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

[rf]

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.

Then you are not a real programmer. You still have something left. Delete
that.

Goodbye.

 

[rf]

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.

Point out each meta element you have in your current collection that is
kosher or actually means someting to either a browser or a SE bot.

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??

What has that got to do with carrying meta element baggage?

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

No idea what this means.

cleartype is the first
browser-specific thing I've done in AGES)

As discussed elsewhere with your cleartype foolishness you are intentionally
fucking up other peoples systems, without
their permission.

How bloody arrogant is that!

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.

Oh my, how sad.

 

[rf]

rf wrote:

I have absolutely nothing to add at this point other than <plonk>

 

[Toby Inkster]

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy bollocks it is.

<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

Perfectly valid XHTML.

 

[Toby Inkster]

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.

Correct. The fact that rf doesn't understand it does not make it
cargo-cult baggage. The fact that it's cargo-cult baggage makes it
cargo-cult baggage.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote:

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy bollocks it is.

<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

Perfectly valid XHTML.

Oh, really?

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8

Straight from the horse's mouth, too. Problem is, the raw usage of it
causes embedded style sheets to break in older browsers. Hence the
complicated arrangement of regular <!-- --> and css /* */ comments.

As I said, I do my homework. As such, I seem to me a majority of one in
this NG. Next time, try learning XHTML from the source (the W3C), and
not from the back of a Crackerjack box. Trust me, it's for your own good.

....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.
**********************************************************************

 

[Els]

As I said, I do my homework.

In that case, what are you doing here?!
If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the point
in coming in to ask a question?
Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*, could
just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must be somewhere
with the rest of your homework.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote:




In that case, what are you doing here?!
If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the point
in coming in to ask a question?
Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*, could
just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must be somewhere
with the rest of your homework.

I might be an XHTML *guru*, but I am only a CSS *expert*. I am not a CSS
*genius* or a CSS *guru*. Hence my appeal to help when apparently
identical CSS works in one page but not in another. I didn't find when I
required on the net, so I was hoping a CSS *genius* or *guru* could take
a quick look at my CSS, and in a potential "a-ha!" moment, be able to
point out where I went wrong.

Not much to ask for, is it? So far everyone has bitched about my XHTML.
No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

So, as I have said, since everyone keeps focusing on the XHTML, I can
say that I've done my homework. Because with XHTML, I have.

....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.
**********************************************************************

 

[Toby Inkster]

What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy bollocks it is.

Oh, really?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8
As I said, I do my homework.

If you had done your homework you would have noticed that Chapter 4 of the
XHTML 1 spec isn't normative. (And you would know what "normative" meant.)

I repeat:
<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

is valid XHTML and will give you far fewer problems than that cargo-cult
nonsense you posted.

 

[Els]

I might be an XHTML *guru*, but I am only a CSS *expert*.

Hey, me too (the CSS part, not XHTML) ;-)

I
am not a CSS *genius* or a CSS *guru*. Hence my appeal to
help when apparently identical CSS works in one page but
not in another. I didn't find when I required on the net,
so I was hoping a CSS *genius* or *guru* could take a quick
look at my CSS, and in a potential "a-ha!" moment, be able
to point out where I went wrong.

Then make a simple page, which reflects the CSS problem
without being obstructed by stuff like difficult XHTML and/or
scripts.

Not much to ask for, is it? So far everyone has bitched
about my XHTML. No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

Maybe 'cause CSS can't work correctly with bad XHTML?
(not saying your XHTML is bad per se, I don't know that)

So, as I have said, since everyone keeps focusing on the
XHTML, I can say that I've done my homework. Because with
XHTML, I have.

I won't comment on that myself, as my XHTML knowledge doesn't
go beyond HTML too much. That's not what I can say of quite a
few regulars here though.
But: I do know, that alt.html is not about CSS.
CSS is over at the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
group.

 

[Neo Geshel]

in post: <


<sigh/> you're such an idiot

Really?

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8

Straight from the horse's mouth. Problem is, the raw usage of it causes
embedded style sheets to break in older browsers. Hence the complicated
arrangement of regular <!-- --> and css /* */ comments.

Proof:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/xssi/
(go to the CSS + XHTML section)

As I keep on saying, I do my homework. And as the above link proves, I'm
not the idiot here.

Try learning XHTML from the source (the W3C) and not from the back of a
Crackerjack box. Trust me, you'll get further, know more, and actually
be correct when you reply to Usenet posts like mine.

....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]

Neo Geshel wrote:




Correct. The fact that rf doesn't understand it does not make it
cargo-cult baggage. The fact that it's cargo-cult baggage makes it
cargo-cult baggage.

Really?

