Sucking mozillas...

[Guest]

Hello,
I am making a webpage in CSS. It looks fine in Opera, I even made it look
fine in stupid MSIE, but Mozilla & clones (Firebird, Firefox, k-meleon) as
always can't render it properly.

I don't use mozilla, but there are still some guys, who thinks it's nice...
so my page have to look good for them too.

The biggest problem for mozillas is this:
div.pion {position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%;
width:2;}

which should be a vertival line placed 160 px from left side...

Can you tell me how to make mozilla thingies understand my page?

Regards,
Talthen

 

[Arne]

Hello,
I am making a webpage in CSS. It looks fine in Opera, I even made it look
fine in stupid MSIE, but Mozilla & clones (Firebird, Firefox, k-meleon) as
always can't render it properly.

I don't use mozilla, but there are still some guys, who thinks it's nice...
so my page have to look good for them too.

The biggest problem for mozillas is this:
div.pion {position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%;
width:2;}

which should be a vertival line placed 160 px from left side...

Can you tell me how to make mozilla thingies understand my page?

Validate your page with http://validator.w3.org/ (HTML) and with
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ (CSS), correct your errors and
check then what the page looks like. If there still is any problem,
then come back with an URL to the page.

 

[Guest]

Validate your page with http://validator.w3.org/ (HTML) and with
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ (CSS), correct your errors and
check then what the page looks like. If there still is any problem,
then come back with an URL to the page.

Thanks. The problem was because mozilla don't understand px in "width: 140
px"

Regards,
Talthen

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Thanks. The problem was because mozilla don't understand px in "width: 140
px"

It understands it very well! It knows it is bad syntax, which by CSS
rules it must disregard. QED.

 

[Arne]

Thanks. The problem was because mozilla don't understand px in "width: 140
px"

Mozilla understand, but disregard bad syntax. It's IE and Opera who is
stupid trying to guess what they don't understand. They probably
guessed right this time. But how would it look like if they had
guessed wrong and used points, percent, em or what ever messuers? Then
it would have been totaly wrong: e.g. top: 100 em;? width: 2%;? A.s.o.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hello,
I am making a webpage in CSS. It looks fine in Opera, I even made it look
fine in stupid MSIE, but Mozilla & clones (Firebird, Firefox, k-meleon) as
always can't render it properly.

I don't use mozilla, but there are still some guys, who thinks it's nice...
so my page have to look good for them too.

The biggest problem for mozillas is this:
div.pion {position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%;

^ ^
1 2

width:2;} ^
3

which should be a vertival line placed 160 px from left side...

Can you tell me how to make mozilla thingies understand my page?

Yeah, fix your CSS!
1. no space between value and units
2. missing required units
3. missing required units

Mozilla is just correctly relaying to you that you have made mistakes! ;-)

 

[dorayme]

Hello,
I am making a webpage in CSS. It looks fine in Opera, I even made it look
fine in stupid MSIE, but Mozilla & clones (Firebird, Firefox, k-meleon) as
always can't render it properly.

I don't use mozilla, but there are still some guys, who thinks it's nice...
so my page have to look good for them too.

The biggest problem for mozillas is this:
div.pion {position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%;
width:2;}

which should be a vertival line placed 160 px from left side...

Can you tell me how to make mozilla thingies understand my page?

I don't know if it is this but I write such css like this:
width: 2px (ie. using the unit concerned, I am not sure about
having no space between the number and the unit, but this is how
I do it, no space, and have achieved remarkable and beautiful
things only half knowing what I am doing, this might be in the
half I know...

dorayme

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

I don't know if it is this but I write such css like this:
width: 2px (ie. using the unit concerned, I am not sure about
having no space between the number and the unit, but this is how
I do it, no space, and have achieved remarkable and beautiful
things only half knowing what I am doing, this might be in the
half I know...

dorayme

From the spec:

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

<quote>
The format of a length value (denoted by <length> in this specification)
is a <number> (with or without a decimal point) immediately followed by
a unit identifier (e.g., px, em, etc.). After a zero length, the unit
identifier is optional.
</quote>

only '0' length is units optional, and there is no space between value
and unit type.

 

[Guest]

only '0' length is units optional, and there is no space between value and
unit type.

Well... no space between unit and value is a very stupid thing. Maybe we
should remove all other spaces everywhere too and write like this:
HelloWorldthisismyfirstwebpage-howdoyouenjoyit?

I hate "standards" made by crazy ppl.

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

Regards,
Talthen

 

[rf]

only '0' length is units optional, and there is no space between value and
unit type.

Well... no space between unit and value is a very stupid thing. Maybe we
should remove all other spaces everywhere too and write like this:
HelloWorldthisismyfirstwebpage-howdoyouenjoyit?

I hate "standards" made by crazy ppl.

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

This is a joke, right?

Cheers
Richard.

 

[clive]

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

The standards themselves are not the problem, the problem is the way
that they are then intepreted by the various makers of browsers. If you
bear in mind that the most of the manufacturers of web browsers are
part of the w3c, it is incredible that they can't agree how the
standards should be applied in their own products. The same goes for
javascript (or ECMA262 if that is what you want to call it).

 

[Blinky the Shark]

only '0' length is units optional, and there is no space between value and
unit type.

Well... no space between unit and value is a very stupid thing. Maybe we
should remove all other spaces everywhere too and write like this:
HelloWorldthisismyfirstwebpage-howdoyouenjoyit?

I hate "standards" made by crazy ppl.

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

This is a joke, right?

Seems to be another form of Polish Notation other than the usual
(RPN) Reverse Polish Notation.

 

[Marc]

Well... no space between unit and value is a very stupid thing. Maybe we
should remove all other spaces everywhere too and write like this:
HelloWorldthisismyfirstwebpage-howdoyouenjoyit?

I hate "standards" made by crazy ppl.

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

You're mad - it's not just web standards that write the unit like this -
take the following examples:

500m - 500 meters
100C - 100 degrees centigrade
50km - 50 kilometers
10li - 10 liters
70mi - 70 miles
12oz - 12 ounces

What planet have you been on if it's therefore not logical to write:

10px - 10 pixels
50pt - 50 points

???

Marc

 

[rf]

clive wrote:>

Thanks for your answers- they will make be better in a world of illogic wc3
standars :]

The standards themselves are not the problem, the problem is the way
that they are then intepreted by the various makers of browsers.

Nope. The problem is that the browser manufacturers have seen fit (IE
notably) to introduce error correction in an endeavour to display at least
*something* when an author serves up invalid soup.

(If all browsers totally ignored anything that is invalid (instead of trying
to second guess the author) then we would not be having this discussion. The
OP's code would simply have not worked, period.)

Where the browsers support a part of the spec then (largely, IE buts
excepted) they do it correctly.

But, what is a browser to do with the OP's grossly invalid CSS:
position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%; width:2; ?

Well, IE assumes that the OP really meant width: 2px. Mozilla does not.
Mozilla correctly ignores the invalid CSS, as the specs state it should.
True, IE is not performing to spec here but, well, it's IE after all

Same with left: 160 px. The spec clearly states that these sort of property
values can not have spaces in them. "160 px" is simply invalid. The value
*must* be 160px.

As to the OP's gripe, does he/she always drive on the same side of the road
as everybody else? You can bet on it, the OP's driving is to the relevant
authorities specifications, otherwise the OP would not be here.

(Over here a year or three ago some little old lady drove up the freeway on
the wrong side (2 lanes each , seperated by 20 metres of bush). She made it
about 10 Kilometres before...)

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Stan McCann]

Thanks. The problem was because mozilla don't understand px in
"width: 140 px"

Mozilla understands px just fine when used properly. width: 140 px is
incorrect. width: 140px is correct. Note the spacing. top: 100 is
also incorrect. 100 what?

As someone else suggested; validate your page. Validation would have
caught both of those errors.

 

[Guest]

You're mad - it's not just web standards that write the unit like this -
take the following examples:

500m - 500 meters
100C - 100 degrees centigrade
50km - 50 kilometers
10li - 10 liters
70mi - 70 miles
12oz - 12 ounces

Nope. Here we write:
500 m
100 km
10 l

And "width: 100", like for me, should be correct, because pixels are default
units for computers.

If webbrowser makers don't agree with the wc3 standards, than wc3 standards
are not standards. Standards are made by browsers.

Regards,
Talthen

 

[Arne]

Nope. Here we write:
500 m
100 km
10 l

So, do you write align="centre" or what ever it's in your language
when you want something to be horizontaly centered? I'll guess not,
since "center" is the only valid word for it.

Just because some tag soap works in some browsers, is not an excuse to
use it. Just because it's common to write "500 meters" as "500 m" in
your country, is not any excuse to expect it to work on Internet.

And "width: 100", like for me, should be correct, because pixels are default
units for computers.

Really? All I know for pixels as (what could be called) default on
computers, is the screen resolution. And it's the browser you are
viewing the web pages with. To work with images you are using other
softwares and on them you choose what unit you like to messure them
in, those softwares (not your computer) may have default units if you
don't coose any.

If webbrowser makers don't agree with the wc3 standards, than wc3 standards
are not standards. Standards are made by browsers.

The web browser makers agree with the standards, but they don't (yet)
fully follow them. If it would be true that standards are made by
browsers, then we have as many "standards" as we have browsers. Do you
really belive that?

I there is a speed limit of 100 miles per hour on a road and some
drivers still drives in 120 miles per hour, others in 150 miles per
hour and an third group of drivers drive only in 90 miles per hour,
should we have four different speed limits for that road so everybody
can drive as they like?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

position: absolute; left: 160 px; top: 100; height: 100%; width:2; ?

Well, IE assumes that the OP really meant width: 2px.

You're aware, are you, that the CSS specification explicitly forbids
this behaviour, meaning that this is yet another point on which IE
disqualifies itself as a web browser?

Mozilla does not.

Neither may any other web-compatible browser. Those mandatory
requirements in the specification aren't just for amusement: there's
an important motive behind them (MSIE 3.x eminently demonstrated the
dangers of disregarding them, but MS chose not to learn from that
experience, it seems).

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Arne quothed:

I there is a speed limit of 100 miles per hour on a road and some
drivers still drives in 120 miles per hour, others in 150 miles per
hour and an third group of drivers drive only in 90 miles per hour,
should we have four different speed limits for that road so everybody
can drive as they like?

How about different speed limits for different lanes?

 

[Toby Inkster]

500m - 500 meters
100C - 100 degrees centigrade
50km - 50 kilometers
10li - 10 liters
70mi - 70 miles
12oz - 12 ounces

Actually (for metric units anyway) it is standard to use a space between
the quantity and the unit. Also, the abbreviation for litres is a capital
"L", not "li". (Lowercase "l" is also common in many parts of the world,
and is also an accepted abbreviation.)

500 m
100 °C
50 km
10 L