I need help... and a lot of it.

[Seph]

please delete

[Strike]

First of all, there are other units you can use other than a pixel, but I still don't see how your claim that CSS uses some weird non-standard pixel size as a pixel measurement can be right. If anything, whatever browser you are using is rendering the pixel size improperly and not supporting CSS properly (seeing as how the CSS standard is just that, a standard, not the actual renderer). Also, any web server should interpret <?xml ?> stuff as XML and XML alone and ignore it for PHP passes, only allowing <?php ?> and <? ?> to be interpreted for PHP. Look at example 4 here (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.xml.php), and you will see that they should be able to play together just fine.

[Seph]

please delete

[kmj]

Okay, I don't know much about CSS, but it's my impression whether or not your CSS stuff will work how you expect it to depends on the browser you're using, since the browser is what does the rendering. I also am under the impression that a number of browsers don't properly or fully support CSS. So.. what browser are you using?

[Seph]

please delete

[Strike]

were you kidding about the IE2.2 and NS3.0 stuff? I sure hope so

Anyway, IE 6.0 doesn't properly support CSS (though I would think it supports the px height correctly, but I can never tell with them). NS7.0 may or may not, I don't know, because I hate the Netscape releases. Mozilla 1.0 has excellent CSS support and fully supports CSS1 and almost fully supports CSS2 (iirc). Opera also has good CSS support and supports (almost, if not) all of CSS1 and a good deal of CSS2. How about a screenshot or two of what you are seeing?

[Nafae]

Yes, if you want to see your site the way it's coded, don't use netscape. It is probably one of the worst browsers on compatability. Try Mozilla, and IE. Even if IE isn't fully CSS compatable I would suggest you make your site compatable with IE, because MANY people use it.

[Seph]

please delete

[Strike]

This is the kind of shit that really irritates me:
"Only Internet Explorer users will be permitted to view it unless I find another browser which is worthy to even be used."

There are standards for a REASON. So these little "my browser standards better than yours" wars don't have to be - they can all support a common set of features, with whatever extra features they wish to add on. But, it should be a priority to support these standards first.

On another note, I didn't say IE didn't fully support CSS1, I said it didn't support CSS, which includes CSS2 which it doesn't fully support. Case in point:
http://strike.homelinux.org:81/~ddipaolo/misc/images/galeon-right.png versus
http://strike.homelinux.org:81/~ddipaolo/misc/images/ie-wrong.jpg
The lack of support for transparent PNGs isn't a CSS bug, but the blue outlines that you see are.

[tminos]

Originally posted by Strike
There are standards for a REASON.

standards have to be a good thing, look at how many of them we have.

[Strike]

Just to add more fuel to the fire, check out http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ in the latest IE and see how the navbar doesn't float on top of things and stay in the right place as seen in these pics:

http://strike.homelinux.org:81/~ddipaolo/misc/images/galeon-right2.png
http://strike.homelinux.org:81/~ddipaolo/misc/images/galeon-right3.png

[Nafae]

It's his decision if he wants to make his site only compatable for one browser, however a ...unique... decision that may be. I agree that sites should be developed for more than one browser, because I believe there are alot of browsers equal or better than IE. Just try chimera for OSX, it's no less than fantastic!

[imported_Gryphon]

He's only blocking probably less than 10% by only allowing IE. According to my logs, I have 95% of the users use IE. So making the site IE only wouldn't hurt much.

[Nafae]

When I last checked coderforums had a much higher percentage of "other" browsers, but we run on the fringe of geek society :p (just kidding!!)

Edit: This month we have had a total of 2,908,964 requests with MSIE, and 308,237 requests with Opera. Those are the top two browsers, but using my horrible head-math I think that's a bigger chunk than 5% after looking at all of the other browsers. Our number of Opera users has increased since last month, when it was only at 272k

[manual_overide]

Netscape 6 and higher will render pages the same as Mozilla. They both use the Gecko rendering engine. IE only supports a core of CSS1, while NS/Moz supports CSS1 completely. If you are designing webpages, you really should have access to mozilla or netscape AND IE.

It can be really frustrating to write special code for IE's limitations, but if your site looks the same in IE and NS/Moz, your users will really appreciate it.

[scanez]

Originally posted by Gryphon
So making the site IE only wouldn't hurt much.
And that makes it right? :rolleyes:

Why not write CORRECT STANDARD code and if IE doens't want to display it correctly, tough luck, maybe microsoft will get a clue someday.

[imported_Gryphon]

I never said it makes it right, did I? :rolleyes: My point had nothing to do with that, it was that if he wants to make it IE only, that is his porogative and the bitching from the 10% of the community isn't going to change that much.

I still don't know what code it is that IE is so terrible at, I must have never dug into CSS or anything; but heven forbid they make code people want to use. There is a reason people use IE code, and that isn't to comply with IE, it's because they like the result.

[recluse]

Dunno, seems like extra work to make IE only stuff then turn around make make special versions for everyone else. I don't know if Seph ever plans to do this for more than a hobby, but if he does any company that's worth it's weight in txt files will not be so happy to find out that you're making their site unreachable to customers.

[kmj]

heh.. "worth it's weight in txt files..." good one :tu: :)

[Seph]

please delete

[Strike]

uh, you mean the one that is in your sig?

[imported_Gryphon]

The one in his first post.

[Old Breadbutt]

sheesh. well I'm not going to get in on the browser war except to say that I prefer IE but code for both. Actually NN has wonderful Javascript debugging, something that I have yet to see in IE (I'm not saying that NN interprets Javascript better, just that it has better bug reporting and if you don't know what I mean then don't worry about it)

IE has always been easier to code for. I think genereally because it's much more forgiving. It will often let you get away with an unclosed tag and stuff like that, but is that a good thing? see thats one thing that I DO like about NN is that it's much more strict to standards, the problem is that, though it want's you to abide by standards to the letter, it doesn't support them very well. arrrhghh! the things I've had to do just to get an image to right align and link to a pop up! (and various other junk that IE handles like a dream)

I code for both, but from some work I've done on a major consumer site, I know that the numbers of people using NN are almost shockingly low. I think it was something less than 0.1% out of 70,000 users. about 70-90% were IE5-6 on PC. This is just one site and not a perfect cross section of users, but its a site that lots of different people would go to. (I don't mean to be secretive or anything, just don't want to mention a client's name outside of work)

so, you might try to see if your host can give you browser statistics.

[Seph]

please delete

[Old Breadbutt]

I'm crazy busy right now so I havn't looked at your page (I will when I get a sec), but one fix that sometimes works for me is to not only put your table cell in one line but the row tag and maybe even the whole table. (yeah it makes ugly code and it shouldn't have to be done but ... feh)

What I do is to remove the returns in my code, expanding out from the cell where there is a problem untill I see the extra space dissapear. I'm not sure why NN does this, but I've seen the fix work again and again.

[Seph]

please delete

[Old Breadbutt]

that's why I said to expand out from the cell where the problem is until you see it go away. I woudn't actually go as far as the whole table though, if it doesn't disapear after putting the row in one line, it's probably something else.

[gufmn]

Originally posted by Seph



[/B]

Is your real name Wally George? ;)

[Old Breadbutt]

Originally posted by scanez

And that makes it right? :rolleyes:

Why not write CORRECT STANDARD code and if IE doens't want to display it correctly, tough luck, maybe microsoft will get a clue someday.

because I don't want my site to look retarded to 90% of people on the internet.

showing support for standards is all well and good, I like standards, but if you're building a site thats billing out to a client for around $30,000 - $1,000,000 they want it to work. They aren't going to want to hear "tough luck"

[Seph]

please delete