«

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message news:<kl9rd.54153$>...
> Aquila Deus wrote:
>
> > Oh... all right, now I really have to add mozilla/opera-specific code....
> ffff!
>
> If your HTML and CSS were not so incredibly complex you would not need to.
>
> When I looked at the source to find out what this thread is about I simply
> could not believe it. I had to go back to my browser to see if anything was
> hiding under the fold. Pages and pages of HTML for what looks to be a quite
> simple menu.

Yes, but mozilla and IE handle many CSS properties differently. And W3
doesn't define all details.

Aquila Deus wrote:
> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:<kl9rd.54153$>...

> > If your HTML and CSS were not so incredibly complex you would not need
to.

> Yes, but mozilla and IE handle many CSS properties differently.

Yes, we know that. All browsers render things somewhat differently.

> And W3
> doesn't define all details.

And why should they. They are there to supply the recommendations, not
comment on browser differences. The rest of the web and the newsgroups do
that.

You also entirely missed the point. Your code is *complex*. Way too complex.
Nesting tables within divs within tables within whatever and then throwing
three files full of CSS at the lot is *bound* to make some browser barf. You
have used a whole forest full of trees to construct one simple dog house.

Rewrite it, keeping it real simple. I would not expect more than one
screenfull of HTML and one of CSS and *no* javascript.

If a simple menu takes up so much code space I shudder to think what the
entire page will be like. Start simple now or that page will continue to
bite you

Oh, you might also validate the code. Things like </my:MenuItem> are
probably not helping.

--
Cheers
Richard.

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message news:<bjgrd.54906$>...
> Aquila Deus wrote:
> > "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<kl9rd.54153$>...
>
> > > If your HTML and CSS were not so incredibly complex you would not need
> to.
>
> > Yes, but mozilla and IE handle many CSS properties differently.
>
> Yes, we know that. All browsers render things somewhat differently.
>
> > And W3
> > doesn't define all details.
>
> And why should they. They are there to supply the recommendations, not
> comment on browser differences. The rest of the web and the newsgroups do
> that.

No, I mean W3's CSS should be very very clear. There should not be
anything vague or undefined. We all know IE isn't standard-compatible,
but it would be worse if other browsers which try to be compatible
can't find way to go.

>
> You also entirely missed the point. Your code is *complex*. Way too complex.
> Nesting tables within divs within tables within whatever and then throwing
> three files full of CSS at the lot is *bound* to make some browser barf. You
> have used a whole forest full of trees to construct one simple dog house.

complex code is not a problem, since it's not really plain html but
ASP.NET code. You could view the code at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/aqdhome/AqDHome/

>
> Rewrite it, keeping it real simple. I would not expect more than one
> screenfull of HTML and one of CSS and *no* javascript.
>
> If a simple menu takes up so much code space I shudder to think what the
> entire page will be like. Start simple now or that page will continue to
> bite you
>
> Oh, you might also validate the code. Things like </my:MenuItem> are
> probably not helping.

Ah, I have removed it

Aquila Deus wrote:
> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:<bjgrd.54906$>...

> > You also entirely missed the point. Your code is *complex*. Way too
complex.

> complex code is not a problem, since it's not really plain html but
> ASP.NET code. You could view the code at
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/aqdhome/AqDHome/

But complex code *is* your problem. Why are you here asking why your borders
don't work in certain browsers? The answer is because you have complex code.
The fact that it is spat out by asp is irrelevant, it *is* "plain HTML" by
the time it gets to the browser.

You have complex nested tables and divs and it is upsetting the browsers. If
you had *simple* code then the browsers would not get upset, your borders
would not break and you would not be here asking for help.

Simpify the HTML. Simplify the CSS. When you do that your problem will
disappear.

Can it be any more simple than that?

--
Cheers
Richard.

rf wrote:

> Simpify the HTML. Simplify the CSS. When you do that your problem will
> disappear.

Tada!

Original:
http://www.aquila-deus.no-ip.org/AqDHome/

Rewrite:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/aqdhome/page

Simple HTML. Mainly pretty simple CSS (though there's a lot of it). No
javascript.

Tested in:

- Opera 7 for Windows
- Opera 7.5 for Linux
- Mozilla 1.0 for Windows
- Mozilla 1.6 for Linux
- Firefox 0.9 for Windows
- Internet Explorer 6 for Windows

Works in all of them.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster wrote:
> rf wrote:
>
> > Simpify the HTML. Simplify the CSS. When you do that your problem will
> > disappear.
>
> Tada!

You beat me to it

> Original:
> http://www.aquila-deus.no-ip.org/AqDHome/
>
> Rewrite:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/aqdhome/page
>
> Simple HTML. Mainly pretty simple CSS (though there's a lot of it). No
> javascript.

Very well done sir!

A quarter of a page of HTML and only two of CSS.

> Tested in:

FWIW IE5.5 has a problem with the content. It's all wordwrapped to one word
per line. Nothing insurmountable though, the odd IE hack would fix it. Also
a couple of artifacts in IE 5.01, some blank space in the graphics. Once
again no problem and, probably, who cares.

An aging opera 6 doesn't like it but who cares.

It linearizes quite properly, and very neatly, in IE3 and lynx, something
the original does *not* do.

I wonder now how the value of "simple code" will be apreciated

--
Cheers
Richard.

Toby Inkster <> wrote in message news:< o.uk>...
> rf wrote:
>
> > Simpify the HTML. Simplify the CSS. When you do that your problem will
> > disappear.
>
> Tada!
>
> Original:
> http://www.aquila-deus.no-ip.org/AqDHome/
>
> Rewrite:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/aqdhome/page
>
> Simple HTML. Mainly pretty simple CSS (though there's a lot of it). No
> javascript.
>
> Tested in:
>
> - Opera 7 for Windows
> - Opera 7.5 for Linux
> - Mozilla 1.0 for Windows
> - Mozilla 1.6 for Linux
> - Firefox 0.9 for Windows
> - Internet Explorer 6 for Windows
>
> Works in all of them.

Very nice

But I can't accept, because padding and margin may be screwed under
some conditions, and I can't predict what there will be in the left
content pane. (even the menu pane may have other things)... that's why
I use <td> with <img> everywhere instead, to enforce the final layout.

Aquila Deus wrote:
> Toby Inkster <> wrote in message

> > http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/aqdhome/page

> Very nice
>
> But I can't accept,

Then you are a bloody idiot and your problems will remain until your web
site dies.

--
Cheers
Richard.

rf wrote:

> It linearizes quite properly, and very neatly, in IE3 and lynx, something
> the original does *not* do.

Of course it does. Minus tables and some such, I tend to do most of my
initial HTML testing in Lynx (then I do most of my initial CSS and
Javascript testing in Opera).

My favourite bit is the sneaky dual use of the skiplink class.

Yeah, I know about the Opera 6 and IE 5.x problems. It's a shame. I do try
to get most of my CSS layouts working in Opera 3.62+, but it's not always
possible. IE 5.x can be worked around with one or two tiny hacks, but I
wanted to keep the example as simple as possible.

(There's only one thing in it that I'd class as a hack -- the last 4 lines
of the CSS. IE doesn't like the right margin -- prefers padding; Moz
doesn't like right padding -- prefers margin; Opera doesn't mind either.)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Aquila Deus wrote:

> But I can't accept, because padding and margin may be screwed under
> some conditions, and I can't predict what there will be in the left
> content pane.

But it ought to give you some ideas on how your menu can be simplified.

I'm sure there is some kind of compromise to which you can come -- e.g. a
single layout table to create the initial two-column effect, but then CSS
to layout the menu *within* that column.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact