IE6 Bug

Discussion in 'HTML' started by kendalk08, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. kendalk08

    kendalk08 Guest

    I need help with links not working in IE6. In all other browsers they
    function completely normal. The site is built using CSS and currently
    there is no scripting involved other then HTML and CSS.

    The link is http://www.nwtechonline.com/~kendalk07a/.

    If you need the code please respond and i will be glad to post it.

    I just need to figure out how to make the links work in IE6. The
    navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop down
    menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.

    Thank you in advance for your help,
    Kendal Knabe
    kendalk08, Feb 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kendalk08

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), kendalk08
    <> wrote:

    >I need help with links not working in IE6. In all other browsers they
    >function completely normal. The site is built using CSS and currently
    >there is no scripting involved other then HTML and CSS.
    >
    >The link is http://www.nwtechonline.com/~kendalk07a/.
    >
    >If you need the code please respond and i will be glad to post it.
    >
    >I just need to figure out how to make the links work in IE6. The
    >navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop down
    >menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.
    >
    >Thank you in advance for your help,
    >Kendal Knabe



    My two cents worth. I noticed you have a JS file being called.
    It has two dots. It might be that IE6 is bugging out on that.

    Personally, I refuse to use IE at all.
    Then finding someone with 6 isn't gonna be easy.
    richard, Feb 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kendalk08

    kendalk08 Guest

    On Feb 12, 11:01 am, richard <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), kendalk08
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >I need help with links not working in IE6. In all other browsers they
    > >function completely normal. The site is built using CSS and currently
    > >there is no scripting involved other then HTML and CSS.

    >
    > >The link ishttp://www.nwtechonline.com/~kendalk07a/.

    >
    > >If you need the code please respond and i will be glad to post it.

    >
    > >I just need to figure out how to make the links work in IE6. The
    > >navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop down
    > >menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.

    >
    > >Thank you in advance for your help,
    > >Kendal Knabe

    >
    > My two cents worth. I noticed you have a JS file being called.
    > It has two dots. It might be that IE6 is bugging out on that.
    >
    > Personally, I refuse to use IE at all.
    > Then finding someone with 6 isn't gonna be easy.


    That file is for the drop down menu. I will check that out though and
    has never cause any other problems when i have used it on other sites.

    To clarify things just a bit, its just the links located in the body
    of the documents. The navigational links (Home, Certifications, etc.)
    work and so does the drop down menu links. I need to figure out why
    the rest of the links do not work.

    Thanks again,
    Kendal Knabe
    kendalk08, Feb 12, 2008
    #3
  4. Scripsit kendalk08:

    > I need help with links not working in IE6. In all other browsers they
    > function completely normal.


    Vow, you tested all the 2000+ browsers! Quite an achievement.

    > The site is built using CSS and currently
    > there is no scripting involved other then HTML and CSS.


    Neither HTML nor CSS is scripting at all.

    > The link is http://www.nwtechonline.com/~kendalk07a/.


    It's generated with PHP, which is kind of scripting. More importantly,
    it refers to JavaScript. Don't you know what "scripting" means?

    > I just need to figure out how to make the links work in IE6.


    No, you also need to make the page work. Making link colors close to
    their background defeats that.

    > The
    > navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop down
    > menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.


    You cannot do any navigational dropdown menus in HTML without scripting.

    Just stop trying to use such menus at all, especially since you probably
    don't know how to make them work.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 12, 2008
    #4
  5. Scripsit kendalk08:

    > On Feb 12, 11:01 am, richard <> wrote:


    Ignore richard the clueless. Didn't a forged From field ring a bell?

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 12, 2008
    #5
  6. kendalk08

    Ben C Guest

    On 2008-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela <> wrote:
    > Scripsit kendalk08:

    [...]
    >> The navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop
    >> down menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.

    >
    > You cannot do any navigational dropdown menus in HTML without scripting.


    Of course you can, with :hover selectors.

    This kind of basic idea:

    ul { visibility: hidden }
    li:hover ul { visibility: visible }

    Which is probably what the OP has, although I didn't look, losing
    interest after the subject line as I cannot help with IE bugs.

    Although that reminds me, I may have heard that :hover does sometimes
    work in some versions of IE but not in quirks mode.

    So OP could try the strict doctype if he isn't doing so already. Start
    every page with:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    to get strict mode.
    Ben C, Feb 12, 2008
    #6
  7. kendalk08

    Els Guest

    Ben C wrote:

    > On 2008-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela <> wrote:
    >> Scripsit kendalk08:

    > [...]
    >>> The navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop
    >>> down menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.

