N
Net5
In both Netscape and Firefox, the background jpg for the page isn't
displayed - in ie it works fine.
Am I doing something wrong??
SER
displayed - in ie it works fine.
Am I doing something wrong??
SER
B
brucie
In alt.html Net5 said:
yes
yes
L
Lauri Raittila
Yes.
URL?
J
Jeffrey Silverman
No
J
Jeffrey Silverman
Maybe
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html said:
Yes, you're not telling us the URL. You must have missed the memo that
crystal ball cleaning day has been moved to Thursdays.
J
Jeffrey Silverman
crayons taste good
B
brucie
In alt.html Jeffrey Silverman said:
only the soybean ones
only the soybean ones
J
Jan Faerber
brucie said:
lol - I wish I had IE now.
http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp
Is there any?
<hm>
background-image
css 1.0
netscape 4.0
IE 3.0
body {
background-image:url(images/***.gif); background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-attachment:fixed; padding:0px; }
</hm>
S
Sybren Stuvel
Jan Faerber enlightened us with:
I use Crossover Office to test my stuff on MSIE. Works pretty well.
Sybren
I use Crossover Office to test my stuff on MSIE. Works pretty well.
Sybren
T
Toby Inkster
Jan said:
IE for Unix was an unbelievable lump of shite anyway.
But if you're a glutton for punishment...
http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/solaris
http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/hpux
D
Dylan Parry
Toby said:
How does that differ from IE for Windows?
N
Net5
Your right, here is a clip of the code in the css file showing the ulr
link.
R
rf
The word is you're. *Your* credibility is falling
<grin/>
And just where is that clip?
You really have to get your act together if you expect us to pay any
attention to you
BTW it is URL, not ulr.
N
Neal
rf said:
I think that's Japanese.
/ducks
T
Toby Inkster
Dylan said:How does that differ from IE for Windows?
The fact that IE for Windows is a lump of shite is more readily
believable, as most of us have experienced it at some point.
N
Net5
The word is you're. *Your* credibility is falling
<grin/>
And just where is that clip?
You really have to get your act together if you expect us to pay any
attention to you
BTW it is URL, not ulr.
Nit-pick, I'm not a professional like you, maybe you coiuld cut some
slack and help me solve the problem.
This is the section from the css file. According to my book, XHTML
Black Book, it is correct. W3C validates the XHTML and CSS code.
IE has no problem displaying the background correctly, Netscape and
Mozilla Firefox won't display the background image.
Do you know why????
body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
line-height: normal;
font-weight: normal;
font-variant: normal;
text-transform: none;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
background-image: url(Images/pgbg.jpg);
background-color: #ffffff;
background-position: center;
background-repeat: repeat;
background-attachment: scroll; }
N
Neal
Net5 said:
Never heard of this book. Author?
Why Verdana? Lose it, it's not suited for the WWW.
Fonts in pixels are NOT suited for the web.
Why add this? Do you expect italics?
Again, again, again...
Accoding to the specs this could also be:
background-image: url("Images/pgbg.jpg");
Have you tried it?
This puts the image dead center.
And it repeats X and Y.
Try removing one or more of the background properties and see what
happens. Start, though, by adding quotes to the background-image value.
R
rf
Net5 said:
Maybe you could actually *help* us to solve the problem for you.
Three people so far have asked you for the URL to the page in question. You
have still not supplied this. You will note that those three people have
ceased contributing to this thread. They will probably continue to do so
until the URL is forthcoming.
Without the URL any sort of "answer" will be pure guesswork.. Supplying a
snippit of CSS that may or may not have been copy/pasted correctly is not
good enough. The error may be, and probably is, elsewhere.
That said however, I usually put "s around the url in the background-image.
So do most of the examples in the specification.
K
Kris
Net5 said:
Is the file path correct? Thought of lowercase/uppercase differences?
You know of course that any file referenced to from the CSS file has
it's path start from where the CSS file is located, not where the
document is located that calls for the CSS file.
So in the following setup...
/index.html
/css/main.css
/images/pgbg.jpg
...the correct path from the main.css to the image would be
.../images/pgbg.jpg or /images/pgbg.jpg.