HTML on Firefox 2

HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 13:04:43 von Nick

I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, which
uses layers instead of tables. It is the first time that I do
something like that.

This site looks fine on IE7, but not on Firefox 2, the layers on
Firefox 2 have all wrong positioning and wrong sizes.

The most strange thing is that it looked fine on Firefox until a
couple of hours ago.

I have a nearly identical version of this site on www.altherb.eu, and
that still looks fine on Firefox 2. I hadn't really done any
important chenge to the site apart from changing some words in the
meta description, which shouldn't matter. Anyway, I've actually
copied the index.php page and the two stylesheets: styles.css and
layers.css from www.altherb.eu to www.alternativherbal.co.uk, and the
most astonishing result is that once done that they look wrong like
the original alternativeherbal.co.uk files! I just don't understand,
there is not any other file apart from the stylesheets and index.php
itself that should affect the look of this page. I know that the
DOCTYPE declaration is probably wrong, but changing it didn't give
better results.

I REALLY would appreciate some help on this from someone more
experienced than me.

Thank you.

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 13:18:51 von rf

"Nick" wrote in message
news:1193659483.965118.193150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
>I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, which
> uses layers instead of tables. It is the first time that I do
> something like that.

Layers is a term used by Netscape during the last centurty. It has no
meaning now.

> This site looks fine on IE7, but not on Firefox 2, the layers on
> Firefox 2 have all wrong positioning and wrong sizes.

Fixing some of the 45 HTML errors you have my change things. Some of them
will throw the browsers into an error correcting frenzy.

--
Richard.

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 14:05:19 von a.nony.mous

Nick wrote:

> I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, which
> uses layers instead of tables. It is the first time that I do
> something like that.

"Welcome to to Alternative Herbal!" to to?

> This site looks fine on IE7, but not on Firefox 2, the layers on
> Firefox 2 have all wrong positioning and wrong sizes.

What is this?

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 15:21:57 von Andy Dingley

On 29 Oct, 12:04, Nick wrote:
> I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, which
> uses layers instead of tables.

What on earth are "layers" ?

Also this site is built out of 10 year old HTML, uses the Transitional
doctype and is based around using

for layout. All of these are
bad practices and should be fixed before proceeding any further.

Read this newsgroup's archives for advice on what to do next, but
reading "Head First HTML" wouldn't be a bad start.


> I have a nearly identical version of this site onwww.altherb.eu,

Broken doctype declaration on that site, which will switch FF into IE-
compatible quirks mode.

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 18:43:47 von Nick

With the term of Layers I was referring to CSS Layers. There are many
sites out there talking of DIV Layers, such as in

http://www.dashdev.net/xhtml_css_tutorial_5.html for example.

I know the W3C guidelines change constantly, especially about
accessibility and cross browser standardisation, so I don't know if
layers is the up to date term or not. Perhaps is it CSS or HTML
Elements more correct?

Basically I'm talking about



I thank you for taking the time looking at the errors, I knew there
were many concerning deprecated tags and similar, but as up to now it
wasn't affecting the look of the site, and I was in a rush to finish
the site, I had left for sorting out later. I know it's bad
practice. Anyway, what I don't understand is why altherb.eu, which
has the identical errors as the www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, can show
perfectly.

Anyway,



is the element containing the horizontal menu.

Is it a problem using   to space the different hyperlinks? I
don't really expect this site to be viewed from other than European/
Western languages browsers.

If it's the   that you think are a problem, what would you
suggest excluding tables?

About
td.list { font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-
size:0.58em; width:180px; height:15px; text-align:left; padding-top:
7px; padding-bottom:7px; padding-left:.8em; border-bottom:.5px solid
#00CC00}

I suppose that what is wrong there is using em for font sizing. As
before IE7 using px reesulted in a page with unalterable fonts, I
wanted to overocme his problem. At the time I studied Web Desing, 3
years ago, all they thought was pixel sizing, so I had to look for
solutions researching the internet; I was aware of the problem that
sizing up, or down gave extreme results, but I didn't know how to fix
it yet. I will follow you suggestion to use % sizing instead.

About Andy comment, yes, even though this project was born from my
first attempt not to use tables, and use HTML/CSS Elements instead, I
still ended up using some tables. Do you suggest doing away of them
totally? Should I substitute them all with
elements + CSS
positioning?

I'll also start working on making the page a coherent HTML 4.01
Strict.

I am looking forward to your answers, and I will post back when I've
fixed some errors.



On Oct 29, 2:21 pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 12:04, Nick wrote:
>
> > I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, which
> > uses layers instead of tables.
>
> What on earth are "layers" ?
>
> Also this site is built out of 10 year old HTML, uses the Transitional
> doctype and is based around using
for layout. All of these are
> bad practices and should be fixed before proceeding any further.
>
> Read this newsgroup's archives for advice on what to do next, but
> reading "Head First HTML" wouldn't be a bad start.
>
> > I have a nearly identical version of this site onwww.altherb.eu,
>
> Broken doctype declaration on that site, which will switch FF into IE-
> compatible quirks mode.

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 19:44:06 von Harlan Messinger

Nick wrote:
> With the term of Layers I was referring to CSS Layers. There are many
> sites out there talking of DIV Layers, such as in
>
> http://www.dashdev.net/xhtml_css_tutorial_5.html for example.
>
> I know the W3C guidelines change constantly, especially about
> accessibility and cross browser standardisation, so I don't know if
> layers is the up to date term or not. Perhaps is it CSS or HTML
> Elements more correct?
>
> Basically I'm talking about
>
>


>
> I thank you for taking the time looking at the errors, I knew there
> were many concerning deprecated tags and similar, but as up to now it
> wasn't affecting the look of the site, and I was in a rush to finish
> the site, I had left for sorting out later. I know it's bad
> practice. Anyway, what I don't understand is why altherb.eu, which
> has the identical errors as the www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, can show
> perfectly.

I looked at them both this morning (Eastern US time) and their layout
was identical. I'm looking at them again and their layout is still
identical. In Firefox 2 both times.

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 19:58:07 von a.nony.mous

Nick wrote:

>

Re: HTML on Firefox 2

am 29.10.2007 20:27:49 von Ben C

On 2007-10-29, Nick wrote:
> With the term of Layers I was referring to CSS Layers. There are many
> sites out there talking of DIV Layers, such as in
>
> http://www.dashdev.net/xhtml_css_tutorial_5.html for example.
>
> I know the W3C guidelines change constantly, especially about
> accessibility and cross browser standardisation, so I don't know if
> layers is the up to date term or not. Perhaps is it CSS or HTML
> Elements more correct?

I think "layers" is rather odd. That site seems to be using the term
just to mean "block box".

> Basically I'm talking about
>
>



Use float: left, not align="left". IIRC align="left" on a div turns
into "float: left" but only in quirks mode.

[...]
> has the identical errors as the www.alternativeherbal.co.uk, can show
[...]
> Is it a problem using   to space the different hyperlinks? I
> don't really expect this site to be viewed from other than European/
> Western languages browsers.
>
> If it's the   that you think are a problem, what would you
> suggest excluding tables?

Use a series of left floats if you need to set height on them. Otherwise
just a series of inline elements (span for example, or
  • but set li {
    display: inline; }). You can then set left and right padding on the
    inlines to achieve spacing.

  • Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 29.10.2007 20:46:32 von dorayme

    In article
    <1193659483.965118.193150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
    Nick wrote:

    > I have designed a new website. www.alternativeherbal.co.uk

    I get this on Mac Safari and Firefox:

    http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/pics/herbal.pn g

    When the ok is clicked, the page loads anyway.

    Which brings me to this question, have you cut a side deal with
    Bill Gates?

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 29.10.2007 21:49:05 von Bergamot

    rf wrote:
    >
    > Layers is a term used by Netscape during the last centurty.

