firefox 1.5 doesn't display css

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Gideon, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. Gideon

    Gideon Guest

    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
     
    Gideon, Jul 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gideon

    Els Guest

    Gideon wrote:

    > 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?)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Jul 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gideon

    Gideon Guest

    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

    >
    >> 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?)
    >
    > --
    > Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Gideon, Jul 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Gideon

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Gideon wrote:
    > 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).
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Jul 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Gideon

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Gideon wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Jul 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Toby Inkster wrote:

    > 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. :)


    --
    Blinky
    New Version of Xnews Released June 28, 2006
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/xnewsrels.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Gideon wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Gideon

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Gideon wrote:
    > > 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.


    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.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/contact-us.html
     
    Chaddy2222, Jul 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Gideon

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Gideon wrote:

    > 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?
     
    Andy Dingley, Jul 25, 2006
    #9
  10. On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Andy Dingley wrote:

    > 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.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jul 25, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,476
  2. John Paul
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,473
    Ben C
    Oct 13, 2006
  3. MZ
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    835
    Ed Mullen
    Mar 17, 2008
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    306
  5. SeanInSeattle
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    147
    SeanInSeattle
    Dec 13, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page