Fixed Site Size

[Yogi_Bear_79]

I don't know about that line but a very quick examination of your source I
saw several items like this:

<p align="center"><img align="absmiddle" src="images/BeckettLogo.gif"</p>

See the error??? Hint: look at the IMG tag...

Plus you have lots of deprecated presentational markup that you should
define in your stylesheet and not in your HTML

Ok I fixed those <img> tags. I apologize that the page has so many errors, I
hadn't intended for anyone to see it yet, and I am still tweaking it. I
think a lot of the problems are comming from here<p
align="center"><!--#include virtual="includes/nav.htm" --></p> That page
defines the menus. I belive this page may contain the deprecated
presentational markup that you were talking about. While they work fine for
my needs maybe they are not the best way to do it. Currenlty my major
question is still trying to get the page to a static 800x600. Any more help
would be appriciated.

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

Here's a clue. Either the validator is getting it grossly wrong, or
you're getting it wrong somewhere and you just haven't seen it yet.
Your call.... We get a _lot_ of W3C Validator bug reports in this ng,
yet it seems to need awfully few fixes.

And a hint - validators rarely report errors, they usually report the
first point _afterwards_ when the document became provably invalid
after an earlier error. So if you can't see what the error was, start
looking where it was reported, then scan back upwards through it.

This line and others like it account for a vast majority of the validators
erros on my page, but I don't see the problem. I assume the validator is
correct and I am not, but could use some guidence on correcting my code.
This portion of my page was retrieved from an on-line tutorial on using
includes to design a menu system. It may be antiquated ideas, but it does
work for me, but I would rather do it right. Your time is appriciated

mymenu2.addMenu("home2","<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;</b>")
Line 40 column 55: end tag for element "B" which is not open.
mymenu2.addMenu("home2","<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;</b>")

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Here's a clue. Either the validator is getting it grossly wrong, or
you're getting it wrong somewhere and you just haven't seen it yet.
Your call.... We get a _lot_ of W3C Validator bug reports in this ng,
yet it seems to need awfully few fixes.

And a hint - validators rarely report errors, they usually report the
first point _afterwards_ when the document became provably invalid
after an earlier error. So if you can't see what the error was, start
looking where it was reported, then scan back upwards through it.

Hey Yogi have you viewed the page in a real browser (i.e., not IE)? If
so you would see that the validator is not in error...

LINE#27 <script language="JavaScript1.2" class="ddmenu">

SCRIPT elements do not have a CLASS attribute, LANGUAGE is deprecated,
TYPE is required...

LINE#53 <img src="clearpixel.gif" width="730" height="1">
The problem here is manifold: Firstly depending on JavaScript to great
your navigation is a bad idea for reasons explained ad nauseam in this
NG. Secondly your JavaScript appears to create tables within tables and
this would be between a TD and TR element which is a definite no-no.
Thirdly you should not use a space GIF bit style with padding and
margins. Forthly you should use tables for lists of links. And lastly
your script does not position your 'dropdown' menus in the correct place
Gecko browsers.

LINE#113 - 116
<p align="center"><img align="absmiddle" src="images/BeckettLogo.gif"</p>
....

All have the same error as I hinted in my first reply, you are missing
the '>' on the IMG tag.

There may be more errors but these where the most obvious. You markup
appears to indicate a cut'n paste affair. Cut'n Paste is not a bad thing
per se but you need to fully understand what the pieces functions are.
You need to brush up on the fundamentals here...

Another tip: Dump the JavaScript and use horizontal dropdown lists with
CSS for your menus, many examples

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cd=1&q=horizontal+CSS+drop+down+menu+&spell=1

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Ok I fixed those <img> tags. I apologize that the page has so many errors, I
hadn't intended for anyone to see it yet, and I am still tweaking it. I
think a lot of the problems are comming from here<p
align="center"><!--#include virtual="includes/nav.htm" --></p>

Well I can see a problem right off the bat. As I recall you are using
TABLEs for your navigation menu. A TABLE is a block element and lets
look up the P element shall we?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-P

<quote>

<!ELEMENT P - O (%inline* -- paragraph -->
<!ATTLIST P
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --

>

</quote>

Notice the "(%inline"? You cannot put TABLEs within a P element.

That page
defines the menus. I belive this page may contain the deprecated
presentational markup that you were talking about. While they work fine for
my needs maybe they are not the best way to do it.

Maybe working fine in IE, but have you checked it in another browser? I
think you will be surprised.

Currenlty my major
question is still trying to get the page to a static 800x600. Any more help
would be appriciated.

Why do you feel the need to have a static size? Since most folks run a
800x600 monitor resolution mean most will have to scroll to view your
page even if they maximize their browser! Advise you rethink your design.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

mymenu2.addMenu("home2","<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;</b>")
Line 40 column 55: end tag for element "B" which is not open.
mymenu2.addMenu("home2","<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;</b>")

Is this JavaScript? I don't use JS, but don't you have to escape the
slashes within the quotes? Just a thought.

