xhtml & ie bitch

Discussion in 'HTML' started by SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004.

  1. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    XHTML + IE + correct doctype = trashed rendering (random spaces and gaps,
    strange positions on some divs), random horizontal scrollbars in iframes...
    and loss of coloured scrollbars, if that's your thing.

    XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.

    XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct rending.

    Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending on
    the users browser. This is getting so like the early days of Netscape,
    except this time it's fighting the bugs in IE that's having me rip my hair
    out!

    If anyone wants the script, I have a stand alone ASP file that does the
    trick. Happy to post it somewhere.


    m.
     
    SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SpaceGirl

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:

    >XHTML + IE + correct doctype = trashed rendering (random spaces and gaps,
    >strange positions on some divs), random horizontal scrollbars in iframes...
    >and loss of coloured scrollbars, if that's your thing.


    Which version of XHTML? Appendix C compliant? Which version of IE?
    Which doctype? What was the content-type?

    Sounds like you triggered Standards mode (IE6 in standards mdoe
    ignores scrollbar colours).

    >XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.


    Which HTML 4 doctype? Must have been one that triggered Quirks mode.

    As IE doesn't render XHTML any different HTML this sounds like a
    Quirks vs Standards mode thing. As ever a URL would help.

    And presumably IE5.x shows it correctly with either doctype (as IE5.x
    only has one rendering mode, which is what IE6's Quirks mode is
    apeing).

    >XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct rending.


    And what happens when you send these browsers the 'wrong' doctype?

    >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending on
    >the users browser.


    Yuck. What does that do to the cacheability of your pages?

    If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    omit the doctype altogether.

    But fixing your CSS to server appropriate values to appropriate
    browsers (tantek hack, etc.) may be a less drastic solution.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, May 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >
    > >XHTML + IE + correct doctype = trashed rendering (random spaces and gaps,
    > >strange positions on some divs), random horizontal scrollbars in

    iframes...
    > >and loss of coloured scrollbars, if that's your thing.

    >
    > Which version of XHTML? Appendix C compliant? Which version of IE?
    > Which doctype? What was the content-type?


    This caused the problems to appear:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
    <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

    This fixes it in IE
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>

    >
    > Sounds like you triggered Standards mode (IE6 in standards mdoe
    > ignores scrollbar colours).
    >


    Yup suspect so

    > >XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.

    >
    > Which HTML 4 doctype? Must have been one that triggered Quirks mode.
    >


    See above

    > As IE doesn't render XHTML any different HTML this sounds like a
    > Quirks vs Standards mode thing. As ever a URL would help.
    >


    Yep... I knew there were issues, but it wasn't until I hit this obscure
    problems (horizontal scrolling) that I had to start digging and work out
    "why". I cant show you and URL as both sites I had issue with are under
    NDAs. You can check out www.garbage.com over the next week or so to see the
    resulting site.

    > And presumably IE5.x shows it correctly with either doctype (as IE5.x
    > only has one rendering mode, which is what IE6's Quirks mode is
    > apeing).


    Couldn't test... dont have access to IE5. I just tell all IE browsers to
    render as HTML

    > >XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct rending.

    >
    > And what happens when you send these browsers the 'wrong' doctype?
    >


    It fails safe - I tried the wrong type in Mozilla etc and it appeared to
    work fine.

    > >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending

    on
    > >the users browser.

    >
    > Yuck. What does that do to the cacheability of your pages?


    Dont see how it could... same browser will always get the same document, and
    my server caches the scripts. The only downside is a small processing hit on
    the server when it decides what header to send. But I'm already doing a
    process that munges the style sheets because of weirdness on IE/Mac, so I
    doubt it's significant.

    > If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    > omit the doctype altogether.


    Trying to make my sites as accessible and "standard" as possible.

    > But fixing your CSS to server appropriate values to appropriate
    > browsers (tantek hack, etc.) may be a less drastic solution.


    Doing that already - sadly this particular issue is purely tag related,
    rather than CSS. I couldn't fix it in CSS.


    >
    > Steve
    >
    > --
    > "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    > I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
    >
    > Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004
    #3
  4. SpaceGirl

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >XHTML + IE + correct doctype = trashed rendering (random spaces and gaps,
    >> >strange positions on some divs), random horizontal scrollbars in
    >> >iframes... and loss of coloured scrollbars, if that's your thing.

    >>
    >> Which version of XHTML? Appendix C compliant? Which version of IE?
    >> Which doctype? What was the content-type?

    >
    >This caused the problems to appear:
    >
    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    >"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">


    Yep that triggers Standards mode.

    >This fixes it in IE
    ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">


    Yep that triggers Quirks mode.

    >> As IE doesn't render XHTML any different HTML this sounds like a
    >> Quirks vs Standards mode thing. As ever a URL would help.

    >
    >Yep... I knew there were issues, but it wasn't until I hit this obscure
    >problems (horizontal scrolling) that I had to start digging and work out
    >"why".


    Nothing very obscure about it. According to the specs the scrollbars
    of frames (i or otherwise) must either be both on or both off
    (scrolling="auto" means that if one is needed both will be shown but
    if neither are needed neither will be shown), in Standards mode IE
    applies this rule.

    >I cant show you and URL as both sites I had issue with are under
    >NDAs. You can check out www.garbage.com over the next week or so to see the
    >resulting site.


    I'll try to remember, is there a new album out any time soon?
    I hope the new site is better than the junk that's there at the moment
    which is a fairly perfect example of almost everything that can be
    done wrong on a web site.

    >> And presumably IE5.x shows it correctly with either doctype (as IE5.x
    >> only has one rendering mode, which is what IE6's Quirks mode is
    >> apeing).

    >
    >Couldn't test... dont have access to IE5. I just tell all IE browsers to
    >render as HTML


    All browsers will render it as HTML anyway (I'm guessing on past posts
    that you're serving everything as text/html so you're telling all
    browsers that it is HTML, regardless of the doctype used).

    This is not an XHTML vs HTML issue at all. You would have exactly the
    same issues if you used HTML.

    You should try to test in IE5 as even in Quirks mode there are
    differences between what IE6 does and what IE5 does.

    >> >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending
    >> >on the users browser.

    >>
    >> Yuck. What does that do to the cacheability of your pages?

    >
    >Dont see how it could... same browser will always get the same document, and
    >my server caches the scripts. The only downside is a small processing hit on
    >the server when it decides what header to send. But I'm already doing a
    >process that munges the style sheets because of weirdness on IE/Mac, so I
    >doubt it's significant.


    The page goes out from your server to a proxy. The proxy is used by
    many different users, some of whom have IE, some of whom don't. Either
    the proxy server caches the page, in which case some users get the
    wrong version, or the proxy server always fetches the page from your
    server adding extra time to the transaction.

    >> If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    >> omit the doctype altogether.

    >
    >Trying to make my sites as accessible and "standard" as possible.


    By serving XHTML under an HTML doctype? I don't think so.

    You'd be much more standards compliant if you wrote HTML and served it
    with an accurate doctype. It could trigger quirks mode if you needed
    it to and you wouldn't need any silly server side hacks.

    >> But fixing your CSS to server appropriate values to appropriate
    >> browsers (tantek hack, etc.) may be a less drastic solution.

    >
    >Doing that already - sadly this particular issue is purely tag related,
    >rather than CSS. I couldn't fix it in CSS.


    That doesn't means that someone else couldn't fix it. ;-)
    Whilst there's nothing you can do about the scrollbars (extraneous or
    coloured) except avoid frames of all sorts and resist the temptation
    to colour them, the "random spaces and gaps, strange positions on some
    divs" probably can be fixed by applying a bit of magic to the CSS.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, May 19, 2004
    #4
  5. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    > >"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >XHTML + IE + correct doctype = trashed rendering (random spaces and

    gaps,
    > >> >strange positions on some divs), random horizontal scrollbars in
    > >> >iframes... and loss of coloured scrollbars, if that's your thing.
    > >>
    > >> Which version of XHTML? Appendix C compliant? Which version of IE?
    > >> Which doctype? What was the content-type?

