Suckerfish CSS drop-down menu problem (major IE inconsistency!)

Neo Geshel · Jul 11, 2004

Greetings!

When I use the Suckerfish drop-down menu in my new site
(http://publishing.kabis.net/), it only works in non-IE browsers.

If you look at the following page:
http://publishing.kabis.net/menu.html
in both IE as well as Mozilla, both browsers work flawlessly.

However, if you look at:
http://publishing.kabis.net/index.aspx
in both browsers, only a non-IE browser works properly. Internet
Explorer doesn't work with the drop-down menu at all. Strange thing is,
both pages use identical CSS.

That's right. Identical CSS.

So why does one page work and another doesn't?

FYI, I am using ASP.NET to dynamically bring in a random
background-image of the H1 and a random banner below the menu.

TIA!
....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

Neo said:
Greetings!

When I use the Suckerfish drop-down menu in my new site
(http://publishing.kabis.net/), it only works in non-IE browsers.

If you look at the following page:
http://publishing.kabis.net/menu.html
in both IE as well as Mozilla, both browsers work flawlessly.

However, if you look at:
http://publishing.kabis.net/index.aspx
in both browsers, only a non-IE browser works properly. Internet
Explorer doesn't work with the drop-down menu at all. Strange thing is,
both pages use identical CSS.

That's right. Identical CSS.

So why does one page work and another doesn't?

FYI, I am using ASP.NET to dynamically bring in a random
background-image of the H1 and a random banner below the menu.

TIA!
...Geshel

I've just confirmed that the problem also exists in IE for the Mac.
Except in this version, the first-level links keep on shifting and
vanishing behind each other, as well as their backgrounds keep on
vanishing and switching with other backgrounds - even those backgrounds
that aren't even attached to that part of the web page!! (the
background-image for the H1 element has appeared inside the drop-down
list!!)

As with the PC version of IE, the raw suckerfish drop-down menu
(menu.html) works flawlessly. It's only when it's embedded inside my web
page that it goes nuts. As before, the CSS between the two are exact.

I believe that the problem experienced by the Mac and PC versions of IE
is related.

TIA
....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

rf · Jul 12, 2004

Neo Geshel said:
Greetings!

When I use the Suckerfish drop-down menu in my new site
(http://publishing.kabis.net/), it only works in non-IE browsers.

If you look at the following page:
http://publishing.kabis.net/menu.html
in both IE as well as Mozilla, both browsers work flawlessly.

However, if you look at:
http://publishing.kabis.net/index.aspx
in both browsers, only a non-IE browser works properly. Internet
Explorer doesn't work with the drop-down menu at all. Strange thing is,
both pages use identical CSS.

That's right. Identical CSS.

So why does one page work and another doesn't?

Because of the complexity of the page, including all javascript and other
stuff you have in there, it's nothing to do with the CSS. Hint, look at that
top image, it reloads from the server on every mousein/mouseout. This is not
a good thing. What is doing this and why?

It could also be because you are trying to feed XHTML to IE. IE does not
clearly understand XHTML.

Why do you have an <object ...> in your <head>? This, being content,
*should* cause the browser (IE at least) to close the head and open a body.
The stuff below the object (the script elements) then become part of your
body with what sort of results?

And *what* produced this? It a bit like the standard cargo cult stuff but
I've never seen it this complex before.
<quote>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
<![CDATA[
</style>
</quote>

Start removing stuff until only the bits to do with the menu are left and
then see what happens. When you put the removed stuff back examine exactly
why you are putting each bit back.

<quote>
This site makes use of standards-compliant XHTML and CSS
</quote>
Why then does the page not validate at the CSS validator?

Why did you crosspost this to alt.html.critique?. If you want a critique it
will not be a pretty one

alt.discuss.html removed, not on my server.

brucie · Jul 12, 2004

in post: <

rf said:
Why do you have an <object ...> in your <head>?

i think thats where the <brain> usually goes.

ok, ok... i go back to sitting in my corner.

