why no text+shading in Firefox?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Eddy, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)

    For example, if you look at the following page website:
    http://www.davidcade.net

    See the two yellow lines saying
    "Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !
    With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !"

    Now look at those two lines in Internet Explorer. There's black shading
    around them.

    Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    shading behind text?

    Is there a way of getting around this by using html?

    Thanks.

    P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    being able to show shading?
     
    Eddy, Oct 26, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eddy

    rf Guest

    "Eddy" <> wrote in message
    news:s9YMk.94488$2...
    > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    > (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    > whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)


    If there is a difference between IE and any other browser then bet on IE
    being wrong.

    > For example, if you look at the following page website:
    > http://www.davidcade.net



    AAARRGGGG. No thanks.

    So bloody red!

    And, BTW I see no difference between FF and IE.
     
    rf, Oct 26, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eddy wrote:
    > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    > (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    > whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)
    >
    > For example, if you look at the following page website:
    > http://www.davidcade.net
    >
    > See the two yellow lines saying
    > "Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !
    > With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !"
    >
    > Now look at those two lines in Internet Explorer. There's black shading
    > around them.
    >
    > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    > shading behind text?


    That's correct. Other browsers can't reproduce effects created in IE by
    using non-standard Microsoft inventions that the makers of the other
    browsers didn't copy from Microsoft.

    > Is there a way of getting around this by using html?


    No. And even in IE it isn't done using HTML.

    > Thanks.
    >
    > P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    > has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    > they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    > being able to show shading?
    >

    It isn't a "problem" any more than it would be a problem if Microsoft
    hadn't implemented it either. It's a cool feature, but hardly a
    necessary one.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Oct 26, 2008
    #3
  4. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Harlan Messinger wrote:

    > > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    > > shading behind text?

    >
    > That's correct. Other browsers can't reproduce effects created in IE by
    > using non-standard Microsoft inventions that the makers of the other
    > browsers didn't copy from Microsoft.
    >
    > > Is there a way of getting around this by using html?

    >
    > No. And even in IE it isn't done using HTML.
    >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > > P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    > > has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    > > they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    > > being able to show shading?
    > >

    > It isn't a "problem" any more than it would be a problem if Microsoft
    > hadn't implemented it either. It's a cool feature, but hardly a
    > necessary one.


    Thanks a lot, Harlan. Your answers are really helpful. Really
    appreciate it.
     
    Eddy, Oct 26, 2008
    #4
  5. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    rf wrote:

    > > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    > > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    > > (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    > > whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)

    >
    > If there is a difference between IE and any other browser then bet on IE
    > being wrong.
    >
    > > For example, if you look at the following page website:
    > > http://www.davidcade.net

    >
    > And, BTW I see no difference between FF and IE.


    Thanks, RF. You (and Harlan) have pointed to the fact that IE6 is
    prepared to faithfully reproduce shading behind text, while IE7 (like
    FF) is not! Damned nuisance, I say!

    Thanks for your help.
     
    Eddy, Oct 26, 2008
    #5
  6. Eddy

    Ari Heino Guest

    Ari Heino, Oct 26, 2008
    #6
  7. Eddy

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:04:58 GMT, Eddy
    <> wrote:

    >Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    >which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    >(not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    >whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)
    >
    >For example, if you look at the following page website:
    >http://www.davidcade.net
    >
    >See the two yellow lines saying
    >"Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !
    >With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !"
    >
    >Now look at those two lines in Internet Explorer. There's black shading
    >around them.
    >
    >Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    >shading behind text?
    >
    >Is there a way of getting around this by using html?
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    >has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    >they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    >being able to show shading?
    >



    IE has always been tinkering with non-standard items.
    Run your page through the validator at w3.org and you'll probably find
    those items are not accepted.

    IE also "assumes" too much.
    Where the page might work properly in IE as intended, FF shows it
    correctly.

    http://validator.w3.org/
     
    richard, Oct 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Eddy wrote:
    > Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >
    >>> Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    >>> shading behind text?

    >> That's correct. Other browsers can't reproduce effects created in IE by
    >> using non-standard Microsoft inventions that the makers of the other
    >> browsers didn't copy from Microsoft.
    >>
    >>> Is there a way of getting around this by using html?

    >> No. And even in IE it isn't done using HTML.
    >>
    >>> Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    >>> has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    >>> they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    >>> being able to show shading?
    >>>

    >> It isn't a "problem" any more than it would be a problem if Microsoft
    >> hadn't implemented it either. It's a cool feature, but hardly a
    >> necessary one.

    >
    > Thanks a lot, Harlan. Your answers are really helpful. Really
    > appreciate it.


    There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and
    doubled content...


    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    <html>
    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    <meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
    <title>Shadow</title>

    <style type="text/css">
    body { background: #804; color: #fadb61; }
    div.shadow { font: 1.3em bolder, sans-serif; position: relative; color:
    #000; }
    div.shadow span { display: block; position: absolute; color: #fadb61;
    top: -2px; left: 2px; }
    </style>

    </head>
    <body>
    <div class="shadow">
    Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br>
    With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !
    <span>
    Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br>
    With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !
    </span>
    </div>
    </body>
    </html>




    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    richard wrote:
    > IE has always been tinkering with non-standard items.
    > Run your page through the validator at w3.org and you'll probably find
    > those items are not accepted.
    >
    > IE also "assumes" too much.
    > Where the page might work properly in IE as intended, FF shows it
    > correctly.
    >
    > http://validator.w3.org/


    Really, interesting, Richard, thanks! Will go look at w3 org.
     
    Eddy, Oct 27, 2008
    #9
  10. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Ari Heino wrote:

    > Eddy kirjoitti seuraavasti:
    > > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    > > shading behind text?

    >
    > Unfortunately (?) Safari is the only browser supporting the text-shadow
    > property in css2.
    >
    > There are messy ways to do it in other browsers, too. Check out
    > http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/css/cross-browser-drop-shadows


    Thanks, Ari. Interesting info. Thanks for the "messy" help via the
    above link!
     
    Eddy, Oct 27, 2008
    #10
  11. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and
    > doubled content...
    >
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    > <meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
    > <title>Shadow</title>
    >
    > <style type="text/css">
    > body { background: #804; color: #fadb61; }
    > div.shadow { font: 1.3em bolder, sans-serif; position: relative; color:
    > #000; }
    > div.shadow span { display: block; position: absolute; color: #fadb61;
    > top: -2px; left: 2px; }
    > </style>
    >
    > </head>
    > <body>
    > <div class="shadow">
    > Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br>
    > With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !
    > <span>
    > Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br>
    > With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !
    > </span>
    > </div>
    > </body>
    > </html>


    Thanks, Jonathan. Looks like its time to upgrade my web-making program.
    If I use this "messy" method, every time I save the page within the
    web-making program the program will no doubt eliminate the tweaks!?
     
    Eddy, Oct 27, 2008
    #11
  12. Eddy

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Ari Heino" <> wrote in message
    news:ge23ak$2s5l$...
    > Eddy kirjoitti seuraavasti:
    >> Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    >> shading behind text?

    >
    > Unfortunately (?) Safari is the only browser supporting the text-shadow
    > property in css2.


    FYI:
    text-shadow was dropped from CSS 2.1 but is present in CSS 3. Implemented
    by Safari and other Webkit browsers like Chrome (though not the current
    build), Konquerer, iCab; Opera since 9.5 and Firefox from 3.1 onwards.

    Internet Explorer support (partial) expected some time around 2014
     
    Nik Coughlin, Oct 27, 2008
    #12
  13. Eddy

    Bergamot Guest

    Eddy wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and
    >> doubled content...

    >
    > If I use this "messy" method


    Don't. Please. Drop shadows are a non-essential and resorting to doubled
    content to simulate the effect is just plain a bad idea.

    Remember that CSS is supposed to be optional and a page should make
    sense when CSS is disabled. Doubled content won't, especially for anyone
    using a screen reader.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Oct 27, 2008
    #13
  14. Eddy

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Oct 26, 6:04 am, Eddy <>
    wrote:
    > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text -
    > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer
    > (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested
    > whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.)
    >
    > For example, if you look at the following page website:http://www.davidcade.net
    >
    > See the two yellow lines saying
    > "Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !
    > With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !"
    >
    > Now look at those two lines in Internet Explorer.  There's black shading
    > around them.
    >
    > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce
    > shading behind text?
    >
    > Is there a way of getting around this by using html?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > P.S.  If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it
    > has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because
    > they are an image.  Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not
    > being able to show shading?


    I am replying late and see that others have explained the reason for
    shading behind text not showing on most browsers. Since there appears
    to be no easy, clean method that works on most browsers using only
    html, you might consider making an image instead if you want shaded
    text for only a few lines in a fairly small area. There likely are
    shaded fonts you can find out of the perhaps thousands that you can
    download. The problem is that most people would not have the font you
    used installed on their browser. However you likely could use a shaded
    font on an image tool, such as PaintShop, to make a png on a
    transparent background so that seeing the shading does not depend on
    the browser. Also the gd extension for php likely would allow you to
    do the same thing, in which case you would have to upload the selected
    shaded font to the server. Some image tools may allow you to use a
    common font you have installed for labeling and can be set to shade
    the text. I have never had a need for this, so I have not checked the
    common image tools to see which support text shading, if any. I
    suppose a few people still turn their images off, so you might want to
    consider that. A good alt text might overcome this problem in many
    cases.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Oct 28, 2008
    #14
  15. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > I am replying late and see that others have explained the reason for
    > shading behind text not showing on most browsers. Since there appears
    > to be no easy, clean method that works on most browsers using only
    > html, you might consider making an image instead if you want shaded
    > text for only a few lines in a fairly small area. There likely are
    > shaded fonts you can find out of the perhaps thousands that you can
    > download. The problem is that most people would not have the font you
    > used installed on their browser. However you likely could use a shaded
    > font on an image tool, such as PaintShop, to make a png on a
    > transparent background so that seeing the shading does not depend on
    > the browser. Also the gd extension for php likely would allow you to
    > do the same thing, in which case you would have to upload the selected
    > shaded font to the server. Some image tools may allow you to use a
    > common font you have installed for labeling and can be set to shade
    > the text. I have never had a need for this, so I have not checked the
    > common image tools to see which support text shading, if any. I
    > suppose a few people still turn their images off, so you might want to
    > consider that. A good alt text might overcome this problem in many
    > cases.


    Cwdjrxyz, thanks a lot for this. Yes, forcing shading onto a browser
    that won't reproduce shaded text by merging jpgs of text is a good idea
    and an alternative. I have done this before when put an email address
    on a website. Spammers can't be bothered writing the thing down and
    then typing it into wretched "spam-machines". But I have never
    considered before the danger you mention: that some purists do browse
    with all images turned off, looking only at text.

    Thanks for the thoughts.
     
    Eddy, Oct 28, 2008
    #15
  16. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:

    > FYI:
    > text-shadow was dropped from CSS 2.1 but is present in CSS 3. Implemented
    > by Safari and other Webkit browsers like Chrome (though not the current
    > build), Konquerer, iCab; Opera since 9.5 and Firefox from 3.1 onwards.


    Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I
    have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF
    3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a
    version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1?

    > Internet Explorer support (partial) expected some time around 2014


    Er. I think you're joking. Microsoft surely doesn't have plans for
    such minute things six years hence?
     
    Eddy, Oct 28, 2008
    #16
  17. Eddy

    Eddy Guest

    Bergamot wrote:

    > > If I use this "messy" method

    >
    > Don't. Please. Drop shadows are a non-essential and resorting to doubled
    > content to simulate the effect is just plain a bad idea.
    >
    > Remember that CSS is supposed to be optional and a page should make
    > sense when CSS is disabled. Doubled content won't, especially for anyone
    > using a screen reader.


    Thanks for the warning, Bergamot.
     
    Eddy, Oct 28, 2008
    #17
  18. Eddy

    Irina Rempt Guest

    On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:52, Eddy wrote:

    > some purists do browse
    > with all images turned off, looking only at text.


    Not only purists, but also people with an old computer, a bad/slow
    connection or a small bandwidth allowance.

    Irina
    --
    "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
    should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore
    http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 27-Oct-2008
     
    Irina Rempt, Oct 28, 2008
    #18
  19. Eddy

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Eddy wrote:

    > Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I
    > have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF
    > 3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a
    > version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1?


    3.1 is the latest *beta* version of Firefox, so the general public won't
    be using it yet. I've yet to look at it myself, but from what I've read,
    it features some nice improvements to speed and adds further support for
    CSS.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

    The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
    those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
     
    Dylan Parry, Oct 28, 2008
    #19
  20. Eddy

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Dylan Parry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Eddy wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I
    >> have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF
    >> 3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a
    >> version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1?

    >
    > 3.1 is the latest *beta* version of Firefox, so the general public won't
    > be using it yet. I've yet to look at it myself, but from what I've read,
    > it features some nice improvements to speed and adds further support for
    > CSS.


    Yeah. Apparently is now benchmarking faster than Chrome for JavaScript
     
    Nik Coughlin, Oct 28, 2008
    #20
    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. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    989
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,249
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. W. eWatson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    461
    W. eWatson
    Dec 17, 2008
  4. Thomasa Gregg

    Add shading to a single cell.

    Thomasa Gregg, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Datagrid Control
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    108
    Eliyahu Goldin
    Jun 22, 2004
  5. Matt Kruse
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    425
    mick white
    Nov 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page