Re: Weird Safari Error

Discussion in 'HTML' started by C A Upsdell, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. C A Upsdell

    C A Upsdell Guest

    On 2010-03-25 23:00, JSoul wrote:
    > For some reason the front page of this site works perfectly in IE,
    > Firefox and Chrome but Safari renders the two login buttons so far to
    > the right side that you have to scroll the horizontal scroll to see
    > them. It makes the page lik 2000 pixels wide. I can't seem to figure
    > it out but I think the popup login box when you click the "members"
    > button is fooling only safari. Here's the URL and many thanks to
    > anyone who can figure out this puzzle!
    >
    > http://www.boldplan.com/s/tiny/nQCB9Y


    Maybe if you fixed the HTML error and the 7 CSS3 errors, your problem
    might disappear.
     
    C A Upsdell, Mar 26, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JSoul wrote:

    > Regarding the html error, I'm not sure why it is invalid. Removing
    > that too did not make any difference. The "error"is for something
    > completely unrelated (the logo).
    >


    Hint: xhtml requires closed elements, xhtml requires embedded scripts
    marked cdata, xhtml requires that you know what you are doing, xhtml is
    not forgiving.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. C A Upsdell

    C A Upsdell Guest

    On 2010-03-26 0:55, JSoul wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:32:40 -0400, C A Upsdell
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2010-03-25 23:00, JSoul wrote:
    >>> For some reason the front page of this site works perfectly in IE,
    >>> Firefox and Chrome but Safari renders the two login buttons so far to
    >>> the right side that you have to scroll the horizontal scroll to see
    >>> them. It makes the page lik 2000 pixels wide. I can't seem to figure
    >>> it out but I think the popup login box when you click the "members"
    >>> button is fooling only safari. Here's the URL and many thanks to
    >>> anyone who can figure out this puzzle!
    >>>
    >>> http://www.boldplan.com/s/tiny/nQCB9Y

    >>
    >> Maybe if you fixed the HTML error and the 7 CSS3 errors, your problem
    >> might disappear.
    >>

    >
    > I fixed all the css errors but one which (a) has nothing to do with
    > the home page elements, and (b) might be some issue with the w3
    > validator. The "word-wrap" element is properly called in CSS3
    > according to this:


    Well, now there are 6 HTML errors.

    I also noticed that there are a lot of JavaScript issues, mainly
    references to undeclared values, though I suspect that this has nothing
    to do with your problem.

    I also noticed that your DOCTYPE is not on the first line, which creates
    problems for some browsers.

    I just now checked with Safari, and it causes no program on my PC,
    except that the page is not centred properly, but then it isn't centred
    in Firefox either, so I suspect that this is due to a coding error,
    unless you intended for some reason not to centre it.
     
    C A Upsdell, Mar 26, 2010
    #3
  4. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Hint: xhtml requires closed elements,


    You misspelled "explicitly closed elements".

    > xhtml requires embedded scripts marked cdata


    No, and you even _cannot_ use marked data for scripts embedded in
    attributes.

    You may need to use marked data or some other special mechanism if your
    <script> elements contain markup-significant characters like "<". But
    <script type="text/javascript">alert("Hello world")</script> is fine in
    XHTML too (syntactically, that is). What you should _not_ use in XHTML is
    the silly "protection" that the magic "<!--" and "-->" inside <script> are
    (incorrectly) believed to provide.

    > xhtml requires that you know what you are doing


    YM "browsers are expected to signal error when XHTML is not 'well-formed',
    and they may, or may not".

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 26, 2010
    #4
  5. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> Hint: xhtml requires closed elements,

    >
    > You misspelled "explicitly closed elements".


    Got me on lack of "precision"
    >
    >> xhtml requires embedded scripts marked cdata

    >
    > No, and you even _cannot_ use marked data for scripts embedded in
    > attributes.


    Oops, yes he does have <a href="javascript:... bits peppered throughout.
    Bad idea independent of xhtml.

    >
    > You may need to use marked data or some other special mechanism if your
    > <script> elements contain markup-significant characters like "<". But
    > <script type="text/javascript">alert("Hello world")</script> is fine in
    > XHTML too (syntactically, that is). What you should _not_ use in XHTML
    > is the silly "protection" that the magic "<!--" and "-->" inside
    > <script> are (incorrectly) believed to provide.
    >
    >> xhtml requires that you know what you are doing

    >
    > YM "browsers are expected to signal error when XHTML is not
    > 'well-formed', and they may, or may not".


    "YM"? What is the abbreviation YM?


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 26, 2010
    #5
  6. C A Upsdell

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 26 Mar 2010, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    >
    > "YM"? What is the abbreviation YM?


    Yo' momma.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 26, 2010
    #6
  7. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    >>> xhtml requires that you know what you are doing

    >>
    >> YM "browsers are expected to signal error when XHTML is not
    >> 'well-formed', and they may, or may not".

    >
    > "YM"? What is the abbreviation YM?


    "You misspelled", a phrase that I used at the start of my message. It's
    meant (at least in my usage) to suggest that a poster made a casual mistake
    or wrote inaccurately.

    On second thought, the "xhtml requires..." thing may have been somewhat
    worse. It's really part of the codelore of our times, originally based on a
    misrepresentation of some ideas, then propagated by mere copying just
    because it sounds modern and progressive. People who propagate this meme
    probably never actually tried what happens when you upload on a web server
    an XHTML file that contains a) a violation of "well-formedness" constraints,
    b) some other violation of XHTML rules, served 1) as text/html, 2) as
    something more genuinely XHTML. Memes of that type don't survive real
    testing.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 26, 2010
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >>>> xhtml requires that you know what you are doing
    >>>
    >>> YM "browsers are expected to signal error when XHTML is not
    >>> 'well-formed', and they may, or may not".

    >>
    >> "YM"? What is the abbreviation YM?

    >
    > "You misspelled", a phrase that I used at the start of my message. It's
    > meant (at least in my usage) to suggest that a poster made a casual
    > mistake or wrote inaccurately.
    >
    > On second thought, the "xhtml requires..." thing may have been somewhat
    > worse. It's really part of the codelore of our times, originally based
    > on a misrepresentation of some ideas, then propagated by mere copying
    > just because it sounds modern and progressive. People who propagate this
    > meme probably never actually tried what happens when you upload on a web
    > server an XHTML file that contains a) a violation of "well-formedness"
    > constraints, b) some other violation of XHTML rules, served 1) as
    > text/html, 2) as something more genuinely XHTML. Memes of that type
    > don't survive real testing.
    >


    Well, if you serve a XHTML document with a violation of
    "well-formedness" and serve as application/xhtml+xml or other XML
    derivation to a browser that actually handles xml you get an error
    message not the document.

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0-invalid?application/xhtml+xml>

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0-invalid?application/xml>

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0-invalid?text/xml>

    So what does "YM" mean?

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 27, 2010
    #8
  9. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Well, if you serve a XHTML document with a violation of
    > "well-formedness" and serve as application/xhtml+xml or other XML
    > derivation to a browser that actually handles xml you get an error
    > message not the document.


    And if you do that in the Real World dominated by Internet Explorer, the
    user sees just a prompt for downloading the file, no matter what the content
    is.

    The error reporting and the refusal to display the document content are
    often mentioned as a benefit of XHTML over HTML. That's rather odd. Suppose
    you have an important document and someone or something (a program
    dynamically generating something) made a markup error at the end, like wrote
    <br> instead of <br />. The document won't be shown to the visitor at all.
    The author won't be informed. How is this supposed to be useful.

    But to return to your "xhtml requires..." statement, the XHTML
    recommendation don't require such things. It's just an expectation, and it
    mostly won't be met.

    "In order to be consistent with the XML 1.0 Recommendation [XML], the user
    agent must parse and evaluate an XHTML document for well-formedness."
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf

    It does not say that violations of well-formedness must be reported. That's
    something that the XML recommendation says, so it's odd that XHTML
    recommendation doesn't say this explicitly in this context, but we know that
    W3C creates "recommendations", not standards.

    So where is the requirement that the document must not be shown?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 27, 2010
    #9
  10. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> Well, if you serve a XHTML document with a violation of
    >> "well-formedness" and serve as application/xhtml+xml or other XML
    >> derivation to a browser that actually handles xml you get an error
    >> message not the document.

    >
    > And if you do that in the Real World dominated by Internet Explorer, the
    > user sees just a prompt for downloading the file, no matter what the
    > content is.


    I don't advocate using *xhtml*. And I especially do not advocate using
    xhtml when html will do. I believe xhtml will continue to take a
    backseat as long as MS continues not to support it with their browser.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 27, 2010
    #10
  11. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    >YM "browsers are...


    BTW for someone who jumps all over others for avoidance and missing
    info, you have never answered me, what does "YM" mean?

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 27, 2010
    #11
  12. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    >> YM "browsers are...

    >
    > BTW for someone who jumps all over others for avoidance and missing
    > info, you have never answered me, what does "YM" mean?


    That's odd... I thought I saw you even quote this answer of mine, a couple
    of messages ago:

    QUOTE
    >> "YM"? What is the abbreviation YM?

    >
    > "You misspelled", a phrase that I used at the start of my message. It's
    > meant (at least in my usage) to suggest that a poster made a casual
    > mistake or wrote inaccurately.

    UNQUOTE

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 27, 2010
    #12
    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. dorayme
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    657
    richard
    Jan 21, 2011
  2. richard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    617
    richard
    Jan 21, 2011
  3. richard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    663
    richard
    Jan 21, 2011
  4. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: A Weird Appearance for a Weird Site

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2011, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    463
    Captain Paralytic
    Jan 21, 2011
  5. David Segall
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    651
    David Segall
    Jan 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page