> From: francky > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:07 PM > Glenn E. Lanier, II wrote: > > >[...] > >If you're still reading and not confused, let me try to sum it up: > >http://www.CarpentersForChrist.com/LayerTest/reg.html > >contains valid HTML > > > > > ... Oho! I was still reading but also confused, while I did check the > html-validator in the meantime.
Proper link to behaving page. Improper wording. Reg1.html, the misbehaving page, is validated. No errors -- CSS errors are all leading underscore related, and shouldn't cause the problem, since reg.html displays properly in IE using the same CSS. HTML in question: http://www.CarpentersForChrist.com/LayerTest/reg1.html Validation of HTML in question: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carpentersforch rist.com%2FLayerTest%2Freg1.html > To get the difference, I should advise to isolate the problem by > commenting out parts of the (overwhelming table-) code you got, see > where the css is going wrong, and correct IE in that place(s). You're not doing this the right way. You should point out the problem (concisely, hopefully) and let me be on my way! I don't mind hacking that beast down to size, but was hoping a quick glance with fresh eyes would shed some light on where to hack first. > ps-1: the css-validator can be made happy by replacing the 3 > IE_underscore hacks by a conditional comment. I'll look at that. > ps-2: beautyful css-hovers instead of the html-absorbing js-hovers > should be some good work too. :-) I agree, but not my call. They'd also benefit from being added using SSI, not hard coded into every single page, but that is a story for a different day. --G ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
