Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

[Mercury Mercurius]

Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
<span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
in Internet Explorer?

Here's the page in question:

http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm

Thank you,
-M

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Sometime around 3 Dec 2003 19:57:58 -0800, Mercury Mercurius is reported to
have stated:[color=blue]
> I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
> <span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer
>
> http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm[/color]

Looks the same in IE and Mozilla (NS6+ is based on Mozilla) here.

Unless you are talking about NS4, in which case I would suggest you forget
even trying. :-)

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

mercurius_1@yah oo.com (Mercury Mercurius) wrote in
news:3f0ef26.03 12031957.144aa8 99@posting.goog le.com:
[color=blue]
> Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
> I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
> <span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
> how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
> just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
> same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
> correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
> display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
> in Internet Explorer?
>
> Here's the page in question:
> http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm[/color]

Actually in IE6, K-Meleon 0.8 (Mozilla-based), and Opera 7.22 the
description is completely missing. That's not surprising, because you set
your "caption" div to relative positioning with "bottom: 140px". Since the
caption is the first thing on your page that isn't absolutely positioned,
its initial position in the layout flow is at the top left corner of the
viewport, and then the relative positioning moves its bottom up 140 pixels
from there, putting it completely off the screen.

Changing its style to "position:absol ute; right: 0; top: 140px;" put it in
a reasonable place.

Don't set the body font size to 90%, and don't set the anchor font size to
80% (remember that percentages are based on computed sizes, so that makes
anchors 72% of the size they'd have had if you hadn't fiddled with the
sizes). Don't make Verdana the default font (which is probably what
tempted you to reduce the size; Verdana is "big for its size" and text that
looks the right size in Verdana will look too small in almost any other
font).

[True Gamer]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Your problem is probably just that you were using positioning. I
suggest making a separate page for Netscape that looks right on that
browser and use a common browser-detection script to get the browsers on
the proper page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Mercurius wrote:
[color=blue]
> Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
> I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
> <span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
> how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
> just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
> same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
> correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
> display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
> in Internet Explorer?
>
> Here's the page in question:
> http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm
> Thank you,
> -M[/color]

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Quoth the raven named True Gamer:

[top posting corrected]
[color=blue]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mercury Mercurius wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Please help - I'm at my wits' end.... I'm getting two different
>> placements of some content wrapped in a <span> tag in Netscape
>> and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer how the page
>> looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be just to
>> the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this same
>> text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
>> correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get
>> Netscape to display this text along side of the painting -- while
>> not wrecking it in Internet Explorer?
>>
>> Here's the page in question:
>> http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm Thank you, -M[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Your problem is probably just that you were using positioning. I
> suggest making a separate page for Netscape that looks right on
> that browser and use a common browser-detection script to get the
> browsers on the proper page.[/color]

Oh, heavens no! Browser sniffing is absurd, and usually doesn't work
anyway.

All it takes is some proper CSS and positioning. See:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html

I added full URLs to your images so I wouldn't have to copy them to my
server, and I trimmed out a bunch of unnecessary stuff.

When you add style to an element, you put it in the stylesheet, not as
a "style" after the "id". I also removed your "smaller than default"
font sizes and removed Verdana. That font is toooo big, which is why
you thought you had to make them smaller. Google for hundreds of
threads on this very subject.

Looks just about the same in IE6, Firebird 0.7 (Moz), and Opera 7.2.

Is Sarah related to Jason?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
[color=blue]
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html[/color]

Sorry, I forgot to snip out the invalid "border=0" on line 100.

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than
the above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.rochester.rr.com%2Fbshagnasty%2Fsurrender.html

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:[color=blue]
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
>
> Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than the
> above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.[/color]

I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say this?
Where is the world wide law on this subject?
Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law on
this subject.

Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed in
lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one _could_
choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[brucie]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

in post <news:bqpb1m$25 fcb2$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>
Barbara de Zoete said:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than the
>> above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say this?
> Where is the world wide law on this subject?[/color]

and another thing... why do people author HTML4+ or XHTML if HTML2 is
all they need?

and while i'm at it can someone explain this sentence on the back of a
redhat9 distro:

"the interface to this CD-ROM is written in HTML4.0 and therefore needs
a version 4 web browser to view it"

WTF!

--
brucie
05/December/2003 05:17:41 pm kilo

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in
news:bqpb1m$25f cb2$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:
[color=blue]
> I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say
> this? Where is the world wide law on this subject?
> Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law
> on this subject.[/color]

Most of us who say things like that are using "should" the way it's used in
technical documents like RFCs and W3C recommendations , where it means "you
can be compliant without doing this, but doing this is so beneficial that
you ought to have a really, really good reason if you choose not to."

For example, using strict versions of HTML forces you to gather up all your
presentational instructions and put them in one place rather than
scattering them throughout your documents. That makes a site much more
maintainable and, though for some reason this isn't mentioned enough as it
ought to be, also encourages stylistic experimentation by making it *very*
easy to make small-scale, or even large-scale, tweaks to the appearance of
a whole site. And that often leads to better design, to sites that look
great rather than merely good. If the presentational instructions are
spread all throughout your site, such experimentation becomes too effortful
and error prone, and therefore seldom gets done.

Did you know that if you keep all your presentational instructions in an
external CSS stylesheet, you can fine-tune the appearance of a thousand-
page site by editing *one* file?
[color=blue]
> Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed
> in lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one
> _could_ choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.[/color]

The technical meaning of "should" implies that when one makes such choices,
one ought to make them in an *informed* manner rather than just because
"that's the way I learned it."

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Eric Bohlman schreef:
[color=blue]
> Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in
> news:bqpb1m$25f cb2$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>[color=green]
>>I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say
>>this? Where is the world wide law on this subject?
>>Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law
>>on this subject.[/color]
>
> Most of us who say things like that are using "should" the way it's used in
> technical documents like RFCs and W3C recommendations , where it means "you
> can be compliant without doing this, but doing this is so beneficial that
> you ought to have a really, really good reason if you choose not to."[/color]

Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
tricks and art in any way I like.

However, keeping in mind my potential visitors and therefore trying to
present content in a way that it can be easily accessed by anyone,
regardless of what browser etcetera, as long as they have a live
connection to the web.
[color=blue]
> Did you know that if you keep all your presentational instructions in an
> external CSS stylesheet, you can fine-tune the appearance of a thousand-
> page site by editing *one* file?[/color]

Yes, I did know this, thank you. I found out about CSS like five months
ago and got really excited by the idea of fully separating mark-up and
style. The advantages are so immense, it was an overwhelming insight.
This is how I started out, building my site.
Later on I came across some pragmatic trouble behind this strategy. For
example, I keep an on-line diary and find it easy (as in quickly
applicable, almost as if nature kicks in) to use <b> and <i> for
example. Old habit and it's not like I'm doing anything explicitly wrong
with this.

But, still learning. I have some inline styles that I no longer like.
Spread out over pages and therefore not so easy to change. So I want to
take a few hours and pull them out of the pages and put them in my
stylesheets, where they _should_ have been :-D in the first place.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed
>>in lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one
>>_could_ choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.[/color]
>
> The technical meaning of "should" implies that when one makes such choices,
> one ought to make them in an *informed* manner rather than just because
> "that's the way I learned it."[/color]

Hèhè. Seems the techniques I use are some comfortable combination of both.


--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in
news:bqpm81$24a 3fq$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:
[color=blue]
> Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
> the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
> tricks and art in any way I like.[/color]

That's a reasonable way to look at the human-to-human aspects of the
Internet, at least if you don't carry it too far (e.g. some people think
that "Internet anarchy" means they should be able to use the Internet to
run scams, but I assume you aren't talking about that sort of stuff), but
it doesn't work for the computer-to-computer or human-to-computer aspects.
The reason is that computers are rigid and inflexible; they're simply
machines for following rules. Computers don't share humans' ability to
listen to or read something and figure out what the person *meant* to say
rather than what he or she actually *said*.

Therefore, when you're writing material that's intended to be "understood "
by a computer (e.g. the markup, as opposed to the content, of a Web site),
you really have no choice but to follow some rather strict rules when
writing it. If you choose not to follow them, your material simply gets
ignored. Actually, if you stop to think about it, every field of creative
endeavor has certain rules that are essentially fixed, and one expresses
ones creativity by working *within* those rules rather than ignoring them.
The problem with an art form where literally everything is possible is that
nothing winds up being meaningful.

If you treat the Web as just another medium with rules of its own that need
to be observed, you have plenty of opportunity for creativity. If you
treat it as something that works the way you wished it did rather than the
way it actually does, then your creations will fall apart and nobody will
get to appreciate them.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

I'm trying to find common ground here.

