Selecting text not working as expected

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jay, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Jay

    Jay Guest

    Hello all,

    I have a page full of resources by state for people to contact local
    centers. Sometimes when people visit our site they want to copy the contact
    information and put it in an email so they select only the information they
    wish to send.

    We have recently redesigned our web site and now with the new design when
    someone tries to select text from our site, it selects everything from the
    cursor to the bottom of the page. It does this on all of our pages using IE
    but not Netscape.

    Here is a page to try it on: http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm

    Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the pages I did them
    in XHTML 1.1. Does that have anything to do with it? Could it just be an IE
    bug?

    Thank you,

    - J
     
    Jay, Nov 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jay wrote:

    > Here is a page to try it on: http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm


    > Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the pages I did them
    > in XHTML 1.1.


    Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype declaration, but
    you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.

    > Does that have anything to do with it?


    Probably.

    > Could it just be an IE bug?


    IE can't handle XHTML, and most certainly not (correctly done) XHTML 1.1.

    Redo it in XHTML 1.0 Strict (in backwards compatibility mode) or HTML
    4.01 Strict. Then validate it and correct all the errors. Most probably
    that will solve your problem.

    --
    Bertilo Wennergren <> <http://www.bertilow.com>
     
    Bertilo Wennergren, Nov 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bertilo Wennergren wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >
    >> Here is a page to try it on: http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm

    >
    >> Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the pages I did them
    >> in XHTML 1.1.

    >
    > Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype declaration, but
    > you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.


    Not really. He's used:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    which is some freaky made-up DOCTYPE. Note: the URL points to XHTML 1.0
    transitional and the identifier claims it's "XHTML 1.1 Transitional",
    which doesn't exist.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Nov 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Jay

    Jay Guest

    "Bertilo Wennergren" <> wrote in message
    news:boe97c$lao$00$-online.com...
    > Jay wrote:
    >
    > > Here is a page to try it on:

    http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm
    >
    > > Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the pages I did

    them
    > > in XHTML 1.1.

    >
    > Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype declaration, but
    > you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.


    Which rules were not followed? It validates as XHTML 1.1 Transitional
    (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.taalliance.org/centers
    %2Fregion1.htm).
     
    Jay, Nov 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Quoth the raven named Jay:

    > "Bertilo Wennergren" <> wrote in message
    > news:boe97c$lao$00$-online.com...
    >
    >> Jay wrote:
    >>
    >>> Here is a page to try it on:

    >
    > http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm
    >
    >>> Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the
    >>> pages I did them in XHTML 1.1.

    >>
    >> Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype
    >> declaration, but you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.

    >
    >
    > Which rules were not followed? It validates as XHTML 1.1
    > Transitional
    > (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.taalliance.org/centers
    > %2Fregion1.htm).


    According to: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
    there is _no_ XHTML 1.1 *Transitional*

    Tho you're right. The validator thinks so...

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Quoth the raven named Jay:


    >> "Bertilo Wennergren" <> wrote in message
    >> news:boe97c$lao$00$-online.com...


    >> http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm


    >>>> Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the
    >>>> pages I did them in XHTML 1.1.


    >>> Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype
    >>> declaration, but you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.


    >> Which rules were not followed? It validates as XHTML 1.1
    >> Transitional
    >> (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.taalliance.org/centers
    >> %2Fregion1.htm).


    > According to: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
    > there is _no_ XHTML 1.1 *Transitional*


    > Tho you're right. The validator thinks so...


    This is actually quite amusing.

    The page has this at the top:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    Notice "XHTML 1.1 Transitional". There is no such thing.

    Notice the URL:

    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd".

    That's the URL of the DTD for XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Not the same thing.

    The doctype declaration should thus be:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    I'm surprised that the validator accepts that without any hint that
    something is not normal. Anyway...

    The page still does not follow all the rules, even though the validator
    says it's valid. There are other rules.

    It's however unlikely that a lack of the attribute "xml:lang" besides
    "lang" could cause the problems originally described. (If the code had
    really been XHTML 1.1 there would have been more problems, and the page
    would not have been valid.)

    So it must be some more commonplace bug in IE.

    The doctype declaration should still be fixed.

    --
    Bertilo Wennergren <> <http://www.bertilow.com>
     
    Bertilo Wennergren, Nov 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Jay

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >Quoth the raven named Jay:
    >> "Bertilo Wennergren" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Which rules were not followed? It validates as XHTML 1.1
    >> Transitional
    >> (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.taalliance.org/centers
    >> %2Fregion1.htm).

    >
    >According to: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
    >there is _no_ XHTML 1.1 *Transitional*
    >
    >Tho you're right. The validator thinks so...


    Well sort of.

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    As the FPI is for a non-existent flavour of (X)HTML the validator
    treats it as an unknown doctype and loos to the URI provided, which is
    for XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

    Forcing an override to 1.1 shows that it fails validation.
    Forcing an override to 1.0 Trans shows that it passes.

    Though the results page does say XHTML 1.1 Transitional which is
    misleading but is a symptom of the malformed doctype rather than a
    bug.

    Note that it says "This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1
    Transitional//EN!" rather than "This Page Validates As XHTML 1.1
    Transitional!" which is the message that would occur if 1.1 Trans did
    exist. After all I just got a page to validate and give the message
    "This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Fluffy//EN!"

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Nov 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Jay

    Jay Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:CYyqb.61750$...
    > Quoth the raven named Jay:
    >
    > > "Bertilo Wennergren" <> wrote in message
    > > news:boe97c$lao$00$-online.com...
    > >
    > >> Jay wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Here is a page to try it on:

    > >
    > > http://www.taalliance.org/Centers/region1.htm
    > >
    > >>> Did I do something wrong in the markup? When I rewrote the
    > >>> pages I did them in XHTML 1.1.
    > >>
    > >> Not really. You've indicated XHTML 1.1 in the doctype
    > >> declaration, but you haven't followed the rules for XHTML 1.1.

    > >
    > >
    > > Which rules were not followed? It validates as XHTML 1.1
    > > Transitional
    > >

    (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.taalliance.org/centers
    > > %2Fregion1.htm).

    >
    > According to: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
    > there is _no_ XHTML 1.1 *Transitional*
    >
    > Tho you're right. The validator thinks so...


    I changed it back to XHTML 1.0 in the doctype but that doesn't fix the
    problem.
    The issue must be happening because of the XHTML markup because when I
    converted it back to HTML 4.01 the issue is gone.

    - J
     
    Jay, Nov 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Jay:

    > I changed it back to XHTML 1.0 in the doctype but that doesn't fix the
    > problem.
    > The issue must be happening because of the XHTML markup because when I
    > converted it back to HTML 4.01 the issue is gone.


    MSIE doesn't know what XHTML is. It manages to handle the code just
    because it's so similar to HTML 4. That's one of the main ideas with
    XHTML 1.0: It should work in older (tag-soup) browsers, that don't even
    know what it is. (Not so for XHTML 1.1.)

    But you seem to have managed to trigger some kind of problem in MSIE
    anyway. It would be interesting to find out what it is. Strip down the
    page, step by step, until you find the minimum code that will trigger
    the problem.

    --
    Bertilo Wennergren <> <http://www.bertilow.com>
     
    Bertilo Wennergren, Nov 6, 2003
    #9
    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. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    577
    Guest
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. Damon Payne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    9,201
    Damon Payne
    Mar 8, 2005
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,014
    =?Utf-8?B?Rng=?=
    Aug 16, 2005
  4. Saya
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    636
  5. darrel
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    365
    darrel
    Aug 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page