Re: problems with background images in mozilla

Discussion in 'HTML' started by My Liege, Aug 1, 2003.

  1. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    brucie <> wrote in
    news::

    > In post <U2hWa.621$>
    > Margaret Bowler said...
    >
    >> If you go to www.digitalreign.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi using mozilla you
    >> will notice that between the left area and the middle content area
    >> there is a thin black line

    >
    > your page has 446 errors (assuming html 4.01 transitional) plus no
    > doctype or character encoding
    >
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.digitalreign.org/c
    > gi-bin%2Findex.cgi&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTML
    > +4.01+Transitional
    >
    > your css has 5 errors and 9 warnings which may be of importance
    >
    > http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.digitalreig
    > n.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
    >
    > Why we won't help you



    Because you're an asshole Brucie, that's why you won't help her.

    Ms. Bowler, please forgive my alt.html colleages, they know not what they
    do. Your site is a delight to the eyes as, I suspect from your humble yet
    elegant mannerisms, are you.

    I've tested the site in IE, Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and WebTV. Its looks
    very nicely done, especially considering that English is not your primary
    language. The lines aside for a moment, you might want to be aware that
    your top menu doesn't show up in Opera or WebTV, and is out of sink with
    the rest of the image in Mozilla. My advice is to use a single image, ditch
    the scroll over effect, and use image mapping to create the links. See
    http://www.echoecho.com/htmllinks07.htm for a tutorial on how to do image
    mapping. As to your lines question, it is with a heavy heart that I must
    tell you I am unsure of the answer. But I would encourage you to do things
    that make your code a little easier to read, such as moving the scripts and
    to a seperate file and adding notes in comment tags like the following...

    <!-- This is invisible to browers -->

    This will make finding the answer to that, and any other changes you may
    wish to make to your page down the road, much easier as well in addition
    making it easier for others to help you.

    Good luck and may God bless you in all that you do.
    My Liege, Aug 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. My Liege

    DU Guest

    My Liege wrote:

    > brucie <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >
    >>In post <U2hWa.621$>
    >>Margaret Bowler said...
    >>
    >>
    >>>If you go to www.digitalreign.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi using mozilla you
    >>>will notice that between the left area and the middle content area
    >>>there is a thin black line

    >>
    >>your page has 446 errors (assuming html 4.01 transitional) plus no
    >>doctype or character encoding
    >>
    >>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.digitalreign.org/c
    >>gi-bin%2Findex.cgi&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTML
    >>+4.01+Transitional
    >>
    >>your css has 5 errors and 9 warnings which may be of importance
    >>
    >>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.digitalreig
    >>n.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
    >>
    >>Why we won't help you

    >
    >
    >
    > Because you're an asshole Brucie, that's why you won't help her.
    >
    > Ms. Bowler, please forgive my alt.html colleages, they know not what they
    > do. Your site is a delight to the eyes as, I suspect from your humble yet
    > elegant mannerisms, are you.
    >


    The page has so many validation errors, markup errors: it's bloody
    obvious that this should be the first task to deal with. Brucie and
    regulars of this newsgroup are not excluding Ms Bowler from getting help
    once this validation markup issue has been solved, you know.


    > I've tested the site in IE, Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and WebTV. Its looks
    > very nicely done, especially considering that English is not your primary
    > language.


    Visual rendering often masks kluggy code, poorly optimized code, table
    designs, problems (usability, interoperability) with other compliant
    browsers, media, web-aware applications, etc..

    It is in the best interests, in the superior and objective interests of
    web developers to validate their documents because now, over 95% of all
    users are using web browsers which support a very very large part of
    HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM 1 specifications.

    The lines aside for a moment, you might want to be aware that
    > your top menu doesn't show up in Opera or WebTV, and is out of sink with
    > the rest of the image in Mozilla. My advice is to use a single image, ditch
    > the scroll over effect, and use image mapping to create the links. See
    > http://www.echoecho.com/htmllinks07.htm for a tutorial on how to do image
    > mapping.


    [snipped]

    In no way Brucie or anyone in this newsgroup is preventing Ms Bowler
    from getting help or additional help on her webpage (on image mapping or
    anything else). But the very first task to tackle should be the markup
    validation issue.

    Most regular people and professional web designers in this newsgroups
    will tell you that when you can, you should use a full doctype
    declaration (to make MSIE 6 go into standards compliant rendering mode),
    define a character encoding and to validate your documents. It really is
    in the best interests of website owners, developers if they want their
    site to be the most interoperable it can be.

    You may feel that Brucie is direct, straightforward in his posts but,
    here, he's definitively speaking the way I would have and telling things
    as they should be said.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Aug 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    DU <> wrote in
    news:bgdb1l$ivn$:

    > My Liege wrote:
    >
    >> brucie <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>
    >>>In post <U2hWa.621$>
    >>>Margaret Bowler said...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If you go to www.digitalreign.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi using mozilla
    >>>>you will notice that between the left area and the middle content
    >>>>area there is a thin black line
    >>>
    >>>your page has 446 errors (assuming html 4.01 transitional) plus no
    >>>doctype or character encoding
    >>>
    >>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.digitalreign.org/
    >>>c
    >>>gi-bin%2Findex.cgi&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTM
    >>>L +4.01+Transitional
    >>>
    >>>your css has 5 errors and 9 warnings which may be of importance
    >>>
    >>>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.digitalrei
    >>>g n.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
    >>>
    >>>Why we won't help you

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Because you're an asshole Brucie, that's why you won't help her.
    >>
    >> Ms. Bowler, please forgive my alt.html colleages, they know not what
    >> they do. Your site is a delight to the eyes as, I suspect from your
    >> humble yet elegant mannerisms, are you.
    >>

    >
    > The page has so many validation errors, markup errors: it's bloody
    > obvious that this should be the first task to deal with.



    It is? Not to me. I think Ms. Bowler is the one to make the decision
    about which problems to focus on when. I may be wrong, but it seems to me
    a lot of you feel your expertise gives you some sort of ownership rights
    over the pages that get mentioned in here by those seeking advice, (or
    even those who weren't, such as was the case with me). Perhaps Ms. Bowler
    wants to get it to look just perfect in standard IE and Mozilla
    configurations first, and worry about the validation problems that effect
    the way it renders in less common browsers or configurations later. That
    seems like a reasonable choice, and it is her decision after all.


    > Brucie and
    > regulars of this newsgroup are not excluding Ms Bowler from getting
    > help once this validation markup issue has been solved, you know.



    Of course not, but again, why are you making the decision about which
    issue to be fixed in what order instead of her? Also, please for a moment
    consider Ms. Bowler's perspective here. She comes in asking for help with
    a simple issue and gets told that she has 446 errors plus more for css,
    (all of which she was probably completely unaware of), and that nobody
    will help her at all until those are taken care of. She's obviously spent
    a lot of time on her site, couldn't this news have been delivered, if not
    gently, then at least with a little understanding?


    >
    >
    >> I've tested the site in IE, Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and WebTV. Its
    >> looks very nicely done, especially considering that English is not
    >> your primary language.

    >
    > Visual rendering often masks kluggy code, poorly optimized code, table
    > designs, problems (usability, interoperability) with other compliant
    > browsers, media, web-aware applications, etc..



    That's true, but I thought it looked nice in the most popular browsers,
    (the ones that over 95% of surfers are using), and thought she might like
    to hear that.


    >
    > It is in the best interests, in the superior and objective interests
    > of web developers to validate their documents because now, over 95% of
    > all users are using web browsers which support a very very large part
    > of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM 1 specifications.



    Well, I'm not going to argue against people validating their pages. By
    the way, do you know of any good DOM tutorial sites?
    My Liege, Aug 1, 2003
    #3
  4. "My Liege" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93CA37BCDDBFDHombreVIIIyahoocom@204.127.199.17...
    > DU <> wrote in
    > news:bgdb1l$ivn$:
    >
    > > My Liege wrote:
    > >
    > >> brucie <> wrote in
    > >> news::
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>In post <U2hWa.621$>
    > >>>Margaret Bowler said...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>If you go to www.digitalreign.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi using mozilla
    > >>>>you will notice that between the left area and the middle content
    > >>>>area there is a thin black line
    > >>>
    > >>>your page has 446 errors (assuming html 4.01 transitional) plus no
    > >>>doctype or character encoding
    > >>>
    > >>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.digitalreign.org/
    > >>>c
    > >>>gi-bin%2Findex.cgi&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTM
    > >>>L +4.01+Transitional
    > >>>
    > >>>your css has 5 errors and 9 warnings which may be of importance
    > >>>
    > >>>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.digitalrei
    > >>>g n.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
    > >>>
    > >>>Why we won't help you
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Because you're an asshole Brucie, that's why you won't help her.
    > >>
    > >> Ms. Bowler, please forgive my alt.html colleages, they know not what
    > >> they do. Your site is a delight to the eyes as, I suspect from your
    > >> humble yet elegant mannerisms, are you.
    > >>

    > >
    > > The page has so many validation errors, markup errors: it's bloody
    > > obvious that this should be the first task to deal with.

    >
    >
    > It is? Not to me.


    Because you're a moron.
    When one notices an error in display, the first task is to ensure that you
    didn't mess something up in the markup.
    Validation is an important troubleshooting tool. No, valid markup can still
    display poorly, but it is usually a safer bet that the display problem is
    caused by invalid markup.

    "
    The Importance Of Standards Compliance and The Process of Validation"
    http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=9


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Aug 1, 2003
    #4
  5. My Liege

    DU Guest

    My Liege wrote:
    > DU <> wrote in
    > news:bgdb1l$ivn$:
    >
    >
    >>My Liege wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>brucie <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In post <U2hWa.621$>
    >>>>Margaret Bowler said...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>If you go to www.digitalreign.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi using mozilla
    >>>>>you will notice that between the left area and the middle content
    >>>>>area there is a thin black line
    >>>>
    >>>>your page has 446 errors (assuming html 4.01 transitional) plus no
    >>>>doctype or character encoding
    >>>>
    >>>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.digitalreign.org/
    >>>>c
    >>>>gi-bin%2Findex.cgi&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTM
    >>>>L +4.01+Transitional
    >>>>
    >>>>your css has 5 errors and 9 warnings which may be of importance
    >>>>
    >>>>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.digitalrei
    >>>>g n.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
    >>>>
    >>>>Why we won't help you
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Because you're an asshole Brucie, that's why you won't help her.
    >>>
    >>>Ms. Bowler, please forgive my alt.html colleages, they know not what
    >>>they do. Your site is a delight to the eyes as, I suspect from your
    >>>humble yet elegant mannerisms, are you.
    >>>

    >>
    >>The page has so many validation errors, markup errors: it's bloody
    >>obvious that this should be the first task to deal with.

    >
    >
    >
    > It is? Not to me. I think Ms. Bowler is the one to make the decision
    > about which problems to focus on when. I may be wrong, but it seems to me
    > a lot of you feel your expertise gives you some sort of ownership rights
    > over the pages that get mentioned in here by those seeking advice, (or
    > even those who weren't, such as was the case with me).


    Agressive words will lead you nowhere. Brucie, I'm sure, gave his honest
    and sincere recommendations. It's up to Ms. Bowler to make her call.

    Perhaps Ms. Bowler
    > wants to get it to look just perfect in standard IE and Mozilla
    > configurations first, and worry about the validation problems that effect
    > the way it renders in less common browsers or configurations later. That
    > seems like a reasonable choice, and it is her decision after all.
    >


    In a WYSIWYG world, this is a very dangerous thinking pattern. It's
    obvious that people having difficulties with a site don't spend a lot of
    time editing emails for feedback about it: they move on.

    The problems have been identified: table design, page size, download
    time, parsing time, code reusability, webpage interoperability with
    web-aware applications, website maintainability and evolutivity
    (forward-compatibility), etc.. On all of these aspects, an frank,
    professional but honest assessment would end up saying that the site is
    a failure and needs serious upgrading.

    >
    >>Brucie and
    >>regulars of this newsgroup are not excluding Ms Bowler from getting
    >>help once this validation markup issue has been solved, you know.

    >
    >
    >
    > Of course not, but again, why are you making the decision about which
    > issue to be fixed in what order instead of her? Also, please for a moment
    > consider Ms. Bowler's perspective here. She comes in asking for help with
    > a simple issue and gets told that she has 446 errors plus more for css,
    > (all of which she was probably completely unaware of), and that nobody
    > will help her at all until those are taken care of. She's obviously spent
    > a lot of time on her site, couldn't this news have been delivered, if not
    > gently, then at least with a little understanding?
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>>I've tested the site in IE, Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and WebTV. Its
    >>>looks very nicely done, especially considering that English is not
    >>>your primary language.

    >>
    >>Visual rendering often masks kluggy code, poorly optimized code, table
    >>designs, problems (usability, interoperability) with other compliant
    >>browsers, media, web-aware applications, etc..

    >
    >
    >
    > That's true, but I thought it looked nice in the most popular browsers,
    > (the ones that over 95% of surfers are using), and thought she might like
    > to hear that.
    >
    >
    >
    >>It is in the best interests, in the superior and objective interests
    >>of web developers to validate their documents because now, over 95% of
    >>all users are using web browsers which support a very very large part
    >>of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM 1 specifications.

    >
    >
    >
    > Well, I'm not going to argue against people validating their pages. By
    > the way, do you know of any good DOM tutorial sites?


    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Aug 1, 2003
    #5
  6. My Liege

    Bill Clark Guest

    My Liege wrote:

    > I've tested the site in IE, Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and WebTV. Its looks
    > very nicely done,


    You obviously haven't looked at it with Firebird with JS and Images turned
    off... Or perhaps we're not using the same Firebird...

    --
    bc
    A: Top posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
    Bill Clark, Aug 2, 2003
    #6
    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. DU
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
  2. DU
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    342
  3. Henri
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,811
    Toby Inkster
    Feb 22, 2005
  4. Adrienne Boswell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    496
    dorayme
    Aug 4, 2009
  5. Travis Newbury
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Travis Newbury
    Aug 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page