    >>
    >> You cannot do any navigational dropdown menus in HTML without scripting.

    >
    > Of course you can, with :hover selectors.
    >
    > This kind of basic idea:
    >
    > ul { visibility: hidden }
    > li:hover ul { visibility: visible }
    >
    > Which is probably what the OP has, although I didn't look, losing
    > interest after the subject line as I cannot help with IE bugs.
    >
    > Although that reminds me, I may have heard that :hover does sometimes
    > work in some versions of IE but not in quirks mode.


    :hover only works on anchors in IE6.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Feb 12, 2008
    #7
  8. Scripsit Ben C:

    >> You cannot do any navigational dropdown menus in HTML without
    >> scripting.

    >
    > Of course you can, with :hover selectors.


    They're not HTML. But point taken, I should have finished my sentence at
    "HTML", for clarity.

    > So OP could try the strict doctype if he isn't doing so already.


    I'd never suggest anything like that to a person who is clueless about
    HTML. I've seen pages lose their entire visible content when a proper
    doctype is added (to a page that is not proper at all). And there's
    absolutely no magic in the strict doctype. The magic is in having a
    doctype as defined in HTML specs.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 12, 2008
    #8
  9. kendalk08

    Ben C Guest

    On 2008-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela <> wrote:
    > Scripsit Ben C:
    >
    >>> You cannot do any navigational dropdown menus in HTML without
    >>> scripting.

    >>
    >> Of course you can, with :hover selectors.

    >
    > They're not HTML.


    Or scripting.

    > But point taken, I should have finished my sentence at "HTML", for
    > clarity.


    And you should also have finished _that_ sentence at '"HTML"', and also
    for correctness rather than mere clarity :)

    >> So OP could try the strict doctype if he isn't doing so already.

    >
    > I'd never suggest anything like that to a person who is clueless about
    > HTML. I've seen pages lose their entire visible content when a proper
    > doctype is added (to a page that is not proper at all). And there's
    > absolutely no magic in the strict doctype. The magic is in having a
    > doctype as defined in HTML specs.


    Are you talking about validation?

    I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    sanity.

    But it wouldn't help the OP anyway (if he is using :hover), for the
    reason Els has given.
    Ben C, Feb 12, 2008
    #9
  10. kendalk08

    Els Guest

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2008-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela <> wrote:
    >
    >> And there's
    >> absolutely no magic in the strict doctype. The magic is in having a
    >> doctype as defined in HTML specs.

    >
    > I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    > sanity.


    True - but a transitional doctype correctly used also avoids
    quirksmode - you don't need a strict doctype for that.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Feb 12, 2008
    #10
  11. Scripsit Ben C:

    >>> So OP could try the strict doctype if he isn't doing so already.

    >>
    >> I'd never suggest anything like that to a person who is clueless
    >> about HTML. I've seen pages lose their entire visible content when a
    >> proper doctype is added (to a page that is not proper at all). And
    >> there's absolutely no magic in the strict doctype. The magic is in
    >> having a doctype as defined in HTML specs.

    >
    > Are you talking about validation?


    No, I'm talking about the effect on visual rendering, as I suppose you
    were.

    > I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    > sanity.


    It depends. It's easy to get insane by taking some old crappy page,
    change it so that it is rendered in "standards" mode, and trying to make
    some sense of it.

    But to repeat, using the strict doctype vs. the transitional doctype as
    defined in HTML specs has no impact on the rendering.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 12, 2008
    #11
  12. kendalk08

    Ben C Guest

    On 2008-02-12, Els <> wrote:
    > Ben C wrote:
    >> I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    >> sanity.

    >
    > True - but a transitional doctype correctly used also avoids
    > quirksmode - you don't need a strict doctype for that.


    I didn't know that.

    If I use this doctype:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    (which appears to be recommended here
    http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html as a pukka transitional
    doctype)

    I get some but not all quirks in Firefox, and also in Opera (although
    different combinations). Probably running into some kind of
    "almost-strict" mode.

    See http://www.tidraso.co.uk/misc/quirks-mode for test-cases of some
    quirks, by no means all of them.
    Ben C, Feb 12, 2008
    #12
  13. kendalk08

    Ben C Guest

    On 2008-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela <> wrote:
    > Scripsit Ben C:
    >
    >>>> So OP could try the strict doctype if he isn't doing so already.
    >>>
    >>> I'd never suggest anything like that to a person who is clueless
    >>> about HTML. I've seen pages lose their entire visible content when a
    >>> proper doctype is added (to a page that is not proper at all). And
    >>> there's absolutely no magic in the strict doctype. The magic is in
    >>> having a doctype as defined in HTML specs.

