Problem with the Mozilla Firefox Browser

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Cogito, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. Cogito

    Cogito Guest

    I have several pages of links (in a foreign language) that look good
    with IE and Opera. Recently I discovered the Mozilla Firefox browser
    and was surprised to see that some of the graphic bullets are
    displayed in the wrong side of the text. All the lines of code for the
    links are identical. Why is it happening?

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/blackbox/anz/anz.html
    Cogito, Aug 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Cogito wrote:

    > I have several pages of links (in a foreign language) that
    > look good with IE and Opera. Recently I discovered the
    > Mozilla Firefox browser and was surprised to see that some
    > of the graphic bullets are displayed in the wrong side of
    > the text. All the lines of code for the links are
    > identical. Why is it happening?
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/blackbox/anz/anz.html


    First thing I see when clicking on it, is Hebrew text. This is
    written from right to left, so you're probably making use of
    <rtl> and <ltr> elements?

    Then I want to "enter", but you have a problem with the frames,
    see this screendump from Firebird.
    http://locusmeus.com/temp/anz.jpg

    The "bin"-link top right corner, right frame, is the only link I
    can click, and leads to the NZ map.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Raça Negra - Esqueça
    Els, Aug 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cogito

    Jim Higson Guest

    Cogito wrote:

    > I have several pages of links (in a foreign language) that look good
    > with IE and Opera. Recently I discovered the Mozilla Firefox browser
    > and was surprised to see that some of the graphic bullets are
    > displayed in the wrong side of the text.


    Isn't the language right-to-left? In which case it'd be correct to have the
    bullets on the right.

    It's the same in Konqueror (and presumably Safari)

    > All the lines of code for the
    > links are identical. Why is it happening?
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/blackbox/anz/anz.html
    Jim Higson, Aug 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Cogito

    Jim Higson Guest

    Els wrote:

    > Cogito wrote:
    >
    >> I have several pages of links (in a foreign language) that
    >> look good with IE and Opera. Recently I discovered the
    >> Mozilla Firefox browser and was surprised to see that some
    >> of the graphic bullets are displayed in the wrong side of
    >> the text. All the lines of code for the links are
    >> identical. Why is it happening?
    >>
    >> http://users.bigpond.net.au/blackbox/anz/anz.html

    >
    > First thing I see when clicking on it, is Hebrew text. This is
    > written from right to left, so you're probably making use of
    > <rtl> and <ltr> elements?
    >
    > Then I want to "enter", but you have a problem with the frames,
    > see this screendump from Firebird.
    > http://locusmeus.com/temp/anz.jpg


    Screenshot from my computer (Firefox 0.93, Linux) - looks fine to me
    http://users.aber.ac.uk/jqh1/foxy.png

    > The "bin"-link top right corner, right frame, is the only link I
    > can click, and leads to the NZ map.
    >
    Jim Higson, Aug 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Els wrote:

    > Cogito wrote:
    >
    >> I have several pages of links (in a foreign language) that
    >> look good with IE and Opera. Recently I discovered the
    >> Mozilla Firefox browser and was surprised to see that some
    >> of the graphic bullets are displayed in the wrong side of
    >> the text. All the lines of code for the links are
    >> identical. Why is it happening?
    >>
    >> http://users.bigpond.net.au/blackbox/anz/anz.html

    >
    > First thing I see when clicking on it, is Hebrew text. This
    > is written from right to left, so you're probably making
    > use of <rtl> and <ltr> elements?


    Okay, I have now looked in IE and Firefox (not Firebird), and
    I see your problem.
    You're talking about for instance the links
    on this page:
    homepage -> click on "Australia" (hoping you read Hebrew!) ->
    then click on "Telefon" ->
    the links in the main frame:
    Telstra (right side)
    Optus (wrong side)
    Virgin "
    Vodafone "
    Orange "
    Three "

    Right?

    Haven't figured out (yet) why it's like that, at first sight I
    see no reason either.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Raça Negra - Maravilha
    Els, Aug 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Cogito

    Cogito Guest

    >Okay, I have now looked in IE and Firefox (not Firebird), and
    >I see your problem.
    >You're talking about for instance the links
    >on this page:
    >homepage -> click on "Australia" (hoping you read Hebrew!) ->
    >then click on "Telefon" ->
    >the links in the main frame:
    >Telstra (right side)
    > Optus (wrong side)
    > Virgin "
    > Vodafone "
    > Orange "
    > Three "
    >
    >Right?
    >
    >Haven't figured out (yet) why it's like that, at first sight I
    >see no reason either.



