firefox 1.5 doesn't display css

[Gideon]

my html standards arent exaclty w3c squeaky clean but firefox doesnt display
my css at all. does firefox 1.5 have some built in css problems (opera and
ie6 are fine with my pages). my pages show up some minor validation quirks
on w3c but nothing would imply any major problems with FF.

checked FF options, but nothing that would impede css..

any firefox affectionados here care to comment...

thanks, gene

 

[Els]

my html standards arent exaclty w3c squeaky clean but firefox doesnt display
my css at all. does firefox 1.5 have some built in css problems (opera and
ie6 are fine with my pages). my pages show up some minor validation quirks
on w3c but nothing would imply any major problems with FF.

checked FF options, but nothing that would impede css..

any firefox affectionados here care to comment...

Sure. Show us the problem and we'll look for the solution
(IOW: what's the url?)

 

[Gideon]

Hi Els,

I figured it out. Damn! Just one "curly brace" or whatever those squiggley
brackets are called was mistakenly put in as a regular bracket
(parentheses?) symbol. Thank god that DW showed up the error in pink fonts
or I'd have missed it totally.

Turns out that Microsoft had the brains to build human stupidity into their
CSS parser (well, hey, look at their software!), whereas Firefox moves to
the "anal" or righteous end of the spectrum.

Don't know who to praise, sloppy rich people or anal poor people...??

gene

 

[Chaddy2222]

Hi Els,

I figured it out. Damn! Just one "curly brace" or whatever those squiggley
brackets are called was mistakenly put in as a regular bracket
(parentheses?) symbol. Thank god that DW showed up the error in pink fonts
or I'd have missed it totally.

DW's error checking is not a proper Validator, use the W3C HTML and CSS
Validators, http://validator.w3.org which will check your code with a
proper SGML passer.

Turns out that Microsoft had the brains to build human stupidity into their
CSS parser (well, hey, look at their software!), whereas Firefox moves to
the "anal" or righteous end of the spectrum.

I think you will find, that it's actually just a case of IE being nmore
forgiving of shit codeing. IE V 6 is an old browser, and it's broken
in several ways.
Mainly, in some area's of CSS support and non standards compliance.

Don't know who to praise, sloppy rich people or anal poor people...??

gene

I think you will fine that the Mozilla Foundation, the group who
produce FF, are actually quite well off, they made a lot of money off
the old NetScape Browser. (That's going by what I have noticed anyway).

 

[Toby Inkster]

I figured it out. Damn! Just one "curly brace" or whatever those squiggley
brackets are called was mistakenly put in as a regular bracket
(parentheses?) symbol.

Parentheses: ()
Brackets: []
Braces: {}

Although "brackets" can be used as a generic term to describe all three.

In standard typography, parentheses are used to enclose additional
comments or information (when a sentence would be grammatically correct
without it). An alternative -- which many consider neater -- is to use
em-dashes. On the other hand, brackets are used to indicate ommissions,
and occasionally clarifications in quoted text. e.g.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler [...] to suffer
[... from bad things or] To die: to sleep.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

In standard typography, parentheses are used to enclose additional
comments or information (when a sentence would be grammatically
correct without it). An alternative -- which many consider neater --
is to use em-dashes. On the other hand, brackets are used to indicate
ommissions, and occasionally clarifications in quoted text. e.g.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler [...] to suffer

< [... from bad things or] To die: to sleep.

WARNING! You have injected an overdose of class into this group with
that example. Expect convulsions to begin within minutes.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hi Els,

I figured it out. Damn! Just one "curly brace" or whatever those squiggley
brackets are called was mistakenly put in as a regular bracket
(parentheses?) symbol. Thank god that DW showed up the error in pink fonts
or I'd have missed it totally.

Turns out that Microsoft had the brains to build human stupidity into their
CSS parser (well, hey, look at their software!), whereas Firefox moves to
the "anal" or righteous end of the spectrum.

I would say when IE 'guesses' correctly it is one thing but many times
when the code is 'correct' it 'guesses' wrong!

More seriously the problem with IE's ability to parse 'junk' is that
finding the damn error can be nearly impossible! At least with FF and
others you know you have made a mistake somewhere.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I would say when IE 'guesses' correctly it is one thing but many times
when the code is 'correct' it 'guesses' wrong!

More seriously the problem with IE's ability to parse 'junk' is that
finding the damn error can be nearly impossible! At least with FF and
others you know you have made a mistake somewhere.

Yeah, because FF is perfect. (Well maybe not exactly).
Oh and I always thaught that code guessing was a built-in feature of
IE.
It's also set to improve (less) in IE7.
I have not even bothered to start codeing for it yet. I figgure their's
not much point, considering it's only in beta faise.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Turns out that Microsoft had the brains to build human stupidity into their
CSS parser (well, hey, look at their software!), whereas Firefox moves to
the "anal" or righteous end of the spectrum.

We used to have a real burglary problem in the neighbourhood, but it's
OK now - if someone steals something, I just go right round and steal
it back.

M$' approach encourages ignorance and mis-use of the standard. How does
that work out long-term?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

M$' approach encourages ignorance and mis-use of the standard. How
does that work out long-term?

You already know the answer. It means their customers have such a
huge legacy of garbage which absolutely *depends* on MS's wrong
behaviour that, even when they discover a critical security weakness,
they don't dare to fix its underlying cause. At best, they just paper
over the cracks of the immediate exploit, and hope that the next
exploit based on the same underlying weakness will take a while.

It's taken them at least 8 years to gingerly phase-in HTTP support
for text/plain, for heaven's sake. They still haven't managed it
for mail, though.