"<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;<\/b>"

My next question is why the extra &nbsp that doesn't have a semi-colon
after it? "<b>&nbsp;Home&nbsp&nbsp;</b>"
..........................^^^^^

 

[Bergamot]

most folks run a 800x600 monitor resolution

At one time that was true, but not any more. Regardless, monitor size or
screen resolution is mostly irrelevant; browser window size is what matters.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

At one time that was true, but not any more. Regardless, monitor size or
screen resolution is mostly irrelevant; browser window size is what matters.

I typically run 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 but my browser windows is
rarely maximized so yes screen resolution != browser window size. My
point is his page will force scrolling to view on most occasions. So
generally fixed width design == poor design.

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

Well I can see a problem right off the bat. As I recall you are using
TABLEs for your navigation menu. A TABLE is a block element and lets look
up the P element shall we?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-P

<quote>

<!ELEMENT P - O (%inline* -- paragraph -->
<!ATTLIST P
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --

</quote>

Notice the "(%inline"? You cannot put TABLEs within a P element.



Maybe working fine in IE, but have you checked it in another browser? I
think you will be surprised.


Why do you feel the need to have a static size? Since most folks run a
800x600 monitor resolution mean most will have to scroll to view your page
even if they maximize their browser! Advise you rethink your design.

When I finalize the design I will ensure that on 800x600 no scrolling will
be required. I have already desgined the page in a "liquid" design, but
after much consideration I have decided it would be preferable to have a
static size, one that fits perfectly on 800x600 screens, and when viewed on
larger ones it would view the same, however it would have equal blank
margins on either side. I have seen many pages designe din this manner, and
they have the results I am looking for. While I appriciate the concerns, it
would be helpful to provide a solution along with suggestions?

 

[Ed Jay]

Yogi_Bear_79 scribed:

When I finalize the design I will ensure that on 800x600 no scrolling will
be required. I have already desgined the page in a "liquid" design, but
after much consideration I have decided it would be preferable to have a
static size, one that fits perfectly on 800x600 screens, and when viewed on
larger ones it would view the same, however it would have equal blank
margins on either side. I have seen many pages designe din this manner, and
they have the results I am looking for.

That's how I design my pages. By using a background color that contrasts
with the page colors, the added 'white space' can be used to esthetic
advantage. And the page will look fine on 15" monitors still running
800x600.

While I appriciate the concerns, it
would be helpful to provide a solution along with suggestions?

I've seen lots of good suggestions offered to you, but you seem to ignore
them.

You can add all the code you want to your page in an effort to accomplish
your goal, but if the page is broken your new page may or may not work. Your
page is horribly broken and needs to be fixed before you go further. That's
the suggestion, along with examples, that you have been offered...that you
have rejected and that you are now complaining that you haven't received.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yogi_Bear_79 wrote:

When I finalize the design I will ensure that on 800x600 no scrolling will
be required. I have already desgined the page in a "liquid" design, but
after much consideration I have decided it would be preferable to have a
static size, one that fits perfectly on 800x600 screens, and when viewed on
larger ones it would view the same, however it would have equal blank
margins on either side. I have seen many pages designe din this manner, and
they have the results I am looking for. While I appriciate the concerns, it
would be helpful to provide a solution along with suggestions?

You seem to be making the typical newbie error, like asking "Why won't
my house stand? I've shingled the roof" yet you have not wall or
foundation. You can not get a block element of 800x600 pixels
(disregarding the folly of a fixed design) to display reliably if the
elements used to define it are invalid! All browsers have display bug,
some more than others but if you throw garbage markup at it it is a
crap-shoot whether or not it will display properly and that is what I
have been trying to address. Or you can keep betting on those 1000
monkeys turning out Shakespeare before the end of time.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

I've played with "liquid design" and have decided for this site, the best
solution would be to build on a 800x600 basis.

If you use fluid design, your page will look right in an 800x600px
window.

Basically what I want is to have the page be full on a 800x600
screen, and have blank space on the right or left when at a higher
resolution.

Why do you want to waste that space?

My site is built using <DIV> tags getting their information from the CSS
file. Originally I made blank left and right columns, but they obviously
resize with the screen resolution.

How do I get the site to only utilize the section of the screen I indicated
in the first paragraph?

Define a width for the content.

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

Yogi_Bear_79 wrote:



You seem to be making the typical newbie error, like asking "Why won't my
house stand? I've shingled the roof" yet you have not wall or foundation.
You can not get a block element of 800x600 pixels (disregarding the folly
of a fixed design) to display reliably if the elements used to define it
are invalid! All browsers have display bug, some more than others but if
you throw garbage markup at it it is a crap-shoot whether or not it will
display properly and that is what I have been trying to address. Or you
can keep betting on those 1000 monkeys turning out Shakespeare before the
end of time.

I am not out to offend, and I fully intend on fixing every item that is bad.
Here is a web site that illustrates what I want to do.
http://www.fhoil.com/home_heating/ The site appears to me that it is built
800x600 and looks the same on my display at either setting, except for the
obvious side margins. While I understand that this design doesn't appeal to
everyone, it does fit my needs. Someone suggested earlier that I create a
<DIV> set to 800, that is what I have tried to do. When I say I still need
help, it is help making the 800px wide <div> or whatever it takes. The best
I can gather from the posts is that the "bad" code is causeing the <div> tag
not to display properly. So that is what I will remedy now, I will update my
menu system to a different style.