    > >
    > >This caused the problems to appear:
    > >
    > ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    > >"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    >
    > Yep that triggers Standards mode.
    >
    > >This fixes it in IE
    > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

    >
    > Yep that triggers Quirks mode.
    >
    > >> As IE doesn't render XHTML any different HTML this sounds like a
    > >> Quirks vs Standards mode thing. As ever a URL would help.

    > >
    > >Yep... I knew there were issues, but it wasn't until I hit this obscure
    > >problems (horizontal scrolling) that I had to start digging and work out
    > >"why".

    >
    > Nothing very obscure about it. According to the specs the scrollbars
    > of frames (i or otherwise) must either be both on or both off
    > (scrolling="auto" means that if one is needed both will be shown but
    > if neither are needed neither will be shown), in Standards mode IE
    > applies this rule.


    Didn't know that! Hmmm.... Does the same go for content overflow in layers?
    I assume not...

    >
    > >I cant show you and URL as both sites I had issue with are under
    > >NDAs. You can check out www.garbage.com over the next week or so to see

    the
    > >resulting site.

    >
    > I'll try to remember, is there a new album out any time soon?


    Soon... I got the album title and track list here beside me, but it's all
    hush hush at the moment :)

    > I hope the new site is better than the junk that's there at the moment
    > which is a fairly perfect example of almost everything that can be
    > done wrong on a web site.


    I know... awful isn't it. Cant decide if the new site is better or worse.
    It's small, self contained, using lots of layers and iframes but works fine
    across most browsers. It does use Flash, but it can be turned off and the
    site still works and looks fine. Unfortunately the site is little more than
    a wrapper for the labels CMS. The second site which we're doing towards the
    end of the year, we'll have much more freedom on.


    >
    > >> And presumably IE5.x shows it correctly with either doctype (as IE5.x
    > >> only has one rendering mode, which is what IE6's Quirks mode is
    > >> apeing).

    > >
    > >Couldn't test... dont have access to IE5. I just tell all IE browsers to
    > >render as HTML

    >
    > All browsers will render it as HTML anyway (I'm guessing on past posts
    > that you're serving everything as text/html so you're telling all
    > browsers that it is HTML, regardless of the doctype used).


    Yeah. Okay.

    > This is not an XHTML vs HTML issue at all. You would have exactly the
    > same issues if you used HTML.


    No... it's a XHTML vs IE thing :)

    >
    > You should try to test in IE5 as even in Quirks mode there are
    > differences between what IE6 does and what IE5 does.


    Okay... will do.

    > >> >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out

    depending
    > >> >on the users browser.
    > >>
    > >> Yuck. What does that do to the cacheability of your pages?

    > >
    > >Dont see how it could... same browser will always get the same document,

    and
    > >my server caches the scripts. The only downside is a small processing hit

    on
    > >the server when it decides what header to send. But I'm already doing a
    > >process that munges the style sheets because of weirdness on IE/Mac, so I
    > >doubt it's significant.

    >
    > The page goes out from your server to a proxy. The proxy is used by
    > many different users, some of whom have IE, some of whom don't. Either
    > the proxy server caches the page, in which case some users get the
    > wrong version, or the proxy server always fetches the page from your
    > server adding extra time to the transaction.


    True! Well the site defaults to XHTML & correct doctype. The site still runs
    like that. Just a few minor visible glitches.

    > >> If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    > >> omit the doctype altogether.

    > >
    > >Trying to make my sites as accessible and "standard" as possible.

    >
    > By serving XHTML under an HTML doctype? I don't think so.


    No... well yes. The doctype is right for browser that can handle it. Perhaps
    I should have the site just have no doctype for browsers that cant deal with
    it, rather than the HTML doctype?