    >>
    >> Are you talking about validation?

    >
    > No, I'm talking about the effect on visual rendering, as I suppose you
    > were.


    Yes.

    >> I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    >> sanity.

    >
    > It depends. It's easy to get insane by taking some old crappy page,
    > change it so that it is rendered in "standards" mode, and trying to make
    > some sense of it.


    Well I suppose you could argue ignorance is bliss.

    > But to repeat, using the strict doctype vs. the transitional doctype as
    > defined in HTML specs has no impact on the rendering.


    Perhaps you can explain these tests then:
    http://www.tidraso.co.uk/misc/quirks-mode. I seem to get different
    rendering between strict and transitional doctypes in both Firefox and
    Opera, using what I thought were the proper doctypes for strict and
    transitional (from http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html)
    Ben C, Feb 12, 2008
    #13
  14. kendalk08

    Els Guest

    Ben C wrote:

    > On 2008-02-12, Els <> wrote:
    >> Ben C wrote:
    >>> I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    >>> sanity.

    >>
    >> True - but a transitional doctype correctly used also avoids
    >> quirksmode - you don't need a strict doctype for that.

    >
    > I didn't know that.
    >
    > If I use this doctype:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > (which appears to be recommended here
    > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html as a pukka transitional
    > doctype)
    >
    > I get some but not all quirks in Firefox, and also in Opera (although
    > different combinations). Probably running into some kind of
    > "almost-strict" mode.
    >
    > See http://www.tidraso.co.uk/misc/quirks-mode for test-cases of some
    > quirks, by no means all of them.


    Right :)

    TBH, when I think of quirksmode, I think only of IE5's rendering, as
    it doesn't know any standards mode. Whenever I code a new site, I use
    a Strict HTML doctype, except when using CMSes, which usually means
    transitional XHTML. So far I had never noticed any difference in
    Firefox or Opera, but I guess that's because I didn't pay enough
    attention to it...

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Feb 12, 2008
    #14
  15. kendalk08

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:35:17 +0200, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    <> wrote:

    >Scripsit kendalk08:
    >
    >> On Feb 12, 11:01 am, richard <> wrote:

    >
    >Ignore richard the clueless. Didn't a forged From field ring a bell?


    Clueless you are for sure. It is not forged because the tld of "you"
    does not exist.
    forgery is the intent of using a valid domain email you are not
    entitled to. Notice I said, valid.
    richard, Feb 12, 2008
    #15
  16. kendalk08

    dorayme Guest

    In article <iiinhp16kc0k$.1xcghwn5po058$>,
    Els <> wrote:

    > Ben C wrote:
    >
    > > On 2008-02-12, Els <> wrote:
    > >> Ben C wrote:
    > >>> I think staying out of quirks mode is an important step on the path to
    > >>> sanity.
    > >>
    > >> True - but a transitional doctype correctly used also avoids
    > >> quirksmode - you don't need a strict doctype for that.

    > >
    > > I didn't know that.
    > >
    > > If I use this doctype:
    > >
    > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    > >
    > > (which appears to be recommended here
    > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html as a pukka transitional
    > > doctype)
    > >
    > > I get some but not all quirks in Firefox, and also in Opera (although
    > > different combinations). Probably running into some kind of
    > > "almost-strict" mode.
    > >
    > > See http://www.tidraso.co.uk/misc/quirks-mode for test-cases of some
    > > quirks, by no means all of them.

    >
    > Right :)
    >
    > TBH, when I think of quirksmode, I think only of IE5's rendering, as
    > it doesn't know any standards mode. Whenever I code a new site, I use
    > a Strict HTML doctype, except when using CMSes, which usually means
    > transitional XHTML. So far I had never noticed any difference in
    > Firefox or Opera, but I guess that's because I didn't pay enough
    > attention to it...


    In a thread a while back, <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ju82u> I
    remarked that IE6 rendered some margin/space differently
    according to whether it was strict or transitional. This is the
    case that varies according to doctype in IE6:

    <http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/chozze.html>

    (I am not talking about the difference between having a doctype
    and not having one at all. Korpela is right about some things on
    this. Just having one triggers things)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 12, 2008
    #16
  17. Scripsit Ben C:

    >> But to repeat, using the strict doctype vs. the transitional doctype
    >> as defined in HTML specs has no impact on the rendering.

    >
    > Perhaps you can explain these tests then:
    > http://www.tidraso.co.uk/misc/quirks-mode. I seem to get different
    > rendering between strict and transitional doctypes in both Firefox and
    > Opera, using what I thought were the proper doctypes for strict and
    > transitional (from http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html)


    Fair enough - there are _some_ differences on those imitators of IE, but
    not on IE itself. (They are imitators of IE at least in this respect,
    since they intentionally imitate the bugs and oddities of old versions
    of IE.)

    By the way, what's proper doctype is defined in HTML specs rather than
    non-authoritative QA documents (though the doctypes you use are OK).

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 12, 2008
    #17
  18. kendalk08

    GTalbot Guest

    On 12 fév, 11:15, kendalk08 <> wrote:
    > I need help with links not working in IE6.


    Hello Kendall,

    You have several blocks of code with conditional comments targeting IE
    6. So, we don't know and can not know which links are actually working
    or not working as expected in IE 6.

    Like others told you (and I entirely agree with them):

    - drop transitional XHTML and just use, only use strict HTML 4.01 like
    Ben C reocmmended
    - try to forget about IE 6. Concentrate on what are the current
    mainstream browsers: IE 7, Firefox 2.0.0.12, Opera 9.25, Safari 3.0.4
    http://www.end6.org/
    http://browsehappy.com/
    http://www.alternativebrowseralliance.com/
    The only 2 things you should worry about with old browsers or buggy
    browsers is if content is accessible and if navigation is functional

    In all other browsers they
    > function completely normal. The site is built using CSS and currently
    > there is no scripting involved other then HTML and CSS.
    >


    I'm sorry but you are using javascript and conditional comments which
    target IE 6

    Try to create a reduced testcase of your link problem. With HTML 4.01
    strict. Without validation errors.

    > The link ishttp://www.nwtechonline.com/~kendalk07a/.
    >
    > If you need the code please respond and i will be glad to post it.
    >


    What would help is clearly, explicitly identifying a link, identifying
    one link that does not work in IE 6 so that readers of your post
    willing to offer assistance, support and help wouldn't have to search
    one minute when trying to figure out the problem, wouldn't have to
    scrub the whole page just to find a link that does not work.

    > I just need to figure out how to make the links work in IE6.


    Too bad. Most of us just need to figure out where in your 10 KB file
    is one of such links after disableing javascript and removing
    conditional comments.

    > The
    > navigational links at the top and bottom work as well as the drop down
    > menu located on the home page about halfway down or more.
    >
    > Thank you in advance for your help,
    > Kendal Knabe


    Good luck,

    Gérard
    GTalbot, Feb 13, 2008
    #18
  19. kendalk08

    Ben C Guest

    On 2008-02-12, dorayme <> wrote:
    [...]
    > In a thread a while back, <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ju82u> I
    > remarked that IE6 rendered some margin/space differently
    > according to whether it was strict or transitional. This is the
    > case that varies according to doctype in IE6:
    >
    ><http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/test/chozze.html>
    >
    > (I am not talking about the difference between having a doctype
    > and not having one at all. Korpela is right about some things on
    > this. Just having one triggers things)


    No doctype at all usually gives you quirks mode. Custom doctypes, and
    the proper HTML 4.01 strict doctype give you strict mode.

    In between is a minefield. So better just to always use HTML 4.01
    strict unless there's a very good reason not to.
    Ben C, Feb 13, 2008
    #19
  20. Scripsit GTalbot:

    > - try to forget about IE 6. Concentrate on what are the current
    > mainstream browsers: IE 7, Firefox 2.0.0.12, Opera 9.25, Safari 3.0.4


    Bad advice. IE 6 has more users than all versions of Firefox, Opera, and
    Safari together.

    Then again, worrying about some purported "IE 6 bug" with the pages of a
    particular site when the site needs a redesign is pointless.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 13, 2008
    #20
    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. Ivor O'Connor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    826
    Isofarro
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. e n | c k m a

    IE6 Bug or my bad code?

    e n | c k m a, Dec 12, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    367
    e n | c k m a
    Dec 13, 2003
  3. Peter Mount
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    929
    Peter Mount
    Jan 31, 2006
  4. Pugi!
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    227
    Pugi!
    Feb 5, 2007
  5. timothytoe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    139
Loading...

Share This Page