    Sadly, the term has been perpetuated by Dreamweaver. Its "layers" are
    just absolutely positioned divs. Unfortunately, DW gives no guidance as
    to the wisdom of such designs. :-(

    --
    Berg

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 29.10.2007 22:01:04 von Bergamot

    Nick wrote:
    >

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 29.10.2007 23:23:45 von lws4art

    Bergamot wrote:
    > rf wrote:
    >> Layers is a term used by Netscape during the last centurty.
    >
    > Sadly, the term has been perpetuated by Dreamweaver. Its "layers" are
    > just absolutely positioned divs. Unfortunately, DW gives no guidance as
    > to the wisdom of such designs. :-(
    >

    Wow! Something worst than Netscape's layers!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 30.10.2007 00:59:58 von Andy Dingley

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:43:47 -0700, Nick
    wrote:

    >With the term of Layers I was referring to CSS Layers.

    No such thing.

    Years ago, there was a feature called "layers" in some obsolete versions
    of Netscape. It hasn't been supported for years, few used it even back
    then. To use the term "layers" today is either irrelevant and wrong, or
    even worse by being misleading to this other term. Neither way will aid
    communication wilth people who use CSS correctly or usefully today.

    > There are many
    >sites out there talking of DIV Layers,

    Then they're wrong.

    >http://www.dashdev.net/xhtml_css_tutorial_5.html for example.

    Ignore that site. It's crap. Pretty much everything it tells you is
    wrong, and the site itself is badly done.


    >I know the W3C guidelines change constantly,

    Yes, this new "1997" standard is _so_ recent!

    >Basically I'm talking about
    >
    >



    Ah, the misbegotten spawn of late '90s coding. "New" (10 years ago)
    language features dropped in blindfold with little or no understandign
    to how they ought to be used. This doesn't work at all well.

    I'm not going to go point-by-point on this page, there's just too much
    wrong with it. Start again, don't fiddle. But find a good tutorial
    before doing anything! Nearly all tutorials are wrong, so get a copy of
    "Head First HTML" which is by-and-large right.

    As to why your two sites differ under FF, I told you once - their
    doctype declarations are different. The .eu site has a broken doctype
    declaration that makes FF drop back into an IE compatibility "quirks"
    mode.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 30.10.2007 07:57:45 von Chaddy2222

    On Oct 30, 10:59 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:43:47 -0700, Nick
    > wrote:
    >
    > >With the term of Layers I was referring to CSS Layers.
    >
    > No such thing.
    >
    > Years ago, there was a feature called "layers" in some obsolete versions
    > of Netscape. It hasn't been supported for years, few used it even back
    > then. To use the term "layers" today is either irrelevant and wrong, or
    > even worse by being misleading to this other term. Neither way will aid
    > communication wilth people who use CSS correctly or usefully today.
    >
    > > There are many
    > >sites out there talking of DIV Layers,
    >
    > Then they're wrong.
    >
    > >http://www.dashdev.net/xhtml_css_tutorial_5.htmlfor example.
    >
    > Ignore that site. It's crap. Pretty much everything it tells you is
    > wrong, and the site itself is badly done.
    >
    > >I know the W3C guidelines change constantly,
    >
    > Yes, this new "1997" standard is _so_ recent!
    >
    > >Basically I'm talking about
    >
    > >


    >
    > Ah, the misbegotten spawn of late '90s coding. "New" (10 years ago)
    > language features dropped in blindfold with little or no understandign
    > to how they ought to be used. This doesn't work at all well.
    >
    > I'm not going to go point-by-point on this page, there's just too much
    > wrong with it. Start again, don't fiddle. But find a good tutorial
    > before doing anything! Nearly all tutorials are wrong, so get a copy of
    > "Head First HTML" which is by-and-large right.
    >
    Or more to the point, use Dreamwever in source view.
    It has quite a good text editor.
    I personally use KompoZer: http://www.kompozer.net a long with Crimson
    Editor (with the HandCoder extention).
    HandCoder is for KompoZer, it uses HTML tidy.

    > As to why your two sites differ under FF, I told you once - their
    > doctype declarations are different. The .eu site has a broken doctype
    > declaration that makes FF drop back into an IE compatibility "quirks"
    > mode.

    Just another note to the OP, you will need to actually fix the errors
    that the W3C validator throws at you in order for the document to be
    valid, just changing the Doctype won't really fix anything. Then once
    the docs are valid you will need to tweek the display through the CSS
    if any issues arise.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 30.10.2007 10:44:00 von Andy Dingley

    On 30 Oct, 06:57, Chaddy2222
    wrote:

    > Or more to the point, use Dreamwever in source view.
    > It has quite a good text editor.

    Expensive way to buy a text editor.


    > > As to why your two sites differ under FF, I told you once - their
    > > doctype declarations are different. The .eu site has a broken doctype
    > > declaration that makes FF drop back into an IE compatibility "quirks"
    > > mode.
    >
    > Just another note to the OP, you will need to actually fix the errors
    > that the W3C validator throws at you in order for the document to be
    > valid, just changing the Doctype won't really fix anything.

    It will in this case - the OP needs to _break_ standards-mode
    rendering to get it to work(sic). It would actually work better as it
    is without a doctype.

    Don't put a correct Strict doctype declaration onto either of these
    pages until you're ready to fix them properly.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 31.10.2007 02:09:46 von Nick

    On 30 Oct, 09:44, Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 30 Oct, 06:57, Chaddy2222
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Or more to the point, use Dreamwever in source view.
    > > It has quite a good text editor.
    >
    > Expensive way to buy a text editor.
    >
    > > > As to why your two sites differ under FF, I told you once - their
    > > > doctype declarations are different. The .eu site has a broken doctype
    > > > declaration that makes FF drop back into an IE compatibility "quirks"
    > > > mode.
    >
    > > Just another note to the OP, you will need to actually fix the errors
    > > that the W3C validator throws at you in order for the document to be
    > > valid, just changing the Doctype won't really fix anything.
    >
    > It will in this case - the OP needs to _break_ standards-mode
    > rendering to get it to work(sic). It would actually work better as it
    > is without a doctype.
    >
    > Don't put a correct Strict doctype declaration onto either of these
    > pages until you're ready to fix them properly.


    I have fixed several things, and now the W3C HTML Code checker tells
    me that the page is a Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!

    So the DOCTYPE is right.

    I've also eliminated most of the tables.

    There is a major problem in Firefox though: the search box on the left
    doesn't work anymore ( maxlength="25" class="searchbox">
    ), one can't even select it, and neither work the links
    under Categories. I could not find the reason. These work fine in
    IE7 and Opera 9.

    Another problem is that I'd like everything to appear at the centre of
    the browser, as it does on IE7. In order to achieve this I've added
    text-align:center to the class: all :

    div.all { position:absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; width:100%; height:
    100%; z-index:1; text-align:center},

    this is the class of the parent

    that contains all other

    and everything else. It works on IE7, but not on Firefox or Opera,
    that is the reason why I had originally done

    .

    It did center the content on Firefox in that way, but I know that is
    has been deprecated in HTML 4.01. Could you help me finding out how
    to make it work on Firefox and Opera ?

    I have enlarged the font size, but I still have to do that for the
    Categories Links, but I want to sort out the exhisting problems first.

    I am aware of problems that can appear when once enlarge text, because
    the size of the
    content is fixed in pixels to 980px. It might be good to find an
    alternative to that at some stage, perhaps after the existing problems
    have been sorted.

    Again, feedback and constructive criticism is appreciated. Negative
    criticism, sarcasm, and silly jokes about me having a deal with Bill
    Gates, are obvious, dull, sad, and bring nothing to the discussion, so
    are best avoided.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 31.10.2007 02:19:23 von Nick

    There is alo another thing I needed to add:

    As you can see the

    element on the left (
    class="central-left">), which is inside the
    the greyed out leafy background, comes out at the bottom.