    > You'd be much more standards compliant if you wrote HTML and served it
    > with an accurate doctype. It could trigger quirks mode if you needed
    > it to and you wouldn't need any silly server side hacks.


    ah :)

    Hack is still needed for CSS tho.

    > >> But fixing your CSS to server appropriate values to appropriate
    > >> browsers (tantek hack, etc.) may be a less drastic solution.

    > >
    > >Doing that already - sadly this particular issue is purely tag related,
    > >rather than CSS. I couldn't fix it in CSS.

    >
    > That doesn't means that someone else couldn't fix it. ;-)


    :p

    > Whilst there's nothing you can do about the scrollbars (extraneous or
    > coloured) except avoid frames of all sorts and resist the temptation
    > to colour them, the "random spaces and gaps, strange positions on some
    > divs" probably can be fixed by applying a bit of magic to the CSS.
    >
    > Steve


    Sadly, I cant avoid iframes because the sites (by their nature... band
    sites) are graphic heavy. Wish there was an easier way to load content into
    layers and then all my problems would go away. I hate frames, but I'm
    trapped by them!

    miranda
     
    SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Steve Pugh wrote:
    > >XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.


    > >XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct rending.

    >
    > And what happens when you send these browsers the 'wrong' doctype?
    >
    > >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending on
    > >the users browser.

    >
    > Yuck. What does that do to the cacheability of your pages?
    >
    > If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    > omit the doctype altogether.


    And since using XHTML, wouldn't it be easier to use that XML thing, that
    trickers quirks in IE.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
     
    Lauri Raittila, May 19, 2004
    #6
  7. SpaceGirl

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Lauri Raittila <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >> >XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.

    >
    >> >XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct rending.

    >>
    >> And what happens when you send these browsers the 'wrong' doctype?
    >>
    >> >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out depending on
    >> >the users browser.

    >>
    >> If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    >> omit the doctype altogether.

    >
    >And since using XHTML, wouldn't it be easier to use that XML thing, that
    >trickers quirks in IE.


    Oh yes. Must have bloked that particular nightmare from my mind. ;-)

    Use IE's bugs against itself, always a good idea.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, May 19, 2004
    #7
  8. SpaceGirl

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >Yep... I knew there were issues, but it wasn't until I hit this obscure
    >> >problems (horizontal scrolling) that I had to start digging and work out
    >> >"why".

    >>
    >> Nothing very obscure about it. According to the specs the scrollbars
    >> of frames (i or otherwise) must either be both on or both off
    >> (scrolling="auto" means that if one is needed both will be shown but
    >> if neither are needed neither will be shown), in Standards mode IE
    >> applies this rule.

    >
    >Didn't know that! Hmmm.... Does the same go for content overflow in layers?
    >I assume not...


    Which content overflow bug/feature do you mean? The fact that IE is
    totally incapable of getting the default overflow behaviour correct?
    Or the fact that, yes it's neither or both scrollbars on any scrolling
    element? Hence the IE-specific (unless anyone else has picked them up)
    extensions overflow-x and overflow-y.

    >> >I cant show you and URL as both sites I had issue with are under
    >> >NDAs. You can check out www.garbage.com over the next week or so to see
    >> >the resulting site.

    >>
    >> I'll try to remember, is there a new album out any time soon?

    >
    >Soon... I got the album title and track list here beside me, but it's all
    >hush hush at the moment :)


    Um, haven't you posted the album title already on your fan site?

    >> This is not an XHTML vs HTML issue at all. You would have exactly the
    >> same issues if you used HTML.

    >
    >No... it's a XHTML vs IE thing :)


    Try it with an HTML 4.01 Strict doctype, or the HTML 4.01 Transitional
    one with URL. They'll trigger Standards mode and show the exact same
    problems. It has nothing to do with XHTML at all.

    >> >Trying to make my sites as accessible and "standard" as possible.

    >>
    >> By serving XHTML under an HTML doctype? I don't think so.

    >
    >No... well yes. The doctype is right for browser that can handle it. Perhaps
    >I should have the site just have no doctype for browsers that cant deal with
    >it, rather than the HTML doctype?