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

rf said:
Because of the complexity of the page, including all javascript and other
stuff you have in there, it's nothing to do with the CSS. Hint, look atthat
top image, it reloads from the server on every mousein/mouseout. This is not
a good thing. What is doing this and why?

It has a "flicker" because of how IE handles a background-image. I am
using that to make it accessible for screen readers. If you check out
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revised-image-replacement/, you will
notice that I have made use of a modified form of the Gilder/Levin
Method to make the h1 header accessible to screen readers.

It could also be because you are trying to feed XHTML to IE. IE does not
clearly understand XHTML.

True, but I have never had a problem with raw XHTML. At least, not more
than IE's buggy, non-standards-compliant rendering engine normally spits
out on a normal day anyways. I swear, IE is today what Netscape 4.x was
two years ago... a buggy and viciously horrible piece of coding that is
better left in the trash heap of history.

Why do you have an <object ...> in your <head>? This, being content,
*should* cause the browser (IE at least) to close the head and open a body.
The stuff below the object (the script elements) then become part of your
body with what sort of results?

I am trying to automatically enable cleartype smoothing for everyone
that comes to the site with NT 5.1 (Windows â€œXPâ€). Microsoft does it
themselves on their own site:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/1.htm . At least I
use ASP.NET to filter the user-agent for all of the following: NT 5.1,
Internet Explorer, and IE version 6+. I filter for ALL of the values
because you can now install more than one version of IE on NT 5.1 at the
same time:
http://www.insert-title.com/web_design/?page=articles/dev/multi_IE , and
I don't want someone with IE 5.x on NT 5.1 to be getting that object, as
it will just crash their browser (I know, I've tried!). If you use
another OS, another browser, or a <6 version of IE on NT 5.1, you will
not get that object item along with the web page.

And *what* produced this? It a bit like the standard cargo cult stuff but
I've never seen it this complex before.
<quote>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
<![CDATA[
</style>
</quote>

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules, but causes
older browsers to crash or not understand its contents (the CSS). So it
has to be contained within the fancy array: <![CDATA[ so that both older and newer browsers can access the contents
with the contents remaining XHTML compliant.

Besides, the only reason that I have that chunk of CSS inline instead of
inside the style.css stylesheet is because I have the h1
background-image (your first question and my answer) dynamically
modified by ASP.NET. I am using a server-side (ASP.NET) random number
generator to randomly choose a number between two values and then place
it between "header" and ".jpg". This allows me to have a random
background-image via CSS without having to rely on JS. BTW, ASP.NET's
random image generator wouldn't have worked here because it only works
with image tags (not CSS), and I already tried calling a custom CSS file
that was a modified ASP.NET file (Example: <link type="style/css"
media="screen" rel="stylesheet"
src="/css/imageswap.aspx?img1=02&img2=05"></link>). It didn't work.It
wasn't seen by the browsers as a CSS file because it didn't end with
".css", and therefore was ignored.

Start removing stuff until only the bits to do with the menu are left and
then see what happens. When you put the removed stuff back examine exactly
why you are putting each bit back.

<quote>
This site makes use of standards-compliant XHTML and CSS
</quote>
Why then does the page not validate at the CSS validator?

Are you talking about this link:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://publishing.kabis.net/css/screen.css

Strange. Validated without any errors for me.

Why did you crosspost this to alt.html.critique?. If you want a critique it
will not be a pretty one

alt.discuss.html removed, not on my server.

Good points, rf. But I've done my homework.

...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

brucie · Jul 12, 2004

in post: <

Neo Geshel said:
I am trying to automatically enable cleartype smoothing for everyone

you can just **** off thank you very much. i'm truly amazed. how dare
you try to or think you have the right to **** around with peoples
computers.

****!

not to mention cleartype has a huge system overhead and can make text
unreadable so its really hard to turn off again if you cant read the
text.