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8

Straight from the horse's mouth. Problem is, the raw usage of it causes
embedded style sheets to break in older browsers. Hence the complicated
arrangement of regular <!-- --> and css /* */ comments.

Proof:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/xssi/
(go to the CSS + XHTML section)

Go on. Take the foot out of your mouth. You look silly enough as it is.

....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.
**********************************************************************

 

[Kris]

So far everyone has bitched about my XHTML.
No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

Maybe because you would be better off asking that in a dedicated group
like comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets; a group that many of
here frequent.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote:


What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy bollocks it is.

Oh, really?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8
As I said, I do my homework.

If you had done your homework you would have noticed that Chapter 4 of the
XHTML 1 spec isn't normative. (And you would know what "normative" meant.)

I repeat:
<style type="text/css">
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
</style>

is valid XHTML and will give you far fewer problems than that cargo-cult
nonsense you posted.

So I take it you also don't bother to terminate empty elements, you
don't bother to quote element attributes, and you don't bother to create
well-formed documents because they are also "not normative".

Why even bother with XHTML then? To create well-formed and **correct**
XHTML documents is to follow **all** of the rules, not just the rules
that are convenient for you to follow.

If you avoid the use of CDATA because it's ugly and inconvenient, what's
stopping you from using
<img src="image.jpg">
and
<p>this is <em>a paragraph.</p></em>
Neither of these are prohibited, if you choose to ignore everything that
isn't "normative".

I don't know about you, but I try not to pick and choose those rules I
decide I want to follow today. If I decide to follow them, I do my best
to follow **all** of them.

....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.
**********************************************************************

 

[Toby Inkster]

Really?

Why, yes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8
Straight from the horse's mouth.

See my answer to the previous time you posted that link.

Problem is, the raw usage of it causes
embedded style sheets to break in older browsers. Hence the complicated
arrangement of regular <!-- --> and css /* */ comments.

Or an even better solution: drop the cargo-cult rubbish entirely.

Go on. Take the foot out of your mouth. You look silly enough as it is.

Go validate:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/cargo-cult-nonsense.xhtml

See? Doesn't my way work nicely?

 

[Toby Inkster]

So I take it you also don't bother to terminate empty elements, you
don't bother to quote element attributes, and you don't bother to create
well-formed documents because they are also "not normative".

Terminating empty elements and quoting attributes are both requirements of
normative passages of the XHTML spec.

As I said, please look up what "normative" means.

Why even bother with XHTML then? To create well-formed and **correct**
XHTML documents is to follow **all** of the rules, not just the rules
that are convenient for you to follow.

No -- you only have to follow the normative rules.

If you avoid the use of CDATA because it's ugly and inconvenient, what's
stopping you from using
<img src="image.jpg">
and
<p>this is <em>a paragraph.</p></em>
Neither of these are prohibited,

Both are.

I don't know about you, but I try not to pick and choose those rules I
decide I want to follow today. If I decide to follow them, I do my best
to follow **all** of them.

So do I. But that's my point -- chapter 4 doesn't have any rules -- only
a few suggestions.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Really?

yes, really and truly

 

[Neo Geshel]

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 found the solution to the problem. Turns out that I had another
element inside the DIV that the UL menu was in, and that element had a
display: none; which was causing my problems. Once I used another way of
hiding the element from visual browsers (while keeping it available for
TTS readers), I was back on track.

The CSS and XHTML were both perfect. However, it seems that the
Suckerfish drop-down menu in IE doesn't like neighbors that makes use of
display: none;

....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]

Neo Geshel wrote

I found the solution to the problem. Turns out that I had another
element inside the DIV that the UL menu was in, and that element had a
display: none; which was causing my problems. Once I used another way of
hiding the element from visual browsers (while keeping it available for
TTS readers), I was back on track.

So, removing some of the complexity made it work? Glad to hear. Who would
have thought...

I see you have not uploaded it yet. What is the point of notifying a fix
without letting us critisize the shit out of it?

The CSS and XHTML were both perfect. However, it seems that the
Suckerfish drop-down menu in IE doesn't like neighbors that makes use of
display: none;

Perfect XHTML/HTML/CSS != perfect rendition. In any browser.

My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop.

Ah, another bit of fucking arrogance I didn't spot first time round.

Press the wrong button on my newsreader and you attempt to blacklist me? I
don't think so My ISP would just laugh in your face.

BTW you still have not answered my question about why you quite knowingly
**** up your viewers system and then blame it all on them.

 

[SpaceGirl]

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!

There's nothing wrong with cleartype, and it has very little overhead...
but I have to admit it scares me when people try lil hacks like this.
Another reason avoid IE, and to have ActiveX turned off when I use it
for testing!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #