:
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/res_doctype.htm
ridergroov
tried. There are a lot. I dont' understand why Dreamweaver did that
when I made it but whatever. How am I suppose to fix this stuff? For
instance, one of the problems involve the "background" attribute in a
table tag which is said to be not correct for XHTML, so how am i
suppose to make this background image? Thanks to everyone for the
help!
Ed Mullen
> Alright I do see all the errors in the different validators that I have
> tried. There are a lot. I dont' understand why Dreamweaver did that
> when I made it but whatever. How am I suppose to fix this stuff? For
> instance, one of the problems involve the "background" attribute in a
> table tag which is said to be not correct for XHTML, so how am i
> suppose to make this background image? Thanks to everyone for the
> help!
>
You really should take this to one of the groups suggested earlier:
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
alt.html
This is not really a Firefox support issue, it's a development issue.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
ridergroov
group?
gwtc
> Alright I will point it in their direction. How do I get to that
> group?
>
>
>
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>You really should take this to one of the groups suggested earlier:
>>
>>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
>>alt.html
>>
either go to google groups and look for them there, or find some
usenet server that has them
--
You Know You're Getting Even Older When . . . Your address book has
mostly names that start with Dr.