Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

**Bergamot** · Nov 17 '07, 05:55 AM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

eholz1 wrote:

>
ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

Put your test page on the web somewhere and post the URL. Do not post
code here. Before you do this, however, validate both your HTML and CSS
to make sure there aren't any syntax errors causing the problem.

--
Berg

rf · Nov 17 '07, 09:45 AM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi. comwrote in message
news:5q7dopFuk0 4nU1@mid.indivi dual.net...

eholz1 wrote:

>>
>ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
>with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

>
Put your test page on the web somewhere and post the URL. Do not post
code here. Before you do this, however, validate both your HTML and CSS
to make sure there aren't any syntax errors causing the problem.

Er, he/she did, or more to the point he/she doesn't need to.

It seems the page at alistapart:

Page not found – A List Apart

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html

For people who make websites

is broken when viewed with IE7. Indeed, the left hand column is simply
missing.

I'm not too keen on alistapart examples so I won't bother diagnosing the
problem.

--
Richard.

rf · Nov 17 '07, 12:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

"VK" <schools_ring@y ahoo.comwrote in message
news:ba632b8d-1689-4e4d-a4ab-d0cfd77bf5a5@b3 6g2000hsa.googl egroups.com...

>>Only table layout eliminates this danger.

>>
>Er, what again?

<snip drivel>

No further comment required.

--
Richard.

VK · Nov 17 '07, 12:25 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.c omwrote:

>Only table layout eliminates this danger.

No further comment required.

Oh? So what is _your_ professional advise will be to OP? "IE users
will not see one third of your page and hell on them, who cares"? Or
do you have another "really working" three columns div layout to
suggest? If the first, then no comments of course, if the last then
I'm anxious to see one.

**Gregor Kofler** · Nov 17 '07, 07:25 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

VK meinte:

>>Only table layout eliminates this danger.

>Er, what again?

>
Again (as it's very important for commercial developers): only table
layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by all
visitors using graphics UAs. If one wants to be stable paid for his
solutions, table layout is the only option.

Jeez... Utter crap. Randy Webb was right with his assessment of yours on
clj.

Gregor

--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvor träge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

**Jonathan N. Little** · Nov 17 '07, 10:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

VK wrote:

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >
<tr>
<td width="15%">Men u</td>
<td width="70%">Mai n</td>
<td width="15%">Bla nk/Splash</td>
</tr>
</table>
>
Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
- or stop cheating people, please.
>
Note: sorry exuses of the kind "different solutions require different
approaches" are dismissed in advance: I do not put any such
restriction in my sample, so please avoid them in yours.

except that:

<ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>

<div class="content" >
....
</div>

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

Little Works Studio Site Maintainance

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

VK · Nov 17 '07, 10:45 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra lva.net>
wrote:

<ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>
>
<div class="content" >
...
</div>
>
It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)

From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,
what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.

http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215

Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully
selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?
What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)

**dorayme** · Nov 17 '07, 11:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

In article
<8c4ff23a-9765-4f22-87b1-1466951a196f@w7 3g2000hsf.googl egroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring@y ahoo.comwrote:

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215

VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is. Using tables for layout is one thing, But using them
without an eye out for the simplest fluidity criteria is bad,
surely? So, without mentioning anything else, can you trust the
judgement of those who made up this list?

Please make your challenge as clear as possible. Your "only table
layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by
all visitors using graphics UAs" is simply wrong. If you turn off
the stylesheet of a semantically well made html page, there are
no modern graphical browsers which will not display the page and
bar anyone from its content. So you are meaning something else.
Please spell it out well, it is an interesting claim but you need
to describe what it is much better.

--
dorayme

**Gus Richter** · Nov 18 '07, 01:45 AM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

VK wrote:

>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >
<tr>
<td width="15%">Men u</td>
<td width="70%">Mai n</td>
<td width="15%">Bla nk/Splash</td>
</tr>
</table>
>
Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
- or stop cheating people, please.

<div style="width:15 %;float:left;"> Menu</div>
<div style="width:70 %;float:left;"> Main</div>
<div style="width:15 %;float:left;"> Blank/Splash</div>

--
Gus

**Kevin Scholl** · Nov 18 '07, 04:15 AM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

VK wrote:

On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra lva.net>
wrote:

><ul class="menu">
><li>...
></ul>
>>
><div class="content" >
>...
></div>
>>
>It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
>presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
>horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
>it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
>stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

>
Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)

You need to open your mind a bit. You're stuck in a one-track thought
process.

From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,

Extensibility is hardly "too far...to bother about".

what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

You've been provided several examples by myself and others. Open your
eyes (and your mind)!

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.

http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215

Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully

Reads like your own self description there.

selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?

Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Just sayin'...

What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)

--

Kevin Scholl

http://www.ksscholl.com/

VK · Nov 18 '07, 02:25 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcas t.DELETE.netwro te:

Why do you think it is so?

>
Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song
are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibil ity" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.

**Kevin Scholl** · Nov 18 '07, 03:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

VK wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcas t.DELETE.netwro te:

>>Why do you think it is so?

>Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
>are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
>status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

>
Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

Twelve years of experience and evolution dictates otherwise.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song

As I do not meet the above criteria, it is (as you say) irrelevant.

are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Again, you make suppositions based on limited old-school thinking.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibil ity" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.

You continue to display your narrow-mindedness. A well-built site
doesn't need "special blocks of code on pages for visitors with vision
and hearing impairments". A well-built site will cater to the regular
visitor AND those with accessibility concerns.

--

Kevin Scholl

http://www.ksscholl.com/

**dorayme** · Nov 18 '07, 08:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e-bb7b-feb8145cdfc7@d5 0g2000hsf.googl egroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring@y ahoo.comwrote:

On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is.

>
I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page".

Surely you are aware of this, it is plain commonsense and does
not have to be written down somewhere in some rule book. If a
webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise to
require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary. Full stop.
What is unnecessary or of no help to anyone is bad whether it be
written or not.

--
dorayme

**dorayme** · Nov 18 '07, 08:15 PM

Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e-bb7b-feb8145cdfc7@d5 0g2000hsf.googl egroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring@y ahoo.comwrote:

Please make your challenge as clear as possible.

>
I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.

What does this mean, sorry?

So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
>

What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

--
dorayme

Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment