I am not sure why but i have a feeling it is something to do with the
CSS Floats...
http://dedi8.ukhost4u.com/~orlando/
Is the address of the site.
It works perfectly in Firefox.
Rgds,
Andy
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:35:48 GMT Patonar scribed:
> I am not sure why but i have a feeling it is something to do with the
> CSS Floats...
>
> http://dedi8.ukhost4u.com/~orlando/
>
> Is the address of the site.
>
> It works perfectly in Firefox.
Doesn't display in ie7 too good, either. I also got a couple validation
errors of the html, but the css is ok.
Floats do work differently in ie6, but I think there's more to your problem
than that. Why the xhtml and all the javascript?
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
> Floats do work differently in ie6, but I think there's more to your problem
> than that. Why the xhtml and all the javascript?
Lets take the homepage for example...
The XHTML is there in the interests of web standards. There is nothing
in the XHTML that IE shouldn't be able to support. The only validation
error i get on that page is one where i forgot to
close a line
break.
There is no javascript on the homepage.
The only javascript is on the pictures page which uses the
scriptaculaous + prototype frameworks to display a lightbox.
What problems are you getting in IE7?
Rgds,
Andy
I have worked out my problem....
On 1 Jun, 10:56, Patonar
> The XHTML is there in the interests of web standards.
Lose the XHTML and use HTML 4.01 Strict.
* It's not XHTML anyway, it's Appendix C XHTML. This is different.
* The page is full of obsolete bogosities. The last thing it needs is
to get involved with XHTML too.
* If you read / search this ng / c.i.w.a.h / any competent
contemporary resource, blog or book, then you'll see why XHTML is a
red herring. It's not actively wrong to use it, but it's more compelx
than you realise and less useful than you realise. On the whole it's
best avoided. As you've already noted, it's pretty good at catching
out the unwary.
Patonar wrote:
>
> http://dedi8.ukhost4u.com/~orlando/
> I needed to change
"Patonar"
news:1180686948.214263.266920@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.. .
>I am not sure why but i have a feeling it is something to do with the
> CSS Floats...
>
> http://dedi8.ukhost4u.com/~orlando/
Most of the site is background images. Have a look at your browsers
print-preview :-)
Why is it exactly some 500 pixels wide? My browser canvas is about 1059
pixels wide.
--
Richard.
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:56:37 -0700, Patonar
>> Floats do work differently in ie6, but I think there's more to your problem
>> than that. Why the xhtml and all the javascript?
>
>Lets take the homepage for example...
>
>The XHTML is there in the interests of web standards.
There is nothing about web standards that requires the use of xhtml.
Patonar wrote :
> Lets take the homepage for example...
>
> The XHTML is there in the interests of web standards.
HTML 4.01 strict DTD is a clear and complete conformance to the HTML
4.01 spec. Strict DTD promotes a clear separation of content and
presentation.
> There is nothing
> in the XHTML that IE shouldn't be able to support.
IE 7 is not able to support a document served as content-type
application/xhtml+xml . That explains why you served your document as
text/html and not as application/xhtml+xml .
Andy, I suggest you have a read of
* No to XHTML an excellent article from Spartanicus
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
* Beware of XHTML by David Hammond (excellent webpage!)
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml
* Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful by Ian Hickson
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
* XHTML's Dirty Little Secret by Mark Pilgrim
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html
* XHTML Is Dead by Tommy Olsson
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/03/14/xhtm l-is-dead
* XHTML - What's the Point? by Henri Sivonen
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/
* XHTML is not for Beginners by Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners
Gérard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_ your_Web_Pages
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> There is nothing about web standards that requires the use of xhtml.
David Hammond has excellent quotes from each and all major browser
vendors (Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, Google, etc) regarding XHTML:
Beware of XHTML
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml
Gérard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_ your_Web_Pages
Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
> HTML 4.01 strict DTD is a clear and complete conformance to the HTML
> 4.01 spec.
I think I see what you mean by that, but as written, it's partly obscure,
partly misleading. I don't whether the expression "A is a conformance to B"
is acceptable by the rules of English or what exactly you mean by that. The
conformance requirements in HTML specifications relate to documents and
browsers (user agents), not DTDs. For conformance, one of three DTDs can be
used in a document. There is no "clear" or "complete" conformance as
opposite to just conformance, especially in matters of formal syntax.
Moreover, contrary to rather widespread misconception, conformance to a DTD
(Strict or Transitional), i.e. validity, does not imply conformance to the
HTML 4.01 specification. The specification contains several requirements
that are not expressed (or even expressible) in the DTDs.
> Strict DTD promotes a clear separation of content and presentation.
In that sense, of course, the strict DTD reflects the spirit of the
specification better than the Transitional DTD does. But this is not a
conformance issue.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/