    I though that the
    be long enough to fully contain the
    elements that it contains.
    In the style sheet I've set height:auto, but obviosly it's not
    happening. How do I achieve this ?

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 31.10.2007 04:13:55 von rf

    "Nick" wrote in message
    news:1193792986.476408.308130@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .

    > I have fixed several things, and now the W3C HTML Code checker tells
    > me that the page is a Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
    >
    > So the DOCTYPE is right.
    >
    > I've also eliminated most of the tables.
    >
    > There is a major problem in Firefox though: the search box on the left
    > doesn't work anymore ( > maxlength="25" class="searchbox">
    > ), one can't even select it, and neither work the links
    > under Categories. I could not find the reason. These work fine in
    > IE7 and Opera 9.

    That'd be the form on the right, right?

    There are so many weirdly positioned divs and tables in there that I'll bet
    the browser is simply getting confused. I sure was when I looked at the
    structure using firebug. It is, to say the least, a mess.

    As to the non-functional form: It's being covered up by the welcome div
    which has width: 100% specified. I think.

    Also, why the javascript skulduggery with that image that is supposed to be
    a "submit" button. Why not just make it a real submit button and let the
    browser do it's work?


    > Another problem is that I'd like everything to appear at the centre of
    > the browser, as it does on IE7. In order to achieve this I've added
    > text-align:center to the class: all :

    That aligns the content, not the divs that contain that content. margin:
    auto might work but not with all that positioning stuff flying around.

    > div.all { position:absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; width:100%; height:
    > 100%; z-index:1; text-align:center},
    >
    > this is the class of the parent

    that contains all other

    > and everything else. It works on IE7, but not on Firefox or Opera,
    > that is the reason why I had originally done
    >
    >
    .
    >
    > It did center the content on Firefox in that way, but I know that is
    > has been deprecated in HTML 4.01. Could you help me finding out how
    > to make it work on Firefox and Opera ?
    >
    > I have enlarged the font size, but I still have to do that for the


    To what? 75% of my preferred font size?

    And there is a problem as well. When I increase my font size (as I must to
    be able to put it back to 100% of my preferred size) your navigation bar
    escapes it's absolutely positioned and sized dif.

    > I am aware of problems that can appear when once enlarge text, because
    > the size of the
    > content is fixed in pixels to 980px.

    Ah I see you already know about that problem.

    > It might be good to find an
    > alternative to that at some stage, perhaps after the existing problems
    > have been sorted.

    Like removing all the absolute positioning and sizing?

    > Again, feedback and constructive criticism is appreciated. Negative
    > criticism, sarcasm, and silly jokes about me having a deal with Bill
    > Gates, are obvious, dull, sad, and bring nothing to the discussion, so
    > are best avoided.

    Welcome to usenet :-)

    --
    Richard.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 31.10.2007 17:21:21 von Nick

    On Oct 31, 3:13 am, "rf" wrote:
    > "Nick" wrote in message
    >
    > news:1193792986.476408.308130@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
    >
    > > I have fixed several things, and now the W3C HTML Code checker tells
    > > me that the page is a Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
    >
    > > So the DOCTYPE is right.
    >
    > > I've also eliminated most of the tables.
    >
    > > There is a major problem in Firefox though: the search box on the left
    > > doesn't work anymore ( > > maxlength="25" class="searchbox">
    > > ), one can't even select it, and neither work the links
    > > under Categories. I could not find the reason. These work fine in
    > > IE7 and Opera 9.
    >
    > That'd be the form on the right, right?
    >
    > There are so many weirdly positioned divs and tables in there that I'll bet
    > the browser is simply getting confused. I sure was when I looked at the
    > structure using firebug. It is, to say the least, a mess.
    >
    > As to the non-functional form: It's being covered up by the welcome div
    > which has width: 100% specified. I think.
    >
    > Also, why the javascript skulduggery with that image that is supposed to be
    > a "submit" button. Why not just make it a real submit button and let the
    > browser do it's work?
    >
    > > Another problem is that I'd like everything to appear at the centre of
    > > the browser, as it does on IE7. In order to achieve this I've added
    > > text-align:center to the class: all :
    >
    > That aligns the content, not the divs that contain that content. margin:
    > auto might work but not with all that positioning stuff flying around.
    >
    > > div.all { position:absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; width:100%; height:
    > > 100%; z-index:1; text-align:center},
    >
    > > this is the class of the parent

    that contains all other

    > > and everything else. It works on IE7, but not on Firefox or Opera,
    > > that is the reason why I had originally done
    >
    > >
    .
    >
    > > It did center the content on Firefox in that way, but I know that is
    > > has been deprecated in HTML 4.01. Could you help me finding out how
    > > to make it work on Firefox and Opera ?
    >
    > > I have enlarged the font size, but I still have to do that for the
    >
    > To what? 75% of my preferred font size?
    >
    > And there is a problem as well. When I increase my font size (as I must to
    > be able to put it back to 100% of my preferred size) your navigation bar
    > escapes it's absolutely positioned and sized dif.
    >
    > > I am aware of problems that can appear when once enlarge text, because
    > > the size of the
    > > content is fixed in pixels to 980px.
    >
    > Ah I see you already know about that problem.
    >
    > > It might be good to find an
    > > alternative to that at some stage, perhaps after the existing problems
    > > have been sorted.
    >
    > Like removing all the absolute positioning and sizing?
    >
    > > Again, feedback and constructive criticism is appreciated. Negative
    > > criticism, sarcasm, and silly jokes about me having a deal with Bill
    > > Gates, are obvious, dull, sad, and bring nothing to the discussion, so
    > > are best avoided.
    >
    > Welcome to usenet :-)
    >
    > --
    > Richard.

    Thank you very much for your advices about relative and absolute
    positioning. At last I understand why the length of
    class="main" (that has the leafy background) doesn't stretch to
    accomodate the size of
    You see, I'm quite new to relative positioning, and even though I
    underastand it in theory, in practice I often see that the results
    differ from what I expected. I took a CIW Qualification as web
    designer and web developer 3 years ago, but they taught lots of old
    stuff, mainly tables. My previous sites were all about tables, until I
    understood it was better to do otherwise.

    Could you have a look at these two experimental pages I've done using
    Firefox:

    I've taken out the header for the moment, just to tackle 1 problem at
    a time.

    the first is:

    alternativeherbal.co.uk/example1.php

    this page uses relative positioning for the
    but as you can see it doesn't look right, although the automative
    sizing of the leafy background contained in

    in

    alternativeherbal.co.uk/example2.php

    I've used the absolute positioning, and in fact the middle box ( id="centre") is longer than the
    contain it, and thanks to your advice now I understand why.

    What I needed to ask you if you think there is a way to make the three
    boxes look like in example1, but using relative positoning instead.
    Obviously the length of
    other pages, especially because in other pages it contains images of
    products, dynamically generated querying a MySql Database, and as I
    understood the length of the
    positioning of the

    So, considered this, do you think there is a way at all to make
    example1 look more like example2, but still using relative positioning
    instead?

    thanks a lot.

    PS View this in Fiorefox, not IE. I have found out that IE requires
    totally different positioning coordinates when using relative
    positioning, so I'll be using a different stylesheet for that, but I
    haven't made it yet for this, because it is just an experiment really.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 01.11.2007 02:49:31 von Bergamot

    Nick wrote:
    >
    > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example1.php
    > this page uses relative positioning
    >
    > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example2.php
    > I've used the absolute positioning
    >
    > What I needed to ask you if you think there is a way to make the three
    > boxes look like in example1, but using relative positoning instead.

    Why do you think you need to use relative positioning for this at all?
    Do you really understand what the different positioning methods are
    *supposed* to do? I suspect not.

    > PS View this in Fiorefox, not IE. I have found out that IE requires
    > totally different positioning coordinates when using relative
    > positioning,

    That should not be the case at all. If it is, then something in your
    design is probably broken. I glanced at your CSS but it is too hard to
    read. Getting rid of all the redundant styles, like font-family, would
    be a good place to start. Your stylesheet would also be more readable if
    you applied some formatting to it.

    > so I'll be using a different stylesheet for that,

    That would be fixing the wrong problem, I think.

    --
    Berg

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 11:41:13 von Nick

    On Nov 1, 1:49 am, Bergamot wrote:
    > Nick wrote:
    >
    > > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example1.php
    > > this page uses relative positioning
    >
    > > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example2.php
    > > I've used the absolute positioning
    >
    > > What I needed to ask you if you think there is a way to make the three
    > > boxes look like in example1, but using relative positoning instead.
    >
    > Why do you think you need to use relative positioning for this at all?
    > Do you really understand what the different positioning methods are
    > *supposed* to do? I suspect not.
    >
    > > PS View this in Fiorefox, not IE. I have found out that IE requires
    > > totally different positioning coordinates when using relative
    > > positioning,
    >
    > That should not be the case at all. If it is, then something in your
    > design is probably broken. I glanced at your CSS but it is too hard to
    > read. Getting rid of all the redundant styles, like font-family, would
    > be a good place to start. Your stylesheet would also be more readable if
    > you applied some formatting to it.
    >
    > > so I'll be using a different stylesheet for that,
    >
    > That would be fixing the wrong problem, I think.
    >
    > --
    > Berg

    I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php while I'm testing it.

    The font size is more readable, the use of tables is minimized, and
    finally the same style sheet for

    postioning seem to work equally
    in IE7, Firefox2, and Opera (sorry I'm not able to test Safari on Mac
    at the moment, but Mac user are welcome to let me know).

    Also, the main advantage of this new layout is that if one goes to
    enlarge the text size, there is no overlapping of the menu links for a
    while.

    But there is a new problem I am experiencing, whereas the problems of
    enlarging the text size are minimized, if I use Zoom on IE7, the menu
    links below the header looks strange: basically the font size doesn't
    seem to change as much as the rest of the site, the spacing between
    each word hyperlink suddenly disappears, and the background image also
    disappears.

    Could someone suggest me a quick fix for this? I really need to put
    this site back working and start making money.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 12:14:02 von rf

    "Nick" wrote in message
    news:1194604873.965413.132900@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
    > On Nov 1, 1:49 am, Bergamot wrote:
    >> Nick wrote:
    >>
    >> > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example1.php
    If you put a http:// in front of your quoted URL I would be able to simply
    click on the URl in my newsreader, rather than having to copy/paste.

    >> > this page uses relative positioning

    Why?

    >> > alternativeherbal.co.uk/example2.php

    Another non clickable URL.

    >> > I've used the absolute positioning

    Why?
    >>
    >> > What I needed to ask you if you think there is a way to make the three
    >> > boxes look like in example1, but using relative positoning instead.

    Do you really understand what relative position does? Please read the
    relevant chapter in this specs:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#comp-relpos



    > I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    > built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php while I'm testing it.
    >
    > The font size is more readable,

    No it is not, it is not 100%. That is if I am looking at the right page.

    > the use of tables is minimized, and

    Oh, is that the time.

    --
    Richard.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 14:07:51 von a.nony.mous

    Nick wrote:

    > I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    > built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php
    > while I'm testing it.

    I don't see anything different.

    You're still using Verdana:
    font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
    and this line is in your stylesheet 23 times, when you only need to
    place it once in the body { }
    and your font sizes are still only three-quarters of my preferred size.
    When I increase the size so I can read it, the design falls apart.

    http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

    It still doesn't fit in my browser window, requiring horizontal
    scrolling.

    It's still Transitional, when it should be Strict.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 15:38:01 von Andy Dingley

    On 9 Nov, 10:41, Nick wrote:

    > I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    > built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php while I'm testing it.

    No you didn't.

    ..bt {
    font-size:.75em;
    font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
    }

    Bored now.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 21:48:08 von dorayme

    In article
    <1194604873.965413.132900@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
    Nick wrote:

    > I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    > built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php while I'm testing it.
    >
    > The font size is more readable, the use of tables is minimized, and
    > finally the same style sheet for

    postioning seem to work equally
    > in IE7, Firefox2, and Opera (sorry I'm not able to test Safari on Mac
    > at the moment, but Mac user are welcome to let me know).

    It looks *very nice* in Safari when loaded with my personal
    preferences for font size and for first thing in the morning when
    I am fresh.

    But there are problems. I won't look at your code at all for now.

    First, a single click up of font-size (scheduled to happen in
    about 3 or 4 hours as I tire and need larger for comfort) starts
    to break the design. The top horizontal green menu starts
    overwriting the green headers of the columns, the search box
    breaks out of the main feint-leafy backgrounded information area.

    Take you a few mins only to be rid of that Supplement Facts pic
    and make a simple table which will be readable because crisper
    even if smaller and will enlarge naturally with built in browser
    controls. At the *very least*, fix the enlargement link
    mechanics. You using js and sizing the window? Well, be more
    generous in the size, especially the height, it gets cut off
    after the Cellulose, Gelatin, line on Safari and FF too (that's 2
    out of 2, won't look further)

    It looks like you are not sizing the show and the cols right.
    Given your content, no need to *not* allow it to shrink to 800px
    wide and be readable. Take a look at your left col. It is all
    text. So mostly are the other cols. You could use % of body to
    divi them up so they are happy at all sorts of widths without
    needing horiz scroll bars. Combos of % and max widths can work
    wonders. So too can em sizing and max widths... It is a slightly
    complicated business but we could go into it if you want to.

    Frankly the first sign of trouble about fluidity was a semi
    aesthetic thing I noticed. Why is the leafy background not on the
    body itself, what is the *point* of not putting it on the body in
    this design? Try it, and be rid of the bg on the other bits and
    remove the thin green rect line to frame the show. It would be
    very natural then and a good start to getting it all fluid like...

    But it is still nice and pleasant a design anyway...

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 09.11.2007 23:34:34 von Nick

    On Nov 9, 8:48 pm, dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <1194604873.965413.132...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    > Nick wrote:
    > > I've now taken into consideration the advices on text size and I've
    > > built a new version of index.php page, this is called
    > > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php while I'm testing it.
    >
    > > The font size is more readable, the use of tables is minimized, and
    > > finally the same style sheet for

    postioning seem to work equally
    > > in IE7, Firefox2, and Opera (sorry I'm not able to test Safari on Mac
    > > at the moment, but Mac user are welcome to let me know).
    >
    > It looks *very nice* in Safari when loaded with my personal
    > preferences for font size and for first thing in the morning when
    > I am fresh.
    >
    > But there are problems. I won't look at your code at all for now.
    >
    > First, a single click up of font-size (scheduled to happen in
    > about 3 or 4 hours as I tire and need larger for comfort) starts
    > to break the design. The top horizontal green menu starts
    > overwriting the green headers of the columns, the search box
    > breaks out of the main feint-leafy backgrounded information area.
    >
    > Take you a few mins only to be rid of that Supplement Facts pic
    > and make a simple table which will be readable because crisper
    > even if smaller and will enlarge naturally with built in browser
    > controls. At the *very least*, fix the enlargement link
    > mechanics. You using js and sizing the window? Well, be more
    > generous in the size, especially the height, it gets cut off
    > after the Cellulose, Gelatin, line on Safari and FF too (that's 2
    > out of 2, won't look further)
    >
    > It looks like you are not sizing the show and the cols right.
    > Given your content, no need to *not* allow it to shrink to 800px
    > wide and be readable. Take a look at your left col. It is all
    > text. So mostly are the other cols. You could use % of body to
    > divi them up so they are happy at all sorts of widths without
    > needing horiz scroll bars. Combos of % and max widths can work
    > wonders. So too can em sizing and max widths... It is a slightly
    > complicated business but we could go into it if you want to.
    >
    > Frankly the first sign of trouble about fluidity was a semi
    > aesthetic thing I noticed. Why is the leafy background not on the
    > body itself, what is the *point* of not putting it on the body in
    > this design? Try it, and be rid of the bg on the other bits and
    > remove the thin green rect line to frame the show. It would be
    > very natural then and a good start to getting it all fluid like...
    >
    > But it is still nice and pleasant a design anyway...
    >
    > --
    > dorayme

    Hi Dorayme, thak you for saying you like the design. That's a good
    start at least. But I understand now about the font sizing up
    problem.

    Answering your question about why the leafy background is not on the
    body itself: I think it may affect readability.

    I'm finally on the way of a solution that could work with window
    variable sizing, and variable text sizing, and it is at

    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php

    for the moment I've left out the header picture and the menu on the
    top, and using mix and max widths I seems to work when changing the
    browser size, and also the font size. I still haven't enlarged the
    basic font size to 100%, but that will soon follow, but at least now
    the font can be enlarged without too many probs, and it seems to work
    on browser windows as small as 370px width, but I am ancountering new
    problems.

    The leafy background on the background, that is in div.main element
    containing all the others, takes all browser window in IE7, that's not
    too bad, but have a look at what happens in Firefox: the background of
    the container div doesn't size up to the height and width div.centre-
    left, div.centre, and div.centre-right-cats. Look at Opera, even
    worse, not only the background doesn't automatically sizes as in IE7,
    but the two DIVs to the right are positioned to the bottom of the
    other two.

    I'm sure there is a simple explanation to this, but I haven't managed
    to find it so far, so help is appreciated.

    I've also tried a version of this page with the leafy background on
    the body instead, and this is

    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex2.php,

    although I've only placed it on the centre layer as it is a just
    test. Don't you think readability is affected? Perhaps if I made it
    much plaer than what it is could work, but is it worthy?

    Again, I'd like to thank all that added their support here. When I
    studied Wed Design and Web Developing at this CIW course 3 years ago
    all they taught you was: design for the most common smaller screen
    resolution (width: 800px then), use tables and px font sizing, even
    though they did mention CSS2, and W3C guidelines on usability,
    alternative browsers, etc. Quite contraddictory... So I'm learning
    HTML design from scratch again at the moment.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 10.11.2007 01:07:55 von dorayme

    In article
    <1194647674.467584.30430@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    Nick wrote:

    > On Nov 9, 8:48 pm, dorayme wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <1194604873.965413.132...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
    > >
    > > Nick wrote:

    > > > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php
    > >
    > > (sorry I'm not able to test Safari on Mac
    > > > at the moment, but Mac user are welcome to let me know).
    > >

    > > But there are problems. I won't look at your code at all for now.
    > >
    > > First, a single click up of font-size starts
    > > to break the design.

    > > Take you a few mins only to be rid of that Supplement Facts pic
    > > and make a simple table which will be readable because crisper
    > > even if smaller and will enlarge naturally with built in browser
    > > controls. At the *very least*, fix the enlargement link
    > > mechanics. You using js and sizing the window? Well, be more
    > > generous in the size, especially the height, it gets cut off
    > > after the Cellulose, Gelatin, line on Safari and FF too (that's 2
    > > out of 2, won't look further)
    > >
    > > It looks like you are not sizing the show and the cols right.
    > > Given your content, no need to *not* allow it to shrink to 800px
    > > wide and be readable...
    > >
    > > Frankly the first sign of trouble about fluidity was a semi
    > > aesthetic thing I noticed. Why is the leafy background not on the
    > > body itself, what is the *point* of not putting it on the body in
    > > this design? Try it,
    > >
    > > still nice and pleasant a design anyway...
    > >

    > Hi Dorayme, thak you for saying you like the design. That's a good
    > start at least. But I understand now about the font sizing up
    > problem.
    >
    > Answering your question about why the leafy background is not on the
    > body itself: I think it may affect readability.
    >
    > I'm finally on the way of a solution that could work with window
    > variable sizing, and variable text sizing, and it is at
    >
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php
    >
    > for the moment I've left out the header picture and the menu on the
    > top, and using mix and max widths I seems to work when changing the
    > browser size, and also the font size. I still haven't enlarged the
    > basic font size to 100%, but that will soon follow, but at least now
    > the font can be enlarged without too many probs, and it seems to work
    > on browser windows as small as 370px width, but I am ancountering new
    > problems.


    Now, at least from the users point of view, you are starting to
    cook with gas. This is much better re window fluidity, needless
    horiz scroll bars. Well done. (Still have not examined your code)
    >
    > The leafy background on the background, that is in div.main element
    > containing all the others, takes all browser window in IE7, that's not
    > too bad, but have a look at what happens in Firefox: the background of
    > the container div doesn't size up to the height and width div.centre-
    > left, div.centre, and div.centre-right-cats. Look at Opera, even
    > worse, not only the background doesn't automatically sizes as in IE7,
    > but the two DIVs to the right are positioned to the bottom of the
    > other two.
    >
    > I'm sure there is a simple explanation to this, but I haven't managed
    > to find it so far, so help is appreciated.

    Ah, yes, this looks for all the world like something that puzzles
    many people who have not got a good model in their head for how
    floats work. Again, without looking at your code, I would bet
    quids, you are floating things in a container div that has a
    background but little content, little ordinary content in the
    flow, (inline text, inline pics, ordinary unpositioned elements).

    I will try to explain later, if you are still around, why this is
    so but basically it is this, keep saying it to yourself. In good
    standards compliant browsers, parents do *not* recognise their
    floated children. They simply do not see them and so they do not
    grow their heights to envelop them. IE does but the parents in IE
    are from quite a different culture. This is not just silly talk,
    it is a way to picture the thing. By default a div has no height.
    It has 100% width but no height. It does not get height if all it
    has is floated children. It does not get height unless a higher
    power, the author, forces it to have height with a css height
    instruction. Your parent must have some content otherwise it
    would not be even be any high at all in Safari or my FF.

    Floated children do "see" their parents. The relations between
    parents and children of different kinds is actually a complicated
    one (some people will tell you it is simple, but that is not so).
    There are all the recommended rules as set by say CSS 2.1 and
    4.01 and then there is the implementation of these rules by
    different browsers. And you can be either struck by the
    similarities or by the differences. Both are quite remarkable and
    an interesting story.

    Ah... perhaps I should mention, there are ways to get the parent
    to get the height you might want without specifying a height: put
    something into the flow after all the floats. Just before the
    closing of the parent whose background you need to grow,
    put in



    and it will happen for you.


    >
    > I've also tried a version of this page with the leafy background on
    > the body instead, and this is
    >
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex2.php,
    >
    > although I've only placed it on the centre layer as it is a just
    > test. Don't you think readability is affected? Perhaps if I made it
    > much plaer than what it is could work, but is it worthy?
    >

    Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. On *no account* spoil the
    nice clean white background of your text. I was suggesting to try
    the leafy bg on the body itself but make sure the bg to the cols
    is unsullied, be specific and give the cols a white background or
    something nice and plain so the background is not transparent or
    inheriting unwanted stuff. Nothing is worse than pesky
    interference with your text.

    > Again, I'd like to thank all that added their support here. When I
    > studied Wed Design and Web Developing at this CIW course 3 years ago
    > all they taught you was: design for the most common smaller screen
    > resolution (width: 800px then), use tables and px font sizing, even
    > though they did mention CSS2, and W3C guidelines on usability,
    > alternative browsers, etc. Quite contraddictory... So I'm learning
    > HTML design from scratch again at the moment.

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 15.11.2007 14:32:31 von Nick

    On Nov 10, 12:07 am, dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <1194647674.467584.30...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    >
    >
    > Nick wrote:
    > > On Nov 9, 8:48 pm, dorayme wrote:
    > > > In article
    > > > <1194604873.965413.132...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    > > > Nick wrote:
    > > > > alternativeherbal.co.uk/newexperiment2.php
    >
    > > > (sorry I'm not able to test Safari on Mac
    > > > > at the moment, but Mac user are welcome to let me know).
    >
    > > > But there are problems. I won't look at your code at all for now.
    >
    > > > First, a single click up of font-size starts
    > > > to break the design.
    > > > Take you a few mins only to be rid of that Supplement Facts pic
    > > > and make a simple table which will be readable because crisper
    > > > even if smaller and will enlarge naturally with built in browser
    > > > controls. At the *very least*, fix the enlargement link
    > > > mechanics. You using js and sizing the window? Well, be more
    > > > generous in the size, especially the height, it gets cut off
    > > > after the Cellulose, Gelatin, line on Safari and FF too (that's 2
    > > > out of 2, won't look further)
    >
    > > > It looks like you are not sizing the show and the cols right.
    > > > Given your content, no need to *not* allow it to shrink to 800px
    > > > wide and be readable...
    >
    > > > Frankly the first sign of trouble about fluidity was a semi
    > > > aesthetic thing I noticed. Why is the leafy background not on the
    > > > body itself, what is the *point* of not putting it on the body in
    > > > this design? Try it,
    >
    > > > still nice and pleasant a design anyway...
    >
    > > Hi Dorayme, thak you for saying you like the design. That's a good
    > > start at least. But I understand now about the font sizing up
    > > problem.
    >
    > > Answering your question about why the leafy background is not on the
    > > body itself: I think it may affect readability.
    >
    > > I'm finally on the way of a solution that could work with window
    > > variable sizing, and variable text sizing, and it is at
    >
    > >http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php
    >
    > > for the moment I've left out the header picture and the menu on the
    > > top, and using mix and max widths I seems to work when changing the
    > > browser size, and also the font size. I still haven't enlarged the
    > > basic font size to 100%, but that will soon follow, but at least now
    > > the font can be enlarged without too many probs, and it seems to work
    > > on browser windows as small as 370px width, but I am ancountering new
    > > problems.
    >
    > Now, at least from the users point of view, you are starting to
    > cook with gas. This is much better re window fluidity, needless
    > horiz scroll bars. Well done. (Still have not examined your code)
    >
    >
    >
    > > The leafy background on the background, that is in div.main element
    > > containing all the others, takes all browser window in IE7, that's not
    > > too bad, but have a look at what happens in Firefox: the background of
    > > the container div doesn't size up to the height and width div.centre-
    > > left, div.centre, and div.centre-right-cats. Look at Opera, even
    > > worse, not only the background doesn't automatically sizes as in IE7,
    > > but the two DIVs to the right are positioned to the bottom of the
    > > other two.
    >
    > > I'm sure there is a simple explanation to this, but I haven't managed
    > > to find it so far, so help is appreciated.
    >
    > Ah, yes, this looks for all the world like something that puzzles
    > many people who have not got a good model in their head for how
    > floats work. Again, without looking at your code, I would bet
    > quids, you are floating things in a container div that has a
    > background but little content, little ordinary content in the
    > flow, (inline text, inline pics, ordinary unpositioned elements).
    >
    > I will try to explain later, if you are still around, why this is
    > so but basically it is this, keep saying it to yourself. In good
    > standards compliant browsers, parents do *not* recognise their
    > floated children. They simply do not see them and so they do not
    > grow their heights to envelop them. IE does but the parents in IE
    > are from quite a different culture. This is not just silly talk,
    > it is a way to picture the thing. By default a div has no height.
    > It has 100% width but no height. It does not get height if all it
    > has is floated children. It does not get height unless a higher
    > power, the author, forces it to have height with a css height
    > instruction. Your parent must have some content otherwise it
    > would not be even be any high at all in Safari or my FF.
    >
    > Floated children do "see" their parents. The relations between
    > parents and children of different kinds is actually a complicated
    > one (some people will tell you it is simple, but that is not so).
    > There are all the recommended rules as set by say CSS 2.1 and
    > 4.01 and then there is the implementation of these rules by
    > different browsers. And you can be either struck by the
    > similarities or by the differences. Both are quite remarkable and
    > an interesting story.
    >
    > Ah... perhaps I should mention, there are ways to get the parent
    > to get the height you might want without specifying a height: put
    > something into the flow after all the floats. Just before the
    > closing of the parent whose background you need to grow,
    > put in
    >
    >


    >
    > and it will happen for you.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I've also tried a version of this page with the leafy background on
    > > the body instead, and this is
    >
    > >http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex2.php,
    >
    > > although I've only placed it on the centre layer as it is a just
    > > test. Don't you think readability is affected? Perhaps if I made it
    > > much plaer than what it is could work, but is it worthy?
    >
    > Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. On *no account* spoil the
    > nice clean white background of your text. I was suggesting to try
    > the leafy bg on the body itself but make sure the bg to the cols
    > is unsullied, be specific and give the cols a white background or
    > something nice and plain so the background is not transparent or
    > inheriting unwanted stuff. Nothing is worse than pesky
    > interference with your text.
    >
    > > Again, I'd like to thank all that added their support here. When I
    > > studied Wed Design and Web Developing at this CIW course 3 years ago
    > > all they taught you was: design for the most common smaller screen
    > > resolution (width: 800px then), use tables and px font sizing, even
    > > though they did mention CSS2, and W3C guidelines on usability,
    > > alternative browsers, etc. Quite contraddictory... So I'm learning
    > > HTML design from scratch again at the moment.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme

    Thank you for the explanation about children and parents elemtens.

    Following your suggestion I've managed to get the parent div "main" to
    get the right length (based on the children's). (see
    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php).

    I've added the menu and the header picture now, but I would like the 3
    floated div elements at the bottom to be centred in syntony with the
    content above (header picture + links made from unordered links).

    I understand that the problem comes from of the fact that they are
    floated elements. Researching on the internet the only way I've found
    to centre them requires using margin-right and margin-left to auto,
    but this would only work if one sets a fixed width (such as 980px,
    good for a 1024px monitor), but I'd rather not do this as it would
    make the design less flexible for different screen resolutions and
    browser sizes as it is now.

    I was just wondering whether you knew any other solutions to achieve
    this.

    I've also made the font-size larger, but not 1em / 100%, as the font-
    size seems to big to me when I've done that. I don't know if this is
    the same to you, or others, but you can see a trial 1em font-size page
    in http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex2.php. Anyway, enlarging
    the font-size in http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php doesn't
    make the page layout fall apart, like earlier, so this shouldn't
    matter too much now, should it?

    Thank you.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 15.11.2007 14:58:28 von a.nony.mous

    Nick wrote:

    > I've also made the font-size larger, but not 1em / 100%, as the font-
    > size seems to big to me when I've done that.

    Then you need to adjust your *own* browser's default size.

    Use body { font-size: 100%; }
    and then make minor adjustments for headings and legalese. Leave all the
    other font-sizing out.
    http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 15.11.2007 15:31:08 von Nick

    On Nov 15, 1:58 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    wrote:
    > Nick wrote:
    > > I've also made the font-size larger, but not 1em / 100%, as the font-
    > > size seems to big to me when I've done that.
    >
    > Then you need to adjust your *own* browser's default size.
    >
    > Use body { font-size: 100%; }
    > and then make minor adjustments for headings and legalese. Leave all the
    > other font-sizing out.http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

    Sure, I'll have a go at that later.

    But have you got any ideas about the other problem?

