RE: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
I am far from an expert yet, but your display issues are very similar to what I got the first time around using CSS I discovered IDs rather than classes fro layers provides more precision. Also, you might want to try dropping the p/p and running block level text. Brian From: John Penlington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least weachieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. The home page (with inactive links)is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp and the CSS is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6. What he doesn't want is what you'll seeon Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac). The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac). Can anyone tell me whymy valid (XHTML and CSS) pagedisplays so differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)? Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS? What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four browsers? Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despiteall the hacks I could find. I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client isvery real!! I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere. Thanks to you all for such a helpful List. John Penlington web developer
Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
sure. why not. - Jeremy Flint www.jeremyflint.com Luc wrote: Good evening Jeremy, It was foretold that on 29-3-2004 @ 12:29:47 GMT-0600 (which was 20:29:47 where I live) Jeremy Flint would mumble: snipped a bit JF BTW, even with tables, sites will look differently on different JF browsers. You speak of having to use hacks to get CSS to render JF correctly in all browsers. I think using a spacer.gif would be JF considered a hack. Tables display just as differently as CSS can. JF Different browsers sometimes handle table heights and widths JF differently. Some may measure cellpadding or spacing differently. Jeremy, can i steal this comment to use it for my blog? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
John, Yes, there are slight differences in browsers, but these are easy to overcome. There are a lot of un-needed classes in your code. The aim is to use as few as possible, and use descendant selectors to do their work. Theoretically, for this layout you should only need a few id's on the containers and the rest should fall into place. I am happy to talk offlist about this if you want... Now, some overall points about table use (more for the overall list): 1. although tables and spacer gifs are hacks (when ued for layout, rather than tabular data), there are worse things you can do when developing sites. While important, building to standards are only part of the overall picture that includes good design, useable navigation systems, interesting and accessible content etc. 2. there are some layouts that are easier to achieve using tables. That is a fact. However, you CAN build layouts without hacks (or with minimal hacks), that are stable across all major browsers. Hang in there. Eventually it all clicks into place and it becomes much easier. 3. We have talked before on the list about the two extremes - on one end you have traditional layouts (tables, font tags, image spaces etc) and the other end are standards based layouts (css, accessible, valid, semantically correct code). The aim is to move towards standards based layouts, but at your own pace and comfort level. If you feel that you want to stay with tables for layout and use CSS for all other aspects, this is still a major improvement over traditional layouts. 4. the aim of this list is to encourage developers to move towards web standard not to flame people who are having trouble. Hopefully we can keep this attitude as it is one of the things that sets this list apart from many others. Russ Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 11:07 AM, John Penlington wrote: Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. Well, in this case my IE 5.2 dosn't like your use of position: relative; left: -24px; on your UL setup (in both UL cases). If you want to position the UL, put it in a DIV container and position it. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. None ever will, unless the Standards Committee creates it's own ...but that's another story for another day. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. (see below) After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. The problem is that your page is only pixel-precise on a 96dpi system. To be pixel-precise on all systems, you have to use relative measurement in your CSS (ie: em, %, and or keywords) The home page (with inactive links) is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp and the CSS is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6. What he doesn't want is what you'll see on Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac). Well, as you already know ...you have to start with a standards browser first and work backwards. This is even true with tables. The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac). (see above) Can anyone tell me why my valid (XHTML and CSS) page displays so differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)? (see above) Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS? What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four browsers? Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despite all the hacks I could find. Start with ccs2 and a standards browser a include an import of ie7-xml.css. You can find this life-saver at: http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/intro/ Copy it from the src link in the breadcrump tail. I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client is very real !! So, ...do it in tables first, make it look on all, ...then take on CSS2. I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere. Good luck and welcome to the club!! -chuck -a Mac guy- Thanks to you all for such a helpful List. John Penlington web developer * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