**** again!

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

brucie said:
in post: <

you can just **** off thank you very much. i'm truly amazed. how dare
you try to or think you have the right to **** around with peoples
computers.

****!

not to mention cleartype has a huge system overhead and can make text
unreadable so its really hard to turn off again if you cant read the
text.

**** again!

Nice language, Brucie. Glad to see you taking the high moral and
linguistic road.

Cleartype was designed to increase legibility on monitors of all types,
but was originally designed to produce its maximum effect on flat panel
LCD's. A decrease in legibility (especially in small type sizes) is a
clear indicator of a malfunctioning monitor or video card. If you have a
problem with ClearType's legibility on your computer, the problem lies
with your computer, not ClearType.

While it does have some system overhead, you will only notice a
performance hit on something less than a Pentium-II 233. And how many
people have XP installed on a P-II 233? Not many.

I have installed XP on several dozen computers of all types over the
last two years, and have seen what effects cleartype has on a system. I
wouldn't have enabled it if it affected the performance of more than 2%
of the XP users out there.

And turning it off is as simple as pie. Control Panel -> Display ->
Appearance -> Effects -> uncheck ClearType.

As I said, I do my homework.

PS, leave the righteous indignation for those scum that place spyware
and other nasty software on computers through Internet Explorer's
continent-sized security holes. Going after me for Cleartype is like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

brucie · Jul 12, 2004

in post: <

Nice language, Brucie. Glad to see you taking the high moral and
linguistic road.

i'm in too much shock to splutter much of anything else.

Cleartype was designed to increase legibility on monitors of all types,

if someone wants fuzzy washed out looking fonts it is their decision to
make NOT FUCKING YOURS.

****!

rf · Jul 12, 2004

rf:
I don't know what you have done in your post but it has stuffed up my
newsreader, the >'s arent there and no, I am not going to bother putting
them back.

It [the logo] has a "flicker" because of how IE handles a background-image.

rf:
I doubt that. I have never ever seen a standard background behave like that.
Besides, it does not "flicker" here (over the other side of the planet) it
disappears for a whole second and then reappears. Makes the site bloody hard
to look at. Something you have done is making it do that and a server hit
from over her is *EXPENSIVE*.

I am
using that to make it accessible for screen readers. If you check out
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revised-image-replacement/, you will
notice that I have made use of a modified form of the Gilder/Levin
Method to make the h1 header accessible to screen readers.

rf:
You are making it unnecessarily complex. What is wrong with a simple alt
attribute? and don't refer me to that site above. They might have a point
but what about every other site out there that simply uses alt text. Your
viewers are used to that.

It could also be because you are trying to feed XHTML to IE. IE does not
clearly understand XHTML.

True, but I have never had a problem with raw XHTML. At least, not more
than IE's buggy, non-standards-compliant rendering engine normally spits
out on a normal day anyways. I swear, IE is today what Netscape 4.x was
two years ago...

rf:
Two years? Oh my, where have you been

NN4.x died last century, way
before IE6.

a buggy and viciously horrible piece of coding that is
better left in the trash heap of history

rf:
True but that horrible piece of code is what 80% of your viewers are
currently using. No matter how much you or I hate it, it's here to say at
least for a while. Live with it.

Why do you have an <object ...> in your <head>? This, being content,
*should* cause the browser (IE at least) to close the head and open a body.
The stuff below the object (the script elements) then become part of your
body with what sort of results?

I am trying to automatically enable cleartype smoothing for everyone
that comes to the site with NT 5.1 (Windows "XP"). Microsoft does it
themselves on their own site:

rf:
And just what makes you think that I might *want* cleartype smoothing? This
is, after all, my computer and the overall settings are My Bloody Business.
Leave my settings alone!

Once again, unnecessary complexity, and this time simply invasive gratutious
complexity. Next thing you'll be changing the colour of my scroll bars :-(

And *what* produced this? It a bit like the standard cargo cult stuff but
I've never seen it this complex before.
<quote>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
<![CDATA[
</style>
</quote>

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules, but causes
older browsers to crash or not understand its contents (the CSS). So it
has to be contained within the fancy array: <![CDATA[ so that both older and newer browsers can access the contents
with the contents remaining XHTML compliant.

rf:
Unnecessary complexity.

Are you talking about this link:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://publishing.kabis.net/css/screen.css

Strange. Validated without any errors for me.

rf:
Didn't for me. Didn't even attempt to do so. Got cranky about the <?xml line
and said "validate your XHTML".

Good points, rf. But I've done my homework.

rf, in conclusion:
So I see. Your homework consisted of throwing so much unnecessary stuff at a
web page that you had to come here for help in digging yourself out of a
hole

Well, the shovel store is just down there --> to the right

My advice still stands. Throw away all of those things that are not actually
*required* to make your page work. Then start again.

BTW this is not idle advice. To work out what is wrong with that page that
is what *I* would have to do. Carefully comment out bits and pieces of it
untill it suddenly starts working. The last bit commented out is the likely
culprit. This is, however, a time consuming exercise and is far better done
by you (who is supposedly familiar with the code) than I. You, of course,
are not paying me by the hour

Finally, if you wish futther discourse on this matter do not re-crosspost
that group that I have already told you is not on my server. It pisses me
off to send a post only to have it bounce back at me!

Ben Measures · Jul 12, 2004

Neo said:
Besides, the only reason that I have that chunk of CSS inline instead of
inside the style.css stylesheet is because I have the h1
background-image (your first question and my answer) dynamically
modified by ASP.NET. [snip] I already tried calling a custom CSS file
that was a modified ASP.NET file (Example: <link type="style/css"
media="screen" rel="stylesheet"
src="/css/imageswap.aspx?img1=02&img2=05"></link>). It didn't work. It
wasn't seen by the browsers as a CSS file because it didn't end with
".css", and therefore was ignored.

Did you try the link with the correct type="text/css" attribute? (Really?)

rf · Jul 12, 2004

Nice language, Brucie. Glad to see you taking the high moral and
linguistic road.

Cleartype was designed to increase legibility on monitors of all types,
but was originally designed to produce its maximum effect on flat panel
LCD's. A decrease in legibility (especially in small type sizes) is a
clear indicator of a malfunctioning monitor or video card. If you have a
problem with ClearType's legibility on your computer, the problem lies
with your computer, not ClearType.

And why should your bloody website presume to know better then brucie or I
what we prefer on our computers. This is the HEIGHT or arrogance, for you to
presume that our settings are not good enough for *you*.

Thankfully I do not allow activeX controls to run so I didn't get infected
by *your* ideas on cleartype. If I had I would have use words very much like
brucie did, except more of them.

What are you going to do next? Install damn frontpage on "everyones" system
because you like it?

Now, **** off with your cleartype invasion and your high horse attitude and
leave my settings alone.

Is that, clear?

rf · Jul 12, 2004

Oh My &deity; I have just read this statement again and I think I can see
what you are saying.

You are saying that [you think] cleartype is a good thing. You seem to
assume that everybody should have it switched on. Is that right?

You go on to mention that sometimes it does not work, however if it does not
then there is a hardware problem. Is that correct? It is not a clearthype
problem? Right? It's a hardware problem.

For it to be documented then this must happen frequently enough. There are
then quite a number of people out there who, for one reason or another, have
hardware that is not compatible with cleartype. Is this correct?

So, you have a viewer with said hardware problem who stumbles by your site.
She does not know about the hardware problem because she does *not have
cleartype switched on*. She is quite happy with her system, having spent
hours getting it set up Just Right.

Now, your page switches on cleartype and *SUDDENLY* she experiences a
decrease in legibililty. Your web page has fucked up her system for her,
without her consent or even her knowledge. This is bordering on Virus.

However all of this is not *your* fault. It is *her* fault that cleartype
does not work on her system. Is that what you are saying?

Even though it is *you* who has turned it on, it is still *her* fault if it
does not work. Is that correct?

Are you saying that you are quite willing to **** up somebodys computer and
then blame it on them?

There are words for people like you, however it's against my ISPs TOS to use
them.

Els · Jul 12, 2004

brucie said:
in post:
<rf

i think thats where the <brain> usually goes.

ok, ok... i go back to sitting in my corner.

Why? You're just starting to be funny

brucie · Jul 12, 2004

in post: <

rf said:
Oh My &deity; I have just read this statement again

please watch your blood pressure.

You go on to mention that sometimes it does not work, however if it does not
then there is a hardware problem. Is that correct? It is not a clearthype
problem? Right? It's a hardware problem.

if you have multiple high end graphics cards and a DPI other than the
default 96. its a cleartype problem. the text becomes so anti-aliased it
anti-aliases itself out of existence regardless of what size it is. all
text just disappears, if you look really carefully you can see a slight
grey smudge where the text is supposed to be.

on the other hand the "standard" font smoothing option works without a
problem (for me) but it still has a large performance hit (at least it
does driving 6 monitors).

linux's nice smooth fonts are exceptional, its like looking at a printed
page. unfortunately linux has other display problems.

There are words for people like you, however it's against my ISPs TOS to use
them.

not mine.

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

Ben said:
Neo said:

Besides, the only reason that I have that chunk of CSS inline instead
of inside the style.css stylesheet is because I have the h1
background-image (your first question and my answer) dynamically
modified by ASP.NET. [snip] I already tried calling a custom CSS file
that was a modified ASP.NET file (Example: <link type="style/css"
media="screen" rel="stylesheet"
src="/css/imageswap.aspx?img1=02&img2=05"></link>). It didn't work. It
wasn't seen by the browsers as a CSS file because it didn't end with
".css", and therefore was ignored.

Click to expand...

Did you try the link with the correct type="text/css" attribute? (Really?)

So shoot me. These days, I recycle the entire META section between web
projects. Here I was simply typing out the link tag from memory clear
off the top of my head and in the heat of the moment while trying to
remember a possible attribute string that the ASP.NET code would have
added to it.

It's been a year or two since I've had to type out a link tag without a
direct reference, and quite a few months since I've had to type out the
full link tag at all.

Good point, though. It just goes to show how easily a mistake can creep in.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

rf · Jul 12, 2004

brucie said:
in post: <

please watch your blood pressure.

I have been. It was nice and low until I went to my doctor to have it
checked.

She is a Cute Doctor

if you have multiple high end graphics cards and a DPI other than the
default 96. its a cleartype problem.

As do I. However I have never used cleartype, nor been whammied by the OP's
virus ^H^H^H activeX control.

So, there are times when the OP is intentionally fucking up our systems even
when it is not a hardware problem but a problem within cleartype itself

Oh my.

I suppose the answer will be "don't use multiple screens and high end cards
because your fonts will be stuffed up when you view my page".

<Back, down, next web site>

jake · Jul 12, 2004

Neo Geshel said:
Greetings!

When I use the Suckerfish drop-down menu in my new site
(http://publishing.kabis.net/), it only works in non-IE browsers.

If you look at the following page:
http://publishing.kabis.net/menu.html
in both IE as well as Mozilla, both browsers work flawlessly.

However, if you look at:
http://publishing.kabis.net/index.aspx
in both browsers, only a non-IE browser works properly. Internet
Explorer doesn't work with the drop-down menu at all. Strange thing is,
both pages use identical CSS.

That's right. Identical CSS.

So why does one page work and another doesn't?

FYI, I am using ASP.NET to dynamically bring in a random
background-image of the H1 and a random banner below the menu.

