>From the Mac side, there's good news and bad news. It looks fine in Firefox 0.9.3 (http://www.imagine-hosting.com/images/hwaters_Firefox0.9.3_Mac.jpg) and Safari 1.2 (http://www.imagine-hosting.com/images/hwaters_Safari1.2_Mac.jpg), but IE5.5 makes a complete hash of it (http://www.imagine-hosting.com/images/hwaters_IE5_Mac.jpg).
-------------------------------- On Saturday, 2 October 2004 7:02 AM, Ed Geis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm wondering why my use of relative positioning in a fairly simple pure CSS >layout is being rendered differently by different browsers. Here's my test >page: http://www.hwaters.com/testing/chs/about.htm. > >Basically I've got things where it's fine in IE6, NN7, and Mozilla 1.7 Win >but not in Firefox 0.9.3. The troublesome element is the content area, >defined as a div called "content_window." In Firefox it's positioned quite a >bit lower in the viewport than it should be. > >Here's the relevant CSS: > > /*rules for the content window*/ > #content_window { > position: relative; > width:606px; > height: 475px; > padding: 20px; > background: #fff > url(graphics/shared/translucent_background.jpg) >no-repeat scroll top left; > /*rules to position content window properly in IE6*/ > top:-81px; > left: 164px; > } > > html>body div#content_window { > /*Correct values for NN7 Win*/ > top: -100px; > left: 164px; > } > >Have I got completely the wrong approach here? The goal is to have the >bottom of the content area coincide with the bottom of the containing div >called "container_box" which has the background photo. > >Thanks for any help. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of Chris Rizzo >> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:04 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning >> >> >> >> I've settled with using the XHTML Transitional doctype, but >> that's only for >> new documents. For your older documents which don't have correct syntax, I >> agree with the other posts. I wouldn't use a doctype at all and let the >> browser go into quirks mode and do it's best to render. Slapping an XHTML >> doctype on those documents won't make them more forward compatible, only >> fixing the HTML would. It could actually make those documents less >> compatible because you are in essence lying to the browser about the >> content, and then hoping the browser doesn't mess up the rendering. >> >> ... under what cases should one use >> an XHTML doctype - practically speaking ... >> >> I would say simply, you should use XHTML doctype if you actually >> have valid >> XHTML code in your document. >> >> With that said here's some resources I find helpful, if you'd like to dig >> more. >> >> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/doctype.html >> http://www.quirksmode.org/about/quirksmode.html >> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/ >> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/ >> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?DOCTYPE >> >> Chris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Nando >> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:12 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning >> >> I'll be reworking the markup and the layout approach they've used ... >> it's just that i anticipate they'll have a reason for using the >> doctype ... cuz it doesn't jump up there by itself, that i'll need to >> intelligently and authoritively discuss with them. Much of the code is >> actually generated out of a Struts jsp app. So i'm looking for >> resources and experienced opinions ... under what cases should one use >> an XHTML doctype - practically speaking ... >> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:40:43 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Neerav wrote: >> > >> > > so go for html 4 transitional validation if the clients tables will >> > > always be invalid >> > >> > If you know for sure that the markup is going to be invalid, why bother >> > with a doctype at all? It's a bit like putting a "may contain nuts" >> > sticker on a bag of peanuts... >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > ****************************************************** >> > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ >> > >> > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ >> > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge >> > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 >> > >> > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help >> > ****************************************************** >> > >> > >> ****************************************************** >> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ >> >> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ >> Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge >> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 >> >> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help >> ****************************************************** >> >> >> >> ****************************************************** >> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ >> >> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ >> Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge >> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 >> >> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help >> ****************************************************** >> >> >> > > >****************************************************** >The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > >Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge >To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help >****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
