Working in FF, ruined in IE - after CSS page layout change

Discussion in 'HTML' started by lessani@gmail.com, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hi,

    I rebuilt the entire core of my site using CSS and using no tables
    (although some content pages have tables). All my site is driven
    through index.php - which is table free, then the content appears using
    various includes on the page.

    I finished the site, and was quite impressed when I viewed it back - in
    FireFox, but then when I viewed it in Internet Explorer, there is big
    strange gaps on odd pages.

    Here is the URL,

    http://www.gamesoc.net

    An example user login,

    Username: testguy
    Password: testguy

    Please take a look at this site and give me any reccomendations (short
    of telling me to get rid of tables). Some of the pages use so many
    incredibly complex tables, that I just couldn't possibly get round it -
    without spending weeks changing files.

    I just can't understand why a big gap is forming in the middle of the
    page.

    Regards,
    Ben Lessani
     
    , Aug 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dorward, Aug 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ben Guest

    i know the page has faults, the original index.php is 100% error free.
    but when it uses the includes (with the pages with tables) it has
    errors. like i said earlier, these pages with tables are dynamic, they
    are performing loops, calls from mysql etc. i cant change the code for
    those pages, it would take me a lifetime.

    plus, before i changed my index.php to use CSS, it displayed correctly,
    even with all those errors. but when i put the include, inside a DIV
    tag, any page that has a table on it displays badly.
     
    ben, Aug 25, 2005
    #3
  4. ben wrote:

    > i know the page has faults, the original index.php is 100% error free.
    > but when it uses the includes (with the pages with tables) it has
    > errors. like i said earlier, these pages with tables are dynamic, they
    > are performing loops, calls from mysql etc. i cant change the code for
    > those pages, it would take me a lifetime.


    This is the joy of dealing with badly written code. I suggest you learn to
    love refactoring.

    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

    .... and please learn to quote properly:
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html (section 3)

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Aug 25, 2005
    #4
  5. ben Guest

    lol, interesting. nonetheless, i dont have the time to validate code,
    which is techinically correct (regardless of the flaws). IT does render
    correctly when not inside DIV tags, i just want to know what a possible
    fix could be.

    thanks anyways
     
    ben, Aug 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, ben <> said:

    > lol, interesting.


    What is? Please quote the relevant parts of the message you are replying
    to. I realise Google Groups does not make this particularly easy, but
    laziness is no excuse.

    > nonetheless, i dont have the time to validate code,


    No offence, but if you don't have time to make sure you are doing your
    job properly, don't expect others to spend their time trying to
    troubleshoot the results.

    > which is techinically correct


    Obviously not if it doesn't validate. Or perhaps this is some strange
    meaning of the term "technically correct" that I wasn't previously aware
    of.

    > (regardless of the flaws).


    Contradicting yourself doesn't help your argument.

    > IT does render correctly when not inside DIV tags,


    A mere coincidence. If your code is not valid, then the fact that a
    browser happens to correctly guess what you intended is pure luck.

    > i just want to know what a possible
    > fix could be.


    And the first step in that solution is to validate the code.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
     
    Mark Parnell, Aug 25, 2005
    #6
  7. ben Guest

    omg, what is your issue. i was asking for some help, christ. so, in
    response to your comments (just to be polite)

    >What is? Please quote the relevant parts of the message you are replying
    >to. I realise Google Groups does not make this particularly easy, but
    >laziness is no excuse.


    that website was interesting, as it outlined exactly how i behaved,
    thats why it made me laugh

    >No offence, but if you don't have time to make sure you are doing your
    >job properly, don't expect others to spend their time trying to
    >troubleshoot the results.


    do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
    tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error ! it is a little much,
    don't you think? others dont have to troubleshoot, they may have
    experienced the same problem and found a sensible/easier resolution.

    >Obviously not if it doesn't validate. Or perhaps this is some strange
    >meaning of the term "technically correct" that I wasn't previously aware
    >of.


    that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,
    with closing tags for all tags - which isnt the way most sites are
    completed. <br \> instead of <br>. by technically correct, yes, it
    rendered correctly, so surely the code was correct in essence. its
    purpose is to display the page in a certain way, and it does, whether
    the means of doing so are perfect are a different matter.

    >Contradicting yourself doesn't help your argument.


    i wasnt arguing, i admitted there was flaws with my code !

    >A mere coincidence. If your code is not valid, then the fact that a
    >browser happens to correctly guess what you intended is pure luck.


    coincidence my ass, show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
    the w3c validator).

    >And the first step in that solution is to validate the code.


    grr.



    look, to be honest, i listened to what you had to say, and i thanked
    you for it. you didn't really help with my original post by starting
    flaming. the idea is to assist, if you obviously dont understand and
    cannot help, then don't post a response. if what you are going to say
    isnt helpful, then dont say it (i say this in reference to the post i
    quoted on).

    so, THANK YOU, but you clearly are not providing any assistance.

    anyway, i fixed the code by putting all the includes inside a one cell
    table, such as this

    <div>
    <table>
    <tr>
    <td>
    <? include("blah"); ?>
    </td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    </div>

    i know its messy, and ive ended up with tables again, but until i can
    recify it properly, it will do the job.

    ben

    ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway. so if a page
    was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
    another conforming browser
     
    ben, Aug 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, ben <> said:

    > do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
    > tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !


    Why not? Besides, you said it was dynamically generated from MySQL
    anyway, so it would only mean changing the script, not every line of the
    resulting HTML. It really *shouldn't* be that hard. Obviously I don't
    have access to your scripts, so it's hard to say. But in theory it
    shouldn't take that much effort.

    > that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,
    > with closing tags for all tags


    Only if you claim to be using XHTML by putting an XHTML doctype on your
    page. You can't blame the validator for doing what you ask it to.

    > which isnt the way most sites are
    > completed. <br \> instead of <br>.


    Your site is a mix of HTML (e.g. <br>) and XHTML (e.g. <link ... /> and
    <img ... />) syntax. You really should just pick one and stick with it.
    That's a large part of your validation errors right there.

    > by technically correct, yes, it
    > rendered correctly, so surely the code was correct in essence.


    Not necessarily. Browsers will make an attempt to render any code. But
    as I said before, if the code is not right in the first place, it is a
    matter of pure luck as to whether the browsers manages to come up with
    the same result as you are intending/expecting. And different browsers
    will likely interpret it differently.

    > show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
    > the w3c validator).


    The one in my .sig. And that of most of the other regulars here. And all
    those listed on http://www.w3csites.com/. Plenty of others.

    > look, to be honest, i listened to what you had to say, and i thanked
    > you for it.


    I think you're confusing me with David, who replied to your first couple
    of posts.

    > you didn't really help with my original post by starting
    > flaming.


    It wasn't a flame.

    > the idea is to assist,


    Generally, that's why I'm here. But that's not why Usenet exists. Usenet
    is for discussion. If your question happens to get answered along the
    way, good for you. But that is incidental to the discussion.

    > if you obviously dont understand and


    Which I do.

    > cannot help, then don't post a response.


    I will post responses to whatever I like, thank you.

    > if what you are going to say
    > isnt helpful, then dont say it (i say this in reference to the post i
    > quoted on).


    Again, I will post whatever I like. If you don't like it, add me to your
    killfile if you want (but you're using Google Groups, so you don't have
    a killfile - never mind).

    Anyway, my post was intended to help. If you didn't take it that way,
    that's your problem, not mine.

    > so, THANK YOU, but you clearly are not providing any assistance.


    You are not accepting my assistance. That's different, and your loss.

    > ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway.


    No browser does.

    > so if a page
    > was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
    > another conforming browser


    Even IE is pretty good when it comes to straight HTML. CSS is less well
    supported, but IME it's much easier to code a valid page, then add
    workarounds for browsers that don't display it correctly; than throw
    together any random code, and just hope that it displays the way you
    want it to. In the latter case, if it doesn't display as expected, you
    have no way of knowing whether it's your code that's the problem, or a
    browser bug. At least if your code is valid in the first place, you know
    that it isn't your code that's the problem, which makes troubleshooting
    and working around the problem much easier.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
     
    Mark Parnell, Aug 25, 2005
    #8
  9. ben wrote :
    > omg, what is your issue. i was asking for some help, christ. so, in
    > response to your comments (just to be polite)
    >


    [snipped]

    Several people read your post requesting assistance. And the very first
    thing we most likely all did was to check your webpage markup validity.
    And like others have told you, the very first thing to fix when dealing
    with layout or a problem in a page is to fix markup errors.


    > do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
    > tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !


    Yes and there are documents, tutorials on helping you converting to CSS.
    The validator reports 150+ markup errors in your page.


    > it is a little much,
    > don't you think? others dont have to troubleshoot, they may have
    > experienced the same problem and found a sensible/easier resolution.
    >


    You do not understand how important the process of fixing markup errors
    is. An invalid webpage may look perfectly ok to you in your specific
    browser but it may look/render differently and may work differently for
    your visitors.

    >
    >>Obviously not if it doesn't validate. Or perhaps this is some strange
    >>meaning of the term "technically correct" that I wasn't previously aware
    >>of.

    >
    >
    > that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,
    > with closing tags for all tags - which isnt the way most sites are
    > completed. <br \> instead of <br>. by technically correct, yes, it
    > rendered correctly, so surely the code was correct in essence.


    We may never know ... until you fix those errors.

    its
    > purpose is to display the page in a certain way, and it does, whether
    > the means of doing so are perfect are a different matter.
    >


    You do not understand ...

    >
    >>Contradicting yourself doesn't help your argument.

    >
    >
    > i wasnt arguing, i admitted there was flaws with my code !
    >
    >
    >>A mere coincidence. If your code is not valid, then the fact that a
    >>browser happens to correctly guess what you intended is pure luck.

    >
    >
    > coincidence my ass, show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
    > the w3c validator).
    >


    Well, my site. David's site: 41 pages checked 100% flawless. Mark's site
    is certainly fine too: 12 markup errors out of 47 pages.

    >
    >>And the first step in that solution is to validate the code.

