Trouble with html table display in Netscape 7
Cynthia Daniel
7 that display fine in 4.7 and in IE, all versions. An example can be
seen here. http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/artvideos.htm
The problem always seems to happen when there is one of more images or
embedded table with an align specified.
Thanks for any help.
Cynthia Daniel
Chris I
Have you put it though the W3C validator?
http://validator.w3.org/
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Cynthia Daniel
I haven't. Thanks for the info. I went there and the first thing it said was it needs a doctype statement, so I'm off to investigate that. Will report back.
Many thanks,
Cynthia
-- ________________________________________________________ A Stroke of Genius · http://www.portraitartist.com · 727-738-1688 A Stroke of Genius Portrait Artist Forum · http://forum.portraitartist.com The top site on the Internet for portrait artists
Chris I
>>>I'm having trouble with certain tables displaying correctly in Netscape
>>>7 that display fine in 4.7 and in IE, all versions. An example can be
>>>seen here. http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/artvideos.htm
>>>
>>>The problem always seems to happen when there is one of more images or
>>>embedded table with an align specified.
>>
> said was it needs a doctype statement, so I'm off to investigate that.
> Will report back.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.2
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Cynthia Daniel
Thanks for your patience. Mine is being tested though :).
I put in a doctype statement from the url you referenced
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
and when I ran the validator, I received the following error message:
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the valid sources for such information.
Help!
Cynthia
Chris I
>>>>>I'm having trouble with certain tables displaying correctly in Netscape
>>>>>7 that display fine in 4.7 and in IE, all versions. An example can be
>>>>>seen here. http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/artvideos.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem always seems to happen when there is one of more images or
>>>>>embedded table with an align specified.
>>>>
>>>>Have you put it though the W3C validator?
>>>>http://validator.w3.org/
>>>
>>>I haven't. Thanks for the info. I went there and the first thing it
>>>said was it needs a doctype statement, so I'm off to investigate that.
>>>Will report back.
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.2
>>
>
> I put in a doctype statement from the url you referenced
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>
> and when I ran the validator, I received the following error message:
>I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the
> valid sources for such information.
When I put the URL you gave me through the validator, it did not detect
a Document type, but it did detect your character encoding (iso-8859-1).
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html
When I set the validator to read it as an HTML 4.01 Transitional
doctype, it detected 268 errors. What are you using to code that page,
FrontPage? :-D
http://tinyurl.com/4ey0
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Martin Edwards
>When I set the validator to read it as an HTML 4.01 Transitional
>doctype, it detected 268 errors. What are you using to code that page,
>FrontPage? :-D
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4ey0
>--
>Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
>
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway
when you can take the Red Car for a nickel.
-Eddy Valiant
Cynthia Daniel
Since my last writing, I got it to go through.
FrontPage! Now way! :) Actually, nowadays, I use Dreamweaver. I've fixed up a lot of
things since I ran the validator and there are now only 24 errors, some of which I won't
be fixing. It wants an alt tag on all image statements, does't like a table cell
background image, doesn't like topmargin, leftmargin, etc. But, those things are staying.
I don't seem to be the only one having this problem. Take a look here:
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=385
After much research, I'm pretty convinced it's a Netscape problem unless someone can show
me otherwise. I'm open!
Thanks for your responses and I'd still love to find a solution.
Cynthia
CBFalconer
>
> FrontPage! Now way! :) Actually, nowadays, I use Dreamweaver.
> I've fixed up a lot of things since I ran the validator and there
> are now only 24 errors, some of which I won't be fixing. It
> wants an alt tag on all image statements, does't like a table
Without which it will be meaningless when image loading is
blocked. Alts are essential.
> cell background image, doesn't like topmargin, leftmargin, etc.
Which is an utter horror. Don't know about margins.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Chris I
> Since my last writing, I got it to go through.
>
> FrontPage! Now way! :) Actually, nowadays, I use Dreamweaver. I've fixed up a lot of
> things since I ran the validator and there are now only 24 errors, some of which I won't
> be fixing. It wants an alt tag on all image statements, does't like a table cell
> background image, doesn't like topmargin, leftmargin, etc. But, those things are staying.
>
> I don't seem to be the only one having this problem. Take a look here:
> http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=385
>
> After much research, I'm pretty convinced it's a Netscape problem unless someone can show
> me otherwise. I'm open!
Huh? Let me get this straight. You refuse to code your page according to
WWW standards; and when it doesn't render properly in Netscape, you
blame Netscape?
I went to the two other links contained in the discussion you pointed me
to, and none of them have DTD's.