Eric Bohlman schreef:
[color=blue]
> Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in
> news:bqpm81$24a 3fq$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:
>[color=green]
>>Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
>>the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
>>tricks and art in any way I like.[/color]
>
> The reason is that computers are rigid and inflexible; they're simply
> machines for following rules. Computers don't share humans' ability to
> listen to or read something and figure out what the person *meant* to say
> rather than what he or she actually *said*.
>
> Therefore, when you're writing material that's intended to be "understood "
> by a computer (e.g. the markup, as opposed to the content, of a Web site),
> you really have no choice but to follow some rather strict rules when
> writing it.[/color]

Agreed. I understand fully that technical specs must be followd to get
pages rendered in an understandable way.
Which technical specs, rules, is up to the author, I presume. My idea
about 'anarchy' is also with regard to this aspect. Browsers (I mean the
few I know; IE6, NS7, OP7, Moz1.4, Firebird0.6) have some tolerancy
towards deliberate use of inline styles and presentational stuff as <b>
and <u>, where the large part of a document can still rely on an
external style sheet.
It really doesn't seem to bother the browser very much if one mixes
external styles and inline styles. Neither does it bother the user, as
far as I know.
[color=blue]
> If you choose not to follow them, your material simply gets
> ignored.[/color]

This is interesting. As far as I can see (by looking at the source of
documents others than myself have published on the internet) there are
not many authors that really go all the way to comply to technical
specs. So many errors, faulty structures etcetera _do_ however get
presented by my browser / computer to me in a way I as a human can
understand.
I have no idea how many pages out there compy with technical specs, but
I think it can not be that big a percentage. Still, most of those pages
do not get ignored. They are found and indexed by search engines and
thus found by me if looking for a subject.

Why do you think material gets ignored if strickt rules are not followd?
[color=blue]
> If you treat the Web as just another medium with rules of its own that need
> to be observed, you have plenty of opportunity for creativity. If you
> treat it as something that works the way you wished it did rather than the
> way it actually does, then your creations will fall apart and nobody will
> get to appreciate them.[/color]

I get the idea we largely agree on this subject. Still, I do think it is
up to me to decide which technical specs I use to achieve my goals
(that's the part of anarchy I meant). If I (well thought through) *want*
to use Verdana or inline styles or presentational mark-up, I think I
will just do that.

In doing so, I have now a (modest) site that does not fall apart, as far
as I know[1]. I must be doing something right :-)

[1] Newer browsers as mentioned before, Windows-machines; also Lynx
renders my pages acceptably well; the Knoppix-browser (forgot its name)
seems to have a problem with the page title, that I not yet have been
able to correct.

BTW: about the problem of the Verdana font-size, if set to a smaller
size than 1em, it renders fine in IE(over 90% of my visitors use IE as
their browser) and if someone uses a screen browser *other* than IE, I
tend to think "S/he knows how to set font-size to a comfortable size". I
like the way it looks, better than other fonts I know. That is the
*only* reason I still want to use it.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Quoth the raven named Barbara de Zoete:
[color=blue]
> I have no idea how many pages out there compy with technical specs,
> but I think it can not be that big a percentage.[/color]

Several months ago, a fellow published his doctoral thesis, on exactly
this subject. For awhile, the ~6MB .pdf document was available. His
programmatic scanning of millions of web pages (I've forgotten the
actual number) found an answer.

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.

Generally, this means that most of the rest would render in "quirks"
mode, and be at the mercy of the browser's decision, not the author's.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty:
[color=blue]
> 0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Generally, this means that most of the rest would render in "quirks"
> mode, and be at the mercy of the browser's decision, not the author's.[/color]

Quirks mode has exactly nothing to do with pages being valid or not.

Browsers choose between standard mode and quirks mode depending
on the doctype declared. If the page is valid or not makes no
difference. If you put up an page with a doctype stating e.g.
XHTML 1.0 Strict, you will get standards mode even if the page is
full of errors.

You can e.g. write a page that generally follows HTML 2, adding
fantasy elements like "spacer", and make hundreds of coding mistakes.
If you then smack an HTML 4.01 Strict doctype on top of that,
you'll get standards rendering mode.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Stephen Poley]

Re: Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:22:49 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>BTW: about the problem of the Verdana font-size, if set to a smaller
>size than 1em, it renders fine in IE(over 90% of my visitors use IE as
>their browser) and if someone uses a screen browser *other* than IE, I
>tend to think "S/he knows how to set font-size to a comfortable size".[/color]

Well yes, but the point is that having done so, they shouldn't have to
re-adjust the size for every site individually. (OK, given the state the
Web is in at present, one often has to anyway, but one shouldn't have to
really). And if they don't have Verdana on their system, displaying at
85% gives them smaller text than they would like.

This isn't a really big issue of course, compared to a lot of the
problems on the Web, but on the whole it would be better not to use
Verdana.
[color=blue]
>I like the way it looks, better than other fonts I know.[/color]

That's your prerogative of course. I find it rather unattractive myself.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/