TIA!
...Geshel

As a matter of interest, what assistive technology (AT) UAs (screen
readers, talking browsers) have you tested your menu system with? It
doesn't work with IBM's HPR.

"......It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A
of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative...."

Incidentally, although your page validates -- IMHO, it's not WAI-AAA
compliant; and assuming that the layout would be the same on other
pages, it's not 508 compliant, either.

regards.

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

rf said:
So that is why you have collected so much cargo cult baggage in there?

I said I recycle the meta material between projects. I didn't say that I
keep old stuff in there that isn't kosher anymore. I mean, when was the
last time you saw multiple body tags with different color attributes
just to cause Netscape 2.0 to load the page up with a colour show?? I
did that back in the early 90's, but it was obvious pretty fast that it
was a no-no. I drop or modify anything that isn't W3C compliant to match
compliancy, and *any* browser-specific stuff (cleartype is the first
browser-specific thing I've done in AGES) is either brought in by
conditional server-side scripting (so that only the browser in question
- and only if its owner hasn't altered its user-agent - will get the
material), or it is left out altogether if server-side scripting isn't
available on the web site's server.

There is no cargo-cult baggage in there. Just because you don't
understand what you are looking at (the material surrounding the inline
css), doesn't mean that it's cargo-cult baggage.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

Neo Geshel · Jul 12, 2004

rf said:
rf:
I don't know what you have done in your post but it has stuffed up my
newsreader, the >'s arent there and no, I am not going to bother putting
them back.

It [the logo] has a "flicker" because of how IE handles a background-image.

rf:
I doubt that. I have never ever seen a standard background behave like that.
Besides, it does not "flicker" here (over the other side of the planet) it
disappears for a whole second and then reappears. Makes the site bloody hard
to look at. Something you have done is making it do that and a server hit
from over her is *EXPENSIVE*.

This is directly a result of Internet Explorer's inability to handle the
background-image CSS properly in some cases. Here I have a h1, but the
background-image is not attached to it. Instead, it is attached to the
anchor inside the h1, and everytime you mouseover, the background-image
is re-rendered by IE, causing it to re-download it from the server.
Annoying, but once again, a "feature" found only in IE.

The literature is out there, you know.

I am
using that to make it accessible for screen readers. If you check out
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revised-image-replacement/, you will
notice that I have made use of a modified form of the Gilder/Levin
Method to make the h1 header accessible to screen readers.

rf:
You are making it unnecessarily complex. What is wrong with a simple alt
attribute? and don't refer me to that site above. They might have a point
but what about every other site out there that simply uses alt text. Your
viewers are used to that.

A real lemming, aren't you? Why penalize the disabled for being on the
web when there are ways to make them feel appreciated and welcome? Just
because most (98%+) web sites refuse to provide decent access for the
disabled doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Besides, it
allows me to provide printer-friendly content without creating multiple
copies of the content on each page.

True, but I have never had a problem with raw XHTML. At least, not more
than IE's buggy, non-standards-compliant rendering engine normally spits
out on a normal day anyways. I swear, IE is today what Netscape 4.x was
two years ago...

rf:
Two years? Oh my, where have you been NN4.x died last century, way
before IE6.

Yeah, but two years ago plenty of people were still using it. Thank
goodness NN7 came out and changed that...

a buggy and viciously horrible piece of coding that is
better left in the trash heap of history

rf:
True but that horrible piece of code is what 80% of your viewers are
currently using. No matter how much you or I hate it, it's here to say at
least for a while. Live with it.

Yeah, but I gotta vent.... my spleen, my poor spleen....

I am trying to automatically enable cleartype smoothing for everyone
that comes to the site with NT 5.1 (Windows "XP"). Microsoft does it
themselves on their own site:

rf:
And just what makes you think that I might *want* cleartype smoothing? This
is, after all, my computer and the overall settings are My Bloody Business.
Leave my settings alone!