    Yes, this is the problem. Most bullets appear on the right with the
    text to their left, as should be and as is the case with IE and Opera.
    With Firefox, most links are ok, but some, for unknown reason, have
    the icon on the left of the text.
    Cogito, Aug 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Cogito

    Cogito Guest

    On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:50:35 +0100, Jim Higson <> wrote:

    >Screenshot from my computer (Firefox 0.93, Linux) - looks fine to me
    >http://users.aber.ac.uk/jqh1/foxy.png



    You need to click on one of the links that are on the right in order
    to get to the problematic page.
    Cogito, Aug 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Cogito wrote:

    >>Okay, I have now looked in IE and Firefox (not Firebird),
    >>and I see your problem.
    >>You're talking about for instance the links
    >>on this page:
    >>homepage -> click on "Australia" (hoping you read Hebrew!)
    >>-> then click on "Telefon" ->
    >>the links in the main frame:
    >>Telstra (right side)
    >> Optus (wrong side)
    >> Virgin "
    >> Vodafone "
    >> Orange "
    >> Three "
    >>
    >>Right?
    >>
    >>Haven't figured out (yet) why it's like that, at first
    >>sight I see no reason either.

    >
    >
    > Yes, this is the problem. Most bullets appear on the right
    > with the text to their left, as should be and as is the
    > case with IE and Opera. With Firefox, most links are ok,
    > but some, for unknown reason, have the icon on the left of
    > the text.


    Well, those 'some' are all English, and the only English ones
    that have the bullet on the right side, are those following
    Hebrew ones. (AFAICS)

    I guess Firefox somehow detects the used language by the
    character. I know there's some mentioning of the left to right
    and right to left use in the specs, maybe you can find the
    reason in there?

    What would happen if you substitute the English ones with
    Hebrew ones? Would the bullet switch place? I think it would,
    actually.

    Interesting stuff, I might have a look at it again later.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Renato Russo - Eduardo e Mônica
    Els, Aug 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Els wrote:

    > Cogito wrote:
    >
    >>>Okay, I have now looked in IE and Firefox (not Firebird),
    >>>and I see your problem.
    >>>You're talking about for instance the links
    >>>on this page:
    >>>homepage -> click on "Australia" (hoping you read Hebrew!)
    >>>-> then click on "Telefon" ->
    >>>the links in the main frame:
    >>>Telstra (right side)
    >>> Optus (wrong side)
    >>> Virgin "
    >>> Vodafone "
    >>> Orange "
    >>> Three "
    >>>
    >>>Right?
    >>>
    >>>Haven't figured out (yet) why it's like that, at first
    >>>sight I see no reason either.

    >>
    >> Yes, this is the problem. Most bullets appear on the right
    >> with the text to their left, as should be and as is the
    >> case with IE and Opera. With Firefox, most links are ok,
    >> but some, for unknown reason, have the icon on the left of
    >> the text.

    >
    > Well, those 'some' are all English, and the only English
    > ones that have the bullet on the right side, are those
    > following Hebrew ones. (AFAICS)
    >
    > I guess Firefox somehow detects the used language by the
    > character. I know there's some mentioning of the left to
    > right and right to left use in the specs, maybe you can
    > find the reason in there?
    >
    > What would happen if you substitute the English ones with
    > Hebrew ones? Would the bullet switch place? I think it
    > would, actually.
    >
    > Interesting stuff, I might have a look at it again later.


    Okay, investigated a little.

    Haven't studied it in depth, but this link:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#direction
    explains why it's like that. The Hebrew characters indeed have
    a natural rtl direction, and the English ones have it ltr.

    The document is bidirectional:

    <quote>
    For the 'direction' property to affect reordering in inline-
    level elements, the 'unicode-bidi' property's value must be
    'embed' or 'override'.
    </quote>

    And here's part of the solution:
    <quote>
    Please note that in order to be able to flow inline boxes in a
    uniform direction (either entirely left-to-right or entirely
    right-to-left), more inline boxes (including anonymous inline
    boxes) may have to be created, and some inline boxes may have
    to be split up and reordered before flowing.
    </quote>

    Sounds like you'll need some extra coding :)
    Why don't you avoid the problem altogether and write those
    English brandnames in Hebrew too? Makes more sense too, imho.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: S a a r - 12
    Els, Aug 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Els wrote:

    > Haven't studied it in depth, but this link:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#direction
    > explains why it's like that. The Hebrew characters indeed
    > have a natural rtl direction, and the English ones have it
    > ltr.
    >
    > The document is bidirectional:
    >
    > <quote>
    > For the 'direction' property to affect reordering in
    > inline- level elements, the 'unicode-bidi' property's value
    > must be 'embed' or 'override'.
    > </quote>
    >
    > And here's part of the solution:
    > <quote>
    > Please note that in order to be able to flow inline boxes
    > in a uniform direction (either entirely left-to-right or
    > entirely right-to-left), more inline boxes (including
    > anonymous inline boxes) may have to be created, and some
    > inline boxes may have to be split up and reordered before
    > flowing. </quote>
    >
    > Sounds like you'll need some extra coding :)
    > Why don't you avoid the problem altogether and write those
    > English brandnames in Hebrew too? Makes more sense too,
    > imho.


    Or use the simple html solution:
    http://locusmeus.com/temp/rtl.html

    Be aware of the order of the stuff inside the spans.
    That's why I put the span tags (start and end tag of the span
    element) between the lines instead of at the end and the
    beginning. In a rtl environment the elements also get read the
    other way round, so this way I avoid the mix-up between the
    end or the beginning of a line.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: S a a r - 9
    Els, Aug 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Cogito

    Cogito Guest

    On 20 Aug 2004 19:37:13 GMT, Els <> wrote:

    >Or use the simple html solution:
    >http://locusmeus.com/temp/rtl.html


    This last html solution is the one I understand best :) and it works.
    Why does it work well with IE and Opera? Perhaps Firefox is not as
    smart?