    >
    >
    > grr.
    >
    >
    >
    > look, to be honest, i listened to what you had to say, and i thanked
    > you for it. you didn't really help with my original post by starting
    > flaming. the idea is to assist, if you obviously dont understand and
    > cannot help, then don't post a response.


    [snipped]

    The very first way to help you is to tell you to remove the validation
    errors, the markup errors. There is nothing, absolutely nothing better
    to do when dealing with layout issues.


    > ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway. so if a page
    > was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
    > another conforming browser



    In standards compliant rendering mode, MSIE 6 rendering complies much
    better with web standards: the CSS1 box model is correctly implemented
    in standards compliant rendering mode. IE 7 will fix many more bugs:
    already we know that all CSS 1 and many CSS 2.1 bugs (> 24 bugs) have
    already been fixed for IE 7 beta 2.

    "In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit
    as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the
    standards as well."
    C. Wilson, July 29th 2005
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Aug 25, 2005
    #9
  10. Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Gérard Talbot <> said:

    > Mark's site
    > is certainly fine too: 12 markup errors out of 47 pages.


    Really? I mustn't have checked it for a while. Will have to go fix
    those...

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
     
    Mark Parnell, Aug 25, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark Parnell wrote :

    [snipped]

    > And that of most of the other regulars here. And all
    > those listed on http://www.w3csites.com/. Plenty of others.


    Thanks for bringing in this. I'll send them an email. :)

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Aug 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Gérard Talbot <> said:

    > Mark's site
    > is certainly fine too: 12 markup errors out of 47 pages.


    Not any more. :)

    The only 2 pages that generate errors now are examples of printouts
    produced by our programs - which I have no control over unfortunately.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
     
    Mark Parnell, Aug 25, 2005
    #12
  13. Toby Inkster Guest

    ben wrote:

    > do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
    > tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !


    Do you honestly expect *us* to wade through a 700 line document using
    tables for layout, riddled with over a hundred errors, just to find the
    one error you're concerned about?

    > that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,


    The W3C validator is perfactly happy to validate HTML (non-XHTML)
    documents. See:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://tobyinkster.co.uk/

    > coincidence my ass, show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
    > the w3c validator).


    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://hardcandy.org/
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://message-id.net/

    > the idea is to assist, if you obviously dont understand and
    > cannot help, then don't post a response.


    So you've just arrived at this group, and you're telling everyone who's
    been here for ages what "the idea" of this group is?

    The idea of this group is to discuss HTML. If this discussion turns out to
    be of assistance to you, then that's good. If it doesn't, then it's still
    good.

    If you want guaranteed assistance, then hire an assistant.

    > ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway. so if a page
    > was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
    > another conforming browser


    Not true. You *can* have your cake and eat it. It is not difficult to
    build a page that displays well in Internet Explorer and still validates.

    Here is my contribution to that effort: http://hardcandy.org/

    It displays nicely in Internet Explorer 4+, Mozilla 1+, Firebird 0.6+,
    Konqueror 3+, Opera 3.6+, Netscape 6.2+, Safari 1+ and probably other
    browsers too. It uses standards-compliant XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS 2.0. As
    a bonus, it also complies with all the priority one WAI Web Content
    Accessibility Guidelines.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Aug 25, 2005
    #13
  14. Els Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:

    > ben wrote:
    >
    >> coincidence my ass, show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
    >> the w3c validator).

    >
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://hardcandy.org/
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://message-id.net/


    May I add to that with a longer list?
    http://www.w3csites.com/
    Plenty of choice, I'd say :)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, Aug 25, 2005
    #14
  15. Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, Aug 25, 2005
    #15
  16. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, ben quothed:

    > omg, what is your issue. i was asking for some help, christ. so, in
    > response to your comments (just to be polite)


    As a web page maker, valid markup is your most important product.

    If some page is too hard to fix (-although I used to fix >1000 liner's
    regularly), re-make it.

    No flame intended here, but there is no such thing as "It works just as
    good" in htmldom.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Aug 25, 2005
    #16
  17. Els Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > Previously in alt.html, Els <> said:
    >
    >> http://www.w3csites.com/

    >
    > Heh - beat you to that one by 4 1/2 hours. ;-)


    Where, when?!
    Oh, wait. Here, 4 1/2 hours ago.
    /sorts messages by date/time...
    /filters Parnell...

    So you did!
    <g>

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, Aug 25, 2005
    #17
  18. Rincewind Guest

    On 24 Aug 2005 18:38:35 -0700, ben wrote:

    > do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
    > tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !


    No but for 151 of them I would.

    One of the benefits of using includes in php is to negate the need to
    change 100's of pages when one item of code needs changing, the same with
    CSS external sheets.
     
    Rincewind, Aug 25, 2005
    #18
    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. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    779
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. Guybrush Threepwood

    Table-based layout to CSS layout

    Guybrush Threepwood, Jun 6, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,049
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    641
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. robin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    691
    robin
    Mar 7, 2007
  5. John Carter

    Ruby has ruined my C++

    John Carter, Jul 13, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    447
    Lothar Scholz
    Jul 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page