I believe most of my "faulty code" are caused by my menu system, which I
derived from this tutorial
http://www.isitebuild.com/serversideincludes.htm. I will be using an
earlier suggestion to make horizontal menus via css

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

Yogi_Bear_79 wrote:



You seem to be making the typical newbie error, like asking "Why won't my
house stand? I've shingled the roof" yet you have not wall or foundation.
You can not get a block element of 800x600 pixels (disregarding the folly
of a fixed design) to display reliably if the elements used to define it
are invalid! All browsers have display bug, some more than others but if
you throw garbage markup at it it is a crap-shoot whether or not it will
display properly and that is what I have been trying to address. Or you
can keep betting on those 1000 monkeys turning out Shakespeare before the
end of time.

Ok, I've fixed all of the problems. And it passes the validator.
http://314rcsspouses.homedns.org/hollywoodoil/index.shtml I need to replace
my old horizontal menu system and thought this one would work well for me
http://www.sperling.com/examples/menuh/ I can get it working, but currently
I can not figure out how to keep my current page layout. If I place the menu
in my <div id="menu"> tag it doesn't fit, and you can not see the drop
menus. Also once implemented I will have to make some code changes to
support strict versus transitional.

I'd also like to either replace the java script being used to make the ad
clickable or at least make it server-side. Also this is my original design
for all resolutions. I have to tweak a few items as it looks better at
800x600, but I can live with it after a few sizeing changes, ideas/opinions
welcome.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Ok, I've fixed all of the problems. And it passes the validator.
http://314rcsspouses.homedns.org/hollywoodoil/index.shtml

It may pass, but it doesn't work:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/hollywoodoil.jpg

Looks just about the same in both Opera and Firefox.

I don't see a menu....

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

It may pass, but it doesn't work:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/hollywoodoil.jpg

Looks just about the same in both Opera and Firefox.

I don't see a menu....

You may have grabbed it when I was playing with strict a little while ago,
as I also received those results. I'd like to stick with transitional for a
few reasons. Currently there is nto a menu, as I have removed my old one
(caused too many problems), and the new one I am inrerested in
http://www.sperling.com/examples/menuh/ might cause me issues with my
layout

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please snip signatures if you newsreader doesn't automatically. Thanks.

You may have grabbed it when I was playing with strict a little while ago,
as I also received those results.

No, it looks entirely different in IE6, which I think is probably how
you want it to look. Have you viewed it with other browsers? The layout
falls apart.

Did you notice the yellow in my screen shot? That's because you didn't
assign a background color.

I'd like to stick with transitional for a few reasons.

There aren't any good reasons to use Transitional for new pages.

Currently there is nto a menu, as I have removed my old one (caused
too many problems), and the new one I am inrerested in
http://www.sperling.com/examples/menuh/

Are you going to have that many pages?

might cause me issues with my layout

You really should get the rest of it working before attempting to use
this menu...

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please snip signatures if you newsreader doesn't automatically. Thanks.


No, it looks entirely different in IE6, which I think is probably how
you want it to look. Have you viewed it with other browsers? The layout
falls apart.

Did you notice the yellow in my screen shot? That's because you didn't
assign a background color.


There aren't any good reasons to use Transitional for new pages.


Are you going to have that many pages?


You really should get the rest of it working before attempting to use
this menu...

Any hints on what I did wrong that it works so poorly on other browsers? I
was working under the impression that the code I was using was
cross-browser. Maybe if I go to strict, and fix the sizing, then it will
look right on the other browsers?

 

[Ed Jay]

Yogi_Bear_79 scribed:

You may have grabbed it when I was playing with strict a little while ago,
as I also received those results. I'd like to stick with transitional for a
few reasons. Currently there is nto a menu, as I have removed my old one
(caused too many problems), and the new one I am inrerested in
http://www.sperling.com/examples/menuh/ might cause me issues with my
layout

It won't come up for me in IE, FF or Opera.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

You may have grabbed it when I was playing with strict a little while ago,
as I also received those results.

It still looks the same.

I'd like to stick with transitional for a few reasons. Currently
there is nto a menu, as I have removed my old one (caused too many
problems), and the new one I am inrerested in
http://www.sperling.com/examples/menuh/ might cause me issues with
my layout

That page validates as HTML 4.01 Strict. Why would it cause issues?

 

[Yogi_Bear_79]

Yogi_Bear_79 scribed:

It won't come up for me in IE, FF or Opera.

The menu wasn't previously on the page, I added it back in.
Original: http://314rcsspouses.homedns.org/hollywoodoil/test.shtml
Transitional: http://314rcsspouses.homedns.org/hollywoodoil/index.shtml
Strict: http://314rcsspouses.homedns.org/hollywoodoil/index1.shtml

The original page is the one with the menu that cause all the grief. The
transitional page should be formatted correctly,however the menu doesn't
work. The Strict page needs some formatting adjustments, and some code
adjustments to valaidate but the menus work. Well they work as long as they
fit in the menu div tag.