Once again, unnecessary complexity, and this time simply invasive gratutious
complexity. Next thing you'll be changing the colour of my scroll bars :-(

5% of all web sites (and sometimes even the ad banners on innocent
sites!) visited by the online population in a typical day plant a piece
of spyware or malware onto their computer without their knowledge. This
is thanks to Internet Explorer's continent-sized security holes. In an
average year of usage, the average IE user attracts and accumulates over
300 suspicious or outright dangerous little gifts thanks to IE. My
little fudge affects only IE 6+ on Windows XP, and changes something
that can easily be changed back or permanently disabled. You can't say
the same about spyware, malware or coloured scroll bars.

I get the bit about it being your computer, but why the temper tantrum?
You people sound like the princess and the pea...

And *what* produced this? It a bit like the standard cargo cult stuff but
I've never seen it this complex before.
<quote>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
<![CDATA[
</style>
</quote>

Click to expand...

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules, but causes
older browsers to crash or not understand its contents (the CSS). So it
has to be contained within the fancy array: <![CDATA[ so that both older and newer browsers can access the contents
with the contents remaining XHTML compliant.

rf:
Unnecessary complexity.

Sure, if you don't mind breaking older browsers to support newer ones,
or breaking newer browsers for the sake of older ones. This supports
both old and new browsers, and is standards-compliant to boot. What's so
complex about a win-win situation?

Are you talking about this link:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://publishing.kabis.net/css/screen.css

Strange. Validated without any errors for me.

rf:
Didn't for me. Didn't even attempt to do so. Got cranky about the <?xml line
and said "validate your XHTML".

Then try validating the CSS file and not the HTML page for a change...

Good points, rf. But I've done my homework.

rf, in conclusion:
So I see. Your homework consisted of throwing so much unnecessary stuff at a
web page that you had to come here for help in digging yourself out of a
hole

My "hole" has nothing to do with what everyone here has bitched about.

Not once has anyone tried to tackle my main problem: why the drop-down
pure-css menus do not work correctly with IE on one page, and why the
identical code works for IE on another.

Well, the shovel store is just down there --> to the right

My advice still stands. Throw away all of those things that are not actually
*required* to make your page work. Then start again.

I've already done that. Everything you have bitched about has been torn
out and the page checked. Every time the problem remained. I have
reversed-engineered until there was almost nothing left, but the problem
remained.

BTW this is not idle advice. To work out what is wrong with that page that
is what *I* would have to do. Carefully comment out bits and pieces of it
untill it suddenly starts working. The last bit commented out is the likely
culprit. This is, however, a time consuming exercise and is far better done
by you (who is supposedly familiar with the code) than I. You, of course,
are not paying me by the hour

Finally, if you wish futther discourse on this matter do not re-crosspost
that group that I have already told you is not on my server. It pisses me
off to send a post only to have it bounce back at me!

--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

brucie · Jul 12, 2004

in post: <

Neo Geshel said:
There is no cargo-cult baggage in there.

Please reply to my first name at my last name dot org.

do you mean like this? (e-mail address removed)

Schizophrenic Internet Explorer - Suckerfish Drop-downs	6	Oct 21, 2004
CSS drop-down menu problems	3	Mar 6, 2007
drop down css	0	Jun 2, 2006
CSS drop-down menu problem	4	Apr 13, 2006
IE hiding drop down submenus	15	Nov 6, 2007
Suckerfish & .js delay with IE - preload external .js?	1	Aug 10, 2004
Pure CSS Dropdown menu	3	Oct 22, 2006
CSS Menu & IE	4	Apr 14, 2004

Suckerfish CSS drop-down menu problem (major IE inconsistency!)

Neo Geshel

Neo Geshel

rf

brucie

Neo Geshel

brucie

Neo Geshel

brucie

rf

Ben Measures

rf

rf

Els

brucie

Neo Geshel

rf

jake

Neo Geshel

Neo Geshel

brucie

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads