Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > IE css problems only on win XP

Reply
Thread Tools

IE css problems only on win XP

 
 
Fredo Vincentis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
"brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
news:bslobc$e7luu$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> in post <news:bsln1i$1anc$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Fredo Vincentis said:
>
> >>> Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?

>
> >> none specifically just all of them

>
> > That is not really useful to me.

>
> i don't think its fair for you to expect me to go through your markup to
> correct the errors to see if that fixes the problem or not and then let
> you know if it worked. errors should have been checked for and corrected
> before you posted.


Brucie, did I ask you to go and correct my errors? My post is purely to find
out whether anybody had any problems with browsers on XP. You came up with a
comment claiming that my code was full of HTML and CSS errors. What do you
expect me to do? Of course I ask you what you are talking about.

You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a simple
question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
problem.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
in post <news:bslps3$1bfn$(E-Mail Removed)>
Fredo Vincentis said:

> You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a simple
> question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
> problem.


the fist step is always to fix your errors so you can know if its a
problem with your markup or a problem with the browser. if you don't fix
the errors you're just bumbling around without any idea what may be the
cause of the problem or the solution.

--
brucie
28/December/2003 05:35:04 pm kilo
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
Fredo Vincentis wrote:

>Brucie, did I ask you to go and correct my errors? My post is purely to find
>out whether anybody had any problems with browsers on XP. You came up with a
>comment claiming that my code was full of HTML and CSS errors. What do you
>expect me to do? Of course I ask you what you are talking about.


http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003

"Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bsld7u$18ao$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
> news:bsjdh6$ddfj0$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> > in post <news:bsj5ju$gn1$(E-Mail Removed)>
> > Fredo Vincentis said:
> >
> > > I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows

XP
> > > displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000.

> >
> > IE may also display a page differently depending if its online or local.
> >
> > > To be more precise: if you look at the website
> > > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au,

> >
> > fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.

>
> Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?


These ones, for a start
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...index_html.php

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003

"Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bsloaj$1b3s$(E-Mail Removed)...

> I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
> mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the

URLs
> (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
> layers to overlap in Windows XP.


Your code should validate. If it does not then there is no point in looking
for any errors in it, the errors that are there cloud the issue.

> I assume we are rather talking about a css problem, but I do not know what
> could cause this behavior in XP.


I really don't think this emphasis on XP is valid. There is nothing special
about XP, it is merely Windows NT release 5.1. I suppose there is one
special thing about it, it ships with IE6. This is what you should be
talking about. IE6.

> I don't have an XP machine here to test it,
> either.


You don't need one. Simply download IE6. It fits quite nicely even into 98.
The only cost is the bandwidth usage.

> So if there is anybody out there who could confirm whether the
> problem really occurs all the time, that would be helpful.


I don't see your particular problem but I do see many others.

You might rethink the whole concept of placing something at the bottom of
the canvas. What is wrong with the bottom of the page and in any case it
sometimes does not work:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/1.jpg

You might also reconsider specifying font sizes in pixels, or specifying
font size at all. One day somebody is going to get cranky about your small
fonts and the fact that they cannot be changed in IE and choose to ignore
your suggestions and then your carefully crafted positioning will screw up
on you:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/2.jpg

You might also consider testing your page in other browsers:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/3.jpg

Of course your horrendously long title hides the fact that this is a
screenshot of Mozilla

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003

"Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bslps3$1bfn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
> news:bslobc$e7luu$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> > in post <news:bsln1i$1anc$(E-Mail Removed)>
> > Fredo Vincentis said:

>
> You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a

simple
> question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
> problem.


Oh come on. You complain about an error in your code. brucie points out the
errors in your code and you get cranky?

How do we know for sure that absolutely none of the errors the validator is
reporting is the error that is relevant to your problem?

I'll just bet that if you correct all the errors the validator reports then
your problem will go away.

If it does not then the error is an error in your design. These are *far*
easier to fix when it is *known* that there are no other errors that may be
causing IE's rather dubious error correction to kick in and do all sorts of
weird things.

OTOH you *may* be falling into one of IE's many bugs but once again how can
we tell if your HTML is not valid to start with?

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Fredo Vincentis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
"rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JVzHb.68060$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bsloaj$1b3s$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
> > mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the

> URLs
> > (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
> > layers to overlap in Windows XP.

>
> Your code should validate. If it does not then there is no point in

looking
> for any errors in it, the errors that are there cloud the issue.
>
> > I assume we are rather talking about a css problem, but I do not know

what
> > could cause this behavior in XP.

>
> I really don't think this emphasis on XP is valid. There is nothing

special
> about XP, it is merely Windows NT release 5.1. I suppose there is one
> special thing about it, it ships with IE6. This is what you should be
> talking about. IE6.


Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is that I
tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine. The only users that
mentioned it does not work are people using IE 6 on XP. This is what causes
my headache.

> You might rethink the whole concept of placing something at the bottom of
> the canvas. What is wrong with the bottom of the page and in any case it
> sometimes does not work:
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/1.jpg


It only appears at the bottom of the canvas if the content of the site does
not exceed the height of the canvas. In the case of the screenshot I assume
the content + space afterwards was longer?

Normally I am happy with putting images at the bottom of the page, but in
this particular case I want to ensure that the image doesn't "hang" in the
middle of the page should the content be shorter than the window-height.

> You might also reconsider specifying font sizes in pixels, or specifying
> font size at all. One day somebody is going to get cranky about your small
> fonts and the fact that they cannot be changed in IE and choose to ignore
> your suggestions and then your carefully crafted positioning will screw up
> on you:
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/2.jpg


Rather than specifying font-size in pixels I am currently considering
specifying them in %. This is a design issue I have to address in the next
version of the site.

> You might also consider testing your page in other browsers:
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/3.jpg


I have tested the site in Netscape 7 and IE 5+6 for both PC and Mac as well
as on Safari (Mac) and Opera (PC) and it worked fine on all of them. Mozilla
slipped my tests and I guess it's Murphy's Law that it doesn't work there.
Should be addressed in the next version, I agree.





 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:

> http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php


> Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
> that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.


No it doesn't.

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna.../addictive.jpg 80KB

Windows 2000 Pro SP4
IE 6 SP1
Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
[x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
(because your font size is too small)
Browser at 800x600
Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)

There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.

> The
> only users that mentioned it does not work are people using IE 6 on
> XP. This is what causes my headache.


Consider it mentioned for other browsers as well. Your design falls
apart in many browsers. Opera 7.2 actually does a better job than any
of the other browsers I used.

Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
index.php ?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fredo Vincentis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OPDHb.4967$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:
>
> > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php

>
> > Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
> > that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.

>
> No it doesn't.
>
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna.../addictive.jpg 80KB
>
> Windows 2000 Pro SP4
> IE 6 SP1
> Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
> [x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
> (because your font size is too small)
> Browser at 800x600
> Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)
>
> There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
> pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.


Sorry, but I don't agree on this one: the site works in 800 x 600. Set your
monitor to the correct resolution and it will work. It works on all the
machines I have got standing right next to me.

The site works fine in IE 6 and all other browsers with the stylesheets as
defined. If the css are overwritten, I agree it does not look great, but the
site is accessible and that is what my client requires.

The font is not too small for the target audience specified.On a different
website I will use a different font-size, but this particular site addresses
the target audience just right.

> Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
> index.php ?


There are two versions of the site - a flash version and a html version.
index.php runs through a flash-detection and redirects the user accordingly.
So there is a file called index_html and a file called index_flash.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2003
Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:OPDHb.4967$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:
>>
>>> http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php

>>
>>>Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
>>>that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.

>>
>>No it doesn't.
>>
>>http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna.../addictive.jpg 80KB
>>
>>Windows 2000 Pro SP4
>>IE 6 SP1
>> Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
>> [x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
>> (because your font size is too small)
>>Browser at 800x600
>>Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)
>>
>>There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
>>pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.

>
> Sorry, but I don't agree on this one: the site works in 800 x 600. Set your
> monitor to the correct resolution and it will work. It works on all the
> machines I have got standing right next to me.


My monitor is set to my preference. Your page does show a scrollbar
with a window size of 800x600. Why would you want me to change my
resolution (which again is irrelevant) just for your site anyway? And
why would you want to design for one particular size?
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

> The site works fine in IE 6 and all other browsers with the stylesheets as
> defined. If the css are overwritten, I agree it does not look great, but the
> site is accessible and that is what my client requires.


So you think you can control the computers of all your visitors, then.
The visitors will never have a sidebar opened? You think everyone
browses with the window maximized?

> The font is not too small for the target audience specified.On a different
> website I will use a different font-size, but this particular site addresses
> the target audience just right.


Are you saying this site is targeted to /only/ young people with
excellent vision? How bold of you.

Maybe it's an intranet?

>>Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
>>index.php ?

>
> There are two versions of the site - a flash version and a html version.
> index.php runs through a flash-detection and redirects the user accordingly.
> So there is a file called index_html and a file called index_flash.


Ok, understood.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Applet to run on Win 98, Win ME, Win XP, Win Vista & Win 7 ?? Krist Java 6 05-06-2010 11:53 PM
loading problems in IE only - clipping only happens onload windandwaves HTML 1 04-10-2006 04:35 AM
Win 2k Pro can't see Win XP Home =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?= Wireless Networking 1 03-15-2005 09:20 PM
WIN XPsp2 - WIN 98se wireless network file sharing impossible =?Utf-8?B?WW91dmVz?= Wireless Networking 1 01-18-2005 09:40 PM
Laptop Win XL and PC with Win 98se Wireless Connection sam Wireless Networking 0 07-29-2004 07:05 PM



Advertisments