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 15.11.2007 16:06:48 von a.nony.mous

    Nick wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >> Nick wrote:
    >>> I've also made the font-size larger, but not 1em / 100%, as the
    >>> font- size seems to big to me when I've done that.
    >>
    >> Then you need to adjust your *own* browser's default size.
    >>
    >> Use body { font-size: 100%; }
    >> and then make minor adjustments for headings and legalese. Leave all
    >> the other font-sizing out.http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
    >
    > Sure, I'll have a go at that later.

    Why not do it now, so you don't have to go farking about with it after
    you fix the rest, and find out you have to alter sizing once again?

    > But have you got any ideas about the other problem?

    1. I would not use explicitly sized columns. "Categories" would
    float right. "About Us" would float left. "Suggested Product"
    would take the remainder of whatever the browser window was
    opened to (size).
    2. I would scrap this image:
    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/images/header-new.gif
    in favor of just the center portion of it, and center it
    in a banner, with the leaves as a background image,
    repeated horizontally. Hints on centering banner:
    http://k75s.home.att.net/banner.html
    3. I would use HTML 4.01 Strict, instead of Transitional. These are
    new pages, and you aren't 'transitioning' from any legacy pages.
    4. I would continually check the validators and correct errors.



    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 15.11.2007 20:54:01 von dorayme

    In article
    <4f005925-7b2d-46c9-82ed-392efb7a20bf@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
    >,
    Nick wrote:
    >
    > Thank you for the explanation about children and parents elemtens.
    >
    > Following your suggestion I've managed to get the parent div "main" to
    > get the right length (based on the children's). (see
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex.php).
    >
    > I've added the menu and the header picture now, but I would like the 3
    > floated div elements at the bottom to be centred in syntony with the
    > content above (header picture + links made from unordered links).
    >
    .....
    >
    > I was just wondering whether you knew any other solutions to achieve
    > this.
    >

    Looking better still now, Nick. I have a couple of thoughts for
    you (to limit the number), one about your header, the other about
    the centering. First the header, it may seem a minor aesthetic
    thing to you but, imo, makes a difference. Try the gif I made of
    it at:

    http://netweaver.com.au/test/nick/header-new.gif

    and see if it suits. I tested it on your site and it looks good.
    It is just the same as yours but with a transparent bg. It then
    sits much more naturally on your nice leafy background. Not so
    "rectangular...I am a header see" look about it . In fact,
    this would be a really good candidate for fluid dimensioning as
    it should surely look about as good contracted horizontally as it
    would stretched horizontally. That way it could grow and contract
    with the browser/screen settings of the user.

    BTW, a sophistication would be to substitute real html text in
    the pic and remove the pic text (I say this because while Macs do
    a fabulous job of resizing pics in some browsers, Windows do not
    cut the mustard and this really reveals itself when you try this
    sort of thing with pictured text, the text gets the jaggies even
    when resized in the browser *down* from a high quality original!

    About centering... It can get complicated with your code and
    widths but perhaps i will be bold and simply suggest the
    following and see how you feel, it looks fine to me and sort of
    fits in with what I imagine is your taste:

    (1) In your divpositioning stylesheet, substitute for your
    div.main, the following:

    div.main {

    border: 4px groove #2f2;
    padding-bottom:1em;
    width:55em;
    margin:auto;
    margin-top:1em;
    margin-bottom:1em;
    background-image:url(images/leaffade.gif);
    }

    I personally would add font-size: 100% to body. At 4.30am this
    morning your lesser size did look nicer to my eye. Now at 6.30 I
    would be grateful of 100% to fit in with my settings (I tire
    easily . But if you make it a little less than 100% the sky
    will not fall in. Who goes in for all this herbal stuff, older
    people (with poorer vision) wanting to delay death? Maybe more
    than 100% rather than less then...

    and

    (2) I think I would favour in the html:


    src="http://netweaver.com.au/test/nick/header-new.gif"
    alt="Alternative Herbal - Alternative Medicine and Herbal
    Supplements">

    I took the liberty of making the header pic transparent (you can
    get it from the url there) to remove that "I am a header,
    rectangular" look. It sort of looks more natural floating on the
    background this way.

    But important to note, you had:


    Alternative Herbal - <br />
Alternative Medicine and Herbal Supplements width="980">

    and I have changed this considerably in function above. It is
    simpler and grows with the wrapper of main div. Or it should!

    Have a play, this may suit you.

    Other things to play with are the em width (55 may be a bit
    high), another thing to consider (I have raised it before is to
    put the leafy bg on the body itself (rather than main) and let
    the website content float on it.

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 16.11.2007 07:35:03 von Bone Ur

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:54:01 GMT
    dorayme scribed:

    >> I was just wondering whether you knew any other solutions to achieve
    >> this.
    >>
    >
    > Looking better still now, Nick. I have a couple of thoughts for
    > you (to limit the number), one about your header, the other about
    > the centering. First the header, it may seem a minor aesthetic
    > thing to you but, imo, makes a difference. Try the gif I made of
    > it at:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/test/nick/header-new.gif

    Not bad, but I took your cue and believe I came up with something just a
    little more eye-catching. Whaddya think?

    http://www.neredbojias.com/tester/header_better.gif

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 16.11.2007 22:12:56 von dorayme

    In article ,
    Bone Ur wrote:

    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:54:01 GMT
    > dorayme scribed:
    >
    > >> I was just wondering whether you knew any other solutions to achieve
    > >> this.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Looking better still now, Nick. I have a couple of thoughts for
    > > you (to limit the number), one about your header, the other about
    > > the centering. First the header, it may seem a minor aesthetic
    > > thing to you but, imo, makes a difference. Try the gif I made of
    > > it at:
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/test/nick/header-new.gif
    >
    > Not bad, but I took your cue and believe I came up with something just a
    > little more eye-catching. Whaddya think?
    >
    > http://www.neredbojias.com/tester/header_better.gif

    No you misunderstand. The aim is not to tamper with the image, to
    respect the choice of the OP and therefore to dampen the drums of
    war between countries. My change was merely to transparent the
    original background.

    Your mouse could mean war and you know what that can involve (see
    Robert Redford's latest film).

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 17.11.2007 00:15:19 von Bone Ur

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:12:56
    GMT dorayme scribed:

    >> > Looking better still now, Nick. I have a couple of thoughts for
    >> > you (to limit the number), one about your header, the other about
    >> > the centering. First the header, it may seem a minor aesthetic
    >> > thing to you but, imo, makes a difference. Try the gif I made of
    >> > it at:
    >> >
    >> > http://netweaver.com.au/test/nick/header-new.gif
    >>
    >> Not bad, but I took your cue and believe I came up with something
    >> just a little more eye-catching. Whaddya think?
    >>
    >> http://www.neredbojias.com/tester/header_better.gif
    >
    > No you misunderstand. The aim is not to tamper with the image, to
    > respect the choice of the OP and therefore to dampen the drums of
    > war between countries. My change was merely to transparent the
    > original background.

    Oh, I see. Er, I mean I don't see (-the background, that is.) But still,
    you've got to admit that my image is cooler than the original.

    > Your mouse could mean war and you know what that can involve (see
    > Robert Redford's latest film).

    Dunno the film but the last time I was involved in a mouse war was during
    the halcyon days of junior high school. And it's a gerbil, not a mouse.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 18.11.2007 15:43:40 von Nick

    Thank you for your suggestions dorayme, I really appreciate the time
    you spent trying to make all fit with my design. But after a bit of
    playing around I realized that I prefered to set for a design that
    adapts itself to different resolutions and browser widths.

    I have managed to find a solution which allows a centered look + keep
    adaptability to different browser widths.

    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex-fluid2.php

    I've also changed the size of the basic font-size to 100%, as sugested
    by Beauregard.

    I'm still using HTML4.01 Transitional, and the main reason is because
    if I try to set it to Strict the validator asks me to put a type="submit" tag in the form, and in that way I wouldn't be able to
    use an image to launch the search - apparently HTML 4.01 Strict must
    have a advantage to look cuter and also to take less space than the "Submit"
    button, important on smaller screen sizes.

    Trying to go strict also gives me an error that I don't understand:

    # Error Line 57, Column 81: document type does not allow element
    "INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5", "H6",
    "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag.

    ....box" maxlength="30" class="searchbox">

    ....but DIV is not missing, it is situated exactly before the INPUT
    tag.

    Anyway, the only thing I'm not sure yet is the top image. I cut the
    central / text part of it and made of the full coloured leaf part a
    background image. This way it is adapts moer easily to different
    screen and browser sizes. Still, it doesn't look too bad either.

    Thank you to both of you for being so very responsive.

    I am waiting for your comments.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 18.11.2007 19:31:42 von Bone Ur

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:43:40 GMT
    Nick scribed:

    > Trying to go strict also gives me an error that I don't understand:
    >
    > # Error Line 57, Column 81: document type does not allow element
    > "INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5", "H6",
    > "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag.
    >
    > ...box" maxlength="30" class="searchbox">
    >
    > ...but DIV is not missing, it is situated exactly before the INPUT
    > tag.

    Not that I see:


    class="searchbox">


    Some block element as cited must be _inside_ the form and contain the
    input. (Just for the record, though, I think it's stupid, too.)

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 19.11.2007 10:04:13 von Nick

    >
    >

    > > class="searchbox">
    >
    >

    You are right! The solution was so easy and I didn't see it! I
    looked at the DIV before FORM, but in the error message clearly
    mentioned INPUT, and not FORM.

    It is a HTML 4.01 Strict now.

    I still would like to hear about what you think about the image at the
    top, and the general look of the page. It is much more flexible than
    the original, but soemtimes if I maximize my 24" screen it looks to me
    less glamorous than the previous one, perhaps because of all the empty
    spaces that appear within the design whereas before they appeared
    outside the design. I still hope it can make people want to buy the
    products.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 19.11.2007 13:34:00 von Nick

    I just wanted to add that the original page can be seen at
    http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/index-OLD.php, just to have an idea of
    what changes there have been in the look.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 19.11.2007 21:20:12 von Bone Ur

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:34:00 GMT
    Nick scribed:

    > I just wanted to add that the original page can be seen at
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/index-OLD.php, just to have an idea of
    > what changes there have been in the look.

    I like the new one much better. However, I understand your point about the
    "empty spaces". Perhaps judicious use of max-width (in ems) can limit the
    expansion for large, hi-rez monitors. Won't work in ie6, but who cares?
    It should be "transparent" anyway.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 20.11.2007 00:19:50 von dorayme

    In article
    m>,
    Nick wrote:

    > Thank you for your suggestions dorayme, I really appreciate the time
    > you spent trying to make all fit with my design. But after a bit of
    > playing around I realized that I prefered to set for a design that
    > adapts itself to different resolutions and browser widths.
    >
    > I have managed to find a solution which allows a centered look + keep
    > adaptability to different browser widths.
    >
    > http://alternativeherbal.co.uk/newindex-fluid2.php

    If you do not make money via your site now, it will not be for
    any matters of design. You can go on improving and tightening and
    simplifying and fixing various things... no time to poke through
    your code now, but I can say I find your white header
    disconcerting, perhaps it is the colour of the text, the fixed
    white rectangular background to the imaged words, floating about
    on top of that nice leafy bg. But this is just a matter of
    personal taste, I am sure. I'd still buy your pills.

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 21.11.2007 04:31:15 von Nick

    On 19 Nov, 23:19, dorayme wrote:

    > I can say I find your white header
    > disconcerting, perhaps it is the colour of the text, the fixed
    > white rectangular background to the imaged words, floating about
    > on top of that nice leafy bg. But this is just a matter of
    > personal taste, I am sure. I'd still buy your pills.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme

    I've tweaked the header, at https://alternativeherval.co.uk. Do you
    reckon is any better now? Or maybe should I put a different
    background color?

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 21.11.2007 05:02:30 von dorayme

    In article
    >,
    Nick wrote:

    > On 19 Nov, 23:19, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > I can say I find your white header
    > > disconcerting, perhaps it is the colour of the text, the fixed
    > > white rectangular background to the imaged words, floating about
    > > on top of that nice leafy bg. But this is just a matter of
    > > personal taste, I am sure. I'd still buy your pills.
    > >
    > > --
    > > dorayme
    >
    > I've tweaked the header, at https://alternativeherval.co.uk. Do you
    > reckon is any better now? Or maybe should I put a different
    > background color?

    I can't open this url?

    Perhaps I can make this suggestion: make the background white to
    it transparent. make the text a bolder colour, it is a bit lurid
    green as it appears on my machine? What about using exactly the
    colour of the links just under it. That is a darker, more
    pleasant green and making it the same will unify the design a
    bit. While you are it. consider making the background to the
    header in the middle col the same as te side panels and use the
    same coloured text in all three, further unifying and simplifying
    the look... simple is a good direction.

    I will say again, well done getting the show to contract and
    expand on window resize.

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 21.11.2007 06:18:25 von a.nony.mous

    dorayme wrote:

    > Nick wrote:
    >> I've tweaked the header, at https://alternativeherval.co.uk. Do you
    >> reckon is any better now? Or maybe should I put a different
    >> background color?
    >
    > I can't open this url?

    It's "herbal", not "herval" and it's not "https" ... ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 21.11.2007 22:04:50 von dorayme

    In article
    ,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > Nick wrote:
    > >> I've tweaked the header, at https://alternativeherval.co.uk. Do you
    > >> reckon is any better now? Or maybe should I put a different
    > >> background color?
    > >
    > > I can't open this url?
    >
    > It's "herbal", not "herval" and it's not "https" ... ;-)

    Ah, yes, thanks B, I did try the http but did not notice the b,
    perhaps too anxious to get to my swim late avo...

    Anyway, this reminds me. To OP:

    Consider removing

    #top {

    background-color: #fff;
    background-image:url(images/leaffade.gif);
    ....
    }

    And let the body bg leaf (the same) shine through. No need to be
    backgrounding every section with the same bg.

    This heading not only has the white background (I do understand
    your possible motivation for it: to give the words a bg that they
    stand out on) but I reckon the attempt to mimic the bg leaves on
    the image is not altogether successful. I realise you do have a
    little design problem here, how to lay text that looks natural on
    top of a leafy bg and that is why you went to such a bright
    (lurid to me, maybe I am wary of green?) green text.

    I would be tempted to ditch the extra fiddle of the *dark green*
    leaf background that sits above yet another background, the more
    pervasive lighter green leaf body background. Either plain colour
    bg for the header or simply let the body bg shine though the
    header too might be better.

    I would be inclined to not have so thickly bold the text in
    a.menu:link

    In fact, try this for looks:

    (1) a.menu:link {color:#fff; ... (get rid of bold and adjust
    other links for visited etc. Let the background be the same as
    for #top but see next point)

    (2) #top {background: #060;}

    (3} Remove the dark green leafy background from the header and
    let the body bg shine through

    (4) Use a less high and more consistent-with-the-colour-scheme
    heading image of text (if you want to use an image) like
    something I knocked up which you are welcome to have and download
    at:

    http://netweaver.com.au/alt/nick/nick_header.gif

    The sort of look I got by doing above was (and this is a
    screenshot, no time for better):

    http://netweaver.com.au/alt/nick/nick_top_webpage.png

    --
    dorayme

    Re: HTML on Firefox 2

    am 21.11.2007 22:28:50 von dorayme

    In article
    ,
    dorayme wrote:

    errata:

    > did not notice the b,

    should read "did not notice the v"

    or

    "did not notice the b was not there and a v was there by mistake".

    > This heading not only has the white background (I do understand

    refers to the heading with the curved text (not to #top)

    --
    dorayme