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Cynthia Daniel
Per my understanding, W3 standards have always unfortunately lagged
behind the features developed by Netscape and IE. And, when a client
requests a certain graphical look, they really don't want to hear it
can't be done because it doesn't meet W3 standards. They see it on
other sites and they want it...period.
Regarding alt tag, my understanding is that the primary/original use was
so someone who has images turned off on their browser will have some
text to see in place of the image. Is that incorrect? Or has the purpose
changed?
In any event, including an alt tag on a graphic that is so small that
the text could never be readable by the viewer has no meaning in regards
to the above supposed purpose, if indeed that is still the purpose of
the alt tag.
I have read in the past that some search engines do pay attention to the
text in an alt tag, so that would be anothe reason to include them.
But, if the image is too small for the alt text to be read and the alt
tag has no important information for search engines, what is the
purpose? Am I missing something?
All that aside, I grant you that in my haste to please my 150 clients
and get things up as quickly as possible that I have been lax in the
past including alt tags where they could be important for meaning and
search engines.
So, I have now created a copy of the page and cleaned up everything
according to W3 standards and it still has the table problem, as I was
sure it would:
http://www.asopa.com/publications/2002December/kramskoy-test.htm
Thank you for your help,
Cynthia
Chris I
> Per my understanding, W3 standards have always unfortunately lagged
> behind the features developed by Netscape and IE. And, when a client
> requests a certain graphical look, they really don't want to hear it
> can't be done because it doesn't meet W3 standards. They see it on
> other sites and they want it...period.
Show them how those sites look in other browsers. Show them how they
would be cutting a percentage of their consumer base. Show them that
there is a standard, and that those sites aren't compliant. Tell them
about AOL's plans to develop their own Gecko based browser, and that it
is already in AOL Communicator, AOL Macintosh, and international
versions of AOL.
Like it or not, you have to worry about Opera too, and now Safari(the
new Mac browser). Microsoft has had to drop the MS JVM, and go with Sun
Java; IE7 is rumoured to be more standards compliant. Cross-browser
coding is going to get a hell of a lot worse, so go with the official
standard.
Why let "no-nothing" clients dictate the direction of the industry?
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Mr Israel Steinmetz
I have looked at all of the pages you specified, and they all look
great, to me. Perhaps it's because you've already fixed them up.
Alternatively, is it possible that you're trying to get the pages to
look exactly the same in all Web browsers? That is impossible. The
content is all there, and it looks good, so what's the problem?
If you want more control over the style (look) of your Web pages, try
style sheets.
And, in conclusion, ALT tags are very important. Not just for the
reasons you cite, but for people who don't have graphics (old computers,
slow 'Net connections, cell phones and PDA's, text-based Web browsers,
etc.) and also for people who can't see graphics (blind people using
braille or using text-to-speach.
Web standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/
are important for many reasons.
Sincerely,
Israel Steinmetz
zdislaw`
>Chris,
>
>Per my understanding, W3 standards have always unfortunately lagged
>behind the features developed by Netscape and IE. And, when a client
>requests a certain graphical look, they really don't want to hear it
>can't be done because it doesn't meet W3 standards. They see it on
>other sites and they want it...period.
Cynthia,
I don't have anything to offer on your specific problem but I dissagree with
your statement above. W3 standards are not lagging, the browsers are failing
to conform. When they fail to conform, they end up creating their own
proprietary ways of doing things. This works great if everyone in the world
uses a single browser, but we all they don't. I know what you're talking about
in reference to clients seeing things on other sites that they want...period.
I assert strongly that there is nothing out there that can't be done following
W3 standards.
Netscape definitely forces you to follow the standard more so than IE. IE lets
you leave tables open, <td>'s open, and much more. Throw that sh*t into a
dynamic (php, for example) site, though, or try to parse information out of a
poorly coded page and all hell breaks loose. The HTML standard has to be
followed so that things like XML (think HTML is strict, get a load of
requirements for well formed XML!!!) will work. It's imporant. It's utterly
anal and not for everyone, but it's important.
Some specific points:
The topmargin and leftmargin fiasco is a good example of why standards are
important. To satisfy both NS and IE you need to use topmargin, leftmargin,
marginheight, and marginwidth. They do the same thing, but since the standard
was not adhered to we now get four where we should only have two. Stylesheets
are a better way of accomplishing the same thing anyway.
Alt tags are important. You can always put alt="" in your spacer gifs or
images that do not contain anything graphic that conveys meaning (but then, why
even use the image at all, huh?). If a graphic conveys any meaning at all, it
needs to be represented with an alt tag for accessibility standards to be met.
So how's that for a whole lotta talkin' without solving your specific problem?
Well, I think I kinda did. I suspect that if you conformed your HTML to
standards it would be fine.
zdislaw