    Thank you very much for the efforts that you have put in.
    Cogito, Aug 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Cogito

    Els Guest

    Cogito wrote:

    > On 20 Aug 2004 19:37:13 GMT, Els <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Or use the simple html solution:
    >>http://locusmeus.com/temp/rtl.html

    >
    > This last html solution is the one I understand best :)
    > and it works. Why does it work well with IE and Opera?
    > Perhaps Firefox is not as smart?


    Or maybe Firefox is too smart ;-)

    > Thank you very much for the efforts that you have put in.


    You're welcome.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Anita Ward - Ring My Bell
    Els, Aug 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Cogito

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Cogito wrote:
    >
    >> This last html solution is the one I understand best :)
    >> and it works. Why does it work well with IE and Opera?
    >> Perhaps Firefox is not as smart?

    >
    > Or maybe Firefox is too smart ;-)


    IE is lucky. It is stupid, doesn't try to do the right thing, but somehow
    happens to stumble on the right solution anyway.

    Firefox is fairly smart. It tries to do the right thing, but fails.

    Opera is smart. Opera ASA have recently been trying to crack the Middle
    Eastern and Asian markets so bidi support has recently improved in leaps
    and bounds. Thus it gets things right.

    A good analogy would be leap years.

    A stupid calendar implementation just ignores them altogether and when
    calculating how many days were in the year 1900, will say 365. It will be
    right.

    A better calendar implementation says that every 4 years is a leap year,
    so it will say there were 366 says in the year 1900. It is a better
    algorithm but it will fail in this specific case.

    The best calendar implementation says that every 4 years is a leap year
    except every 100 years, except again every 400 years. It will calculate
    that there were 365 days in the year 1900.

    The stupid implementation fails more often than the better implementation,
    but there are certain times when it succeeds where the better one fails.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Aug 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Cogito

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > A good analogy would be leap years.
    >
    > A stupid calendar implementation just ignores them altogether and when
    > calculating how many days were in the year 1900, will say 365. It will be
    > right.
    >
    > A better calendar implementation says that every 4 years is a leap year,
    > so it will say there were 366 says in the year 1900. It is a better
    > algorithm but it will fail in this specific case.
    >
    > The best calendar implementation says that every 4 years is a leap year
    > except every 100 years, except again every 400 years. It will calculate
    > that there were 365 days in the year 1900.
    >
    > The stupid implementation fails more often than the better implementation,
    > but there are certain times when it succeeds where the better one fails.


    And a clock that is broken is perfectly correct twice every day: whereas a
    clock that is working is almost never perfectly correct.
    C A Upsdell, Aug 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Cogito

    WebcastMaker Guest

    In article <fDIVc.650$>,
    cupsdell0311XXX@- says...
    > And a clock that is broken is perfectly correct twice every day: whereas a
    > clock that is working is almost never perfectly correct.


    Actually it depends on HOW it is broken. If is is does not function,
    then you are correct, however,if it just keeps inaccurate time, then you
    are wrong.
    --
    WebcastMaker
    Webcasting for free
    http://www.webentations.com
    WebcastMaker, Aug 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Cogito

    Toby Inkster Guest

    WebcastMaker wrote:

    > In article <fDIVc.650$>,
    > cupsdell0311XXX@- says...
    >> And a clock that is broken is perfectly correct twice every day: whereas a
    >> clock that is working is almost never perfectly correct.

    >
    > Actually it depends on HOW it is broken. If is is does not function,
    > then you are correct, however,if it just keeps inaccurate time, then you
    > are wrong.


    If it spins around at very high speed it could be perfectly correct a
    hundred times per day!

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./red_hot_chilli_peppers/californication.ogg
    Toby Inkster, Aug 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Cogito

    WebcastMaker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > >> And a clock that is broken is perfectly correct twice every day: whereas a
    > >> clock that is working is almost never perfectly correct.

    > > Actually it depends on HOW it is broken. If is is does not function,
    > > then you are correct, however,if it just keeps inaccurate time, then you
    > > are wrong.

    > If it spins around at very high speed it could be perfectly correct a
    > hundred times per day!


    Which still makes my statement correct.
    --
    WebcastMaker
    Webcasting for free
    http://www.webentations.com
    WebcastMaker, Aug 21, 2004
    #17
    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. Alex D.

    treeview problem in Firefox-Mozilla

    Alex D., Feb 10, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    727
    Alex D.
    Feb 10, 2006
  2. Damaeus
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    539
    Blinky the Shark
    Jul 22, 2004
  3. Henri
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,836
    Toby Inkster
    Feb 22, 2005
  4. bienwell
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    806
    bienwell
    Oct 23, 2007
  5. Rakhi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    122
    Erwin Moller
    Apr 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page