    Or follow Lauri's suggestion and include the XML declaration before
    the doctype. That causes IE (and Opera 7.0x) to go into Quirks mode
    but keeps all other browsers (including Opera 7.1+) in Standards mode.
    It also means that the doctype will always match the code, and that
    one page will suffice for all browsers.

    >> Whilst there's nothing you can do about the scrollbars (extraneous or
    >> coloured) except avoid frames of all sorts and resist the temptation
    >> to colour them, the "random spaces and gaps, strange positions on some
    >> divs" probably can be fixed by applying a bit of magic to the CSS.

    >
    >Sadly, I cant avoid iframes because the sites (by their nature... band
    >sites) are graphic heavy.


    You must know better looking bands than I do. ;-)

    But I don't see how your argument stands up - if you load X images on
    the first page then it doesn't matter if the site uses frames or not,
    those X images still have to download. If the second page loads an
    extra Y images then those Y images still have to download whether
    they're loading into a frame or not, and the original X should be
    cached. The only saving the framed route offers is the HTML to include
    all the images and in a well authored modern site with CSS and minimal
    presentation crud that saving will likely be less than the size of one
    image.

    >Wish there was an easier way to load content into
    >layers and then all my problems would go away.


    There's XMLHTTP but sadly it's not yet supported by Opera :-(

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, May 19, 2004
    #8
  9. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Lauri Raittila <> wrote:
    > >Steve Pugh wrote:
    > >> >XHTML + IE + incorrect (HTML4) doctype = correct rendering.

    > >
    > >> >XHTML + Mozilla/Safari/Firefox/Opera + correct doctype = correct

    rending.
    > >>
    > >> And what happens when you send these browsers the 'wrong' doctype?
    > >>
    > >> >Wrote a server side script that spits a different doctype out

    depending on
    > >> >the users browser.
    > >>
    > >> If you need to trigger Quirks mode for some reason then it's better to
    > >> omit the doctype altogether.

    > >
    > >And since using XHTML, wouldn't it be easier to use that XML thing, that
    > >trickers quirks in IE.

    >
    > Oh yes. Must have bloked that particular nightmare from my mind. ;-)
    >
    > Use IE's bugs against itself, always a good idea.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    > --
    > "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    > I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
    >
    > Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>


    Do either of you have an example of this "fix"?

    Thanks! :)

    xMiranda
     
    SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004
    #9
  10. SpaceGirl

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Lauri Raittila <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >And since using XHTML, wouldn't it be easier to use that XML thing, that
    >> >trickers quirks in IE.

    >>
    >> Oh yes. Must have bloked that particular nightmare from my mind. ;-)
    >>
    >> Use IE's bugs against itself, always a good idea.
    >>

    >Do either of you have an example of this "fix"?


    Instead of starting your XHTML document with the doctype
    e.g.
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

    Start it with the XML declaration and then the doctype
    e.g.
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

    Obviously change the encoding to match whatever encoding you are
    actually using.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, May 19, 2004
    #10
  11. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    > Instead of starting your XHTML document with the doctype
    > e.g.
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
    >
    > Start it with the XML declaration and then the doctype
    > e.g.
    > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
    >
    > Obviously change the encoding to match whatever encoding you are
    > actually using.
    >
    > Steve



    Thank you so much Steve!

    xxxxx
     
    SpaceGirl, May 19, 2004
    #11
  12. Foofy (formerly known as Spaghetti), May 19, 2004
    #12
  13. SpaceGirl

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Foofy (formerly known as Spaghetti)" <> wrote in
    message news:eek:...
    > On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:41:11 +0100, SpaceGirl
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Thank you so much Steve!

    >
    > On the topic of doctypes and all that stuff, put this in your bookmarks:
    >
    > http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html
    >
    > It saves lots of pain. :)


    Excellant! Thanks for that.
     
    SpaceGirl, May 20, 2004
    #13
    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. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    958
  2. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    836
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  3. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,178
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  4. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    569
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,085
    xhtml champs
    Aug 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page