RE: [WSG] Firefox filter?

[Rachel Radford]

Hi Kenny,
As far as I can tell it is all about how the browser plays and handles the
animated GIFs.  I have found that FF using animated GIFs as backgrounds will
play the animation once on each page and it takes a refresh or navigating to
a new page to play the animation again.

I actually found Safari to be the most frustrating with animated GIFs as
backgrounds - it depends on what element the GIF is placed as a background,
but it will only play the first frame and stop.

But yes, IE plays the animations perfectly each time as expected.

However on site that I used animated GIFs as backgrounds it wasn't so much
of an issue as they were little extras, not on navigation.  I have not found
any work around or solution so I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

Rachel

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kenny Graham
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2005 8:17 p.m.
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Firefox filter?

> I would be concerned about a bug only showing up in Firefox, I believe
> that hiding something from Firefox is not the way to go, but rather,
> make it right in Firefox and then worry about the others.

Usually I'd agree.  But in this case, that won't work. :(
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


**
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] Firefox filter?

[Terrence Wood]

> Is there any valid way make firefox (well, gecko in general)
> ignore a rule


*|* selector {property:value}

pretty sure mozilla is the only browser to apply this rule from memory
YMMV and you probably want to check KHTML browsers.

kind regards
Terrence Wood.




**
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] Firefox filter?

[Kenny Graham]

> so why not use a Javascript solution?

As a horrible understatement, because I'm not very good at javascript ;)
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Christian Montoya]

> > I'm also not sure how browsers are supposed to handle a non-repeating
> > animated gif as on-hover background, so I don't know what's "correct"
> > behavior here.
>
> I'm not sure what the "correct" way is either, but regardless, I don't
> code to firefox or any other browser first.  I code to standards
> first.  Then I work around bugs.  And while firefox is much better
> than IE, it still has its own unique bugs.  So back to the original
> question, is there any way to serve a rule only to firefox (or only to
> non-firefox) without invalidating the css?

This sounds like an unneccessary aspect of the page, so why not use a
Javascript solution? As the CSS behavior is not in the spec, it's very
likely that you'll continue to struggle with the problem. If you use
Javascript, it won't work with Javascript disabled, but that will
probably effect less people than all your Firefox visitors.

--
--
C Montoya
rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Joshua Street]

On 10/30/05, Mark Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, why is this flamebait. I suggested this in another thread a
> couple of days ago. Is there a problem I'm not aware of with server-side
> sniffing?

Mm, well... it's not really a problem if it's properly maintained.
But, seeing as many small sites won't be (especially with the
proliferation of CMS tools of late) maintained by a web developer with
knowledge of that sort of stuff, it presents future difficulties.
Especially in this case, where targetting "Firefox" might be adequate
for the next few months, but what if 1.5 fixes broken behaviour?

You're then serving "acceptably degraded" content to Firefox when you
don't have to. This is not, as Gunlaug said, "likely to work reliably
for very long when we're dealing with Opera, Gecko, Safari and other
good browsers" (because they are constantly being updated). He was
talking about client-side filtering, but the same principle applies:
you can't foresee what versions of x browser will have the feature
introduced in, and hence you risk

a) excluding it when support for x feature DOES become adequate, or
b) committing yourself to ongoing maintenence (possibly unpaid)

So, in summary, it's not a problem if you know what versions of a
browser you are targetting, or you're prepared to make changes in the
future.

Josh
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Mark Harris wrote:

Seriously, why is this flamebait. I suggested this in another thread a 
couple of days ago. Is there a problem I'm not aware of with server-side 
sniffing?


Any user agent sniffing (client- or server-side) has two main issues:

- to be pedantic, it goes against the idea of a single document/style 
sent to any user agent;
- more fundamentally: if you start doing user agent sniffing, you end up 
in a potential maintenance spiral where you have to update your script 
(client/server, no difference) to cover any new version of browsers that 
come out.


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Mark Harris]

Joshua Street wrote:

On 10/30/05, Kenny Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


So back to the original question, is there any way to serve a rule
only to firefox (or only to non-firefox) without invalidating the css?



Heh, server-side browser sniffing? ;-)



Seriously, why is this flamebait. I suggested this in another thread a 
couple of days ago. Is there a problem I'm not aware of with server-side 
sniffing?


mark
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Kenny Graham wrote:


So back to the original question, is there any way to serve a rule
only to firefox (or only to non-firefox) without invalidating the
css?


Use the 
and delete the @import for Opera 9+ on top (until the validator catches
up on it), and set the validator to check for CSS3. Nothing else will
disturb validation, and the filters will work as before.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Joshua Street]

On 10/30/05, Kenny Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So back to the original question, is there any way to serve a rule
> only to firefox (or only to non-firefox) without invalidating the css?

Heh, server-side browser sniffing? ;-)



Josh
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Kenny Graham]

> I'm also not sure how browsers are supposed to handle a non-repeating
> animated gif as on-hover background, so I don't know what's "correct"
> behavior here.

I'm not sure what the "correct" way is either, but regardless, I don't
code to firefox or any other browser first.  I code to standards
first.  Then I work around bugs.  And while firefox is much better
than IE, it still has its own unique bugs.  So back to the original
question, is there any way to serve a rule only to firefox (or only to
non-firefox) without invalidating the css?
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Kenny Graham wrote:
I would be concerned about a bug only showing up in Firefox, I 
believe that hiding something from Firefox is not the way to go, 
but rather, make it right in Firefox and then worry about the 
others.



Usually I'd agree.  But in this case, that won't work. :(


I don't agree :-), since Gecko seems to be slightly behind on many
CSS-related issues lately, but that's another matter.

I'm also not sure how browsers are supposed to handle a non-repeating
animated gif as on-hover background, so I don't know what's "correct"
behavior here.
---

No CSS-filters (valid or not) are likely to work reliably for very long
when we're dealing with Opera, Gecko, Safari and other good browsers.
Thus, we should not use such filters for anything serious.

You may of course play with filters for something that's not likely to
break anything if those filters fail, so here's my latest play-version:


The sequence itself is as important as each filter in that stylesheet.
You may of course play with that too, to test variations.
It will also include iCab in the Gecko-group, the way I've set it up.

To see the filter in action: look for the 'CSS sledgehammer' image in
the right-side column on this page:

...it'll catch most - but "seriously"... ;-)

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Kenny Graham]

> I would be concerned about a bug only showing up in Firefox, I believe
> that hiding something from Firefox is not the way to go, but rather,
> make it right in Firefox and then worry about the others.

Usually I'd agree.  But in this case, that won't work. :(
**
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] Firefox filter?

[Joseph R. B. Taylor]

I make it a point to test in Firefox first, since historically it is 
nearly free of rendering bugs.  IE and Opera come next, once the 3 are 
behaving, you should be in good shape.


I would be concerned about a bug only showing up in Firefox, I believe 
that hiding something from Firefox is not the way to go, but rather, 
make it right in Firefox and then worry about the others.


Hopefully this is helpful.

Joe Taylor
http://sitesbyjoe.com

Kenny Graham wrote:


Believe it or not, part of my site works on every browser I've tested
-except- firefox.  That's right.  It works on IE, Opera, etc, but
Firefox screws it up.  Is there any valid way make firefox (well,
gecko in general) ignore a rule, while still serving it to all other
browsers?  The only method I can find is this:

selector { { declaration }

which obviously invalidates the css.

Incase anyone's curious, the problem involves using a non-repeating
animated gif as the background of a link, and a different
non-repeating animated gif as the background when that link is
hovered.  I'm using it to make a bullet slide toward the link on
hover, and slide back away from it on blur.  After one link is hovered
for the first time, every hover after that causes it to skip from the
first frame to the last, then back to the first, ignoring all frames
in-between.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Firefox filter?

[Kenny Graham]

Believe it or not, part of my site works on every browser I've tested
-except- firefox.  That's right.  It works on IE, Opera, etc, but
Firefox screws it up.  Is there any valid way make firefox (well,
gecko in general) ignore a rule, while still serving it to all other
browsers?  The only method I can find is this:

selector { { declaration }

which obviously invalidates the css.

Incase anyone's curious, the problem involves using a non-repeating
animated gif as the background of a link, and a different
non-repeating animated gif as the background when that link is
hovered.  I'm using it to make a bullet slide toward the link on
hover, and slide back away from it on blur.  After one link is hovered
for the first time, every hover after that causes it to skip from the
first frame to the last, then back to the first, ignoring all frames
in-between.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**