Difficulty in the beginning

[sciontologist]

( 9 in the first place, means difficulty in the beginning? )

I'm new at css, at least for the sizing, positioning
and decorating of div tags.

But I am a java/c/c++/perl/php/sh/bash programmer,
so I ought to be able to catch on fast.
But it isn't working out that way.

I tried to make a simple header-above two column layout.
My first stab looked fine on Firefox, running on linux.
The css validated at w3c with no errors. The same
page looked mostly the same on Safari on Mac, but
it looked like it had a skin disease on IE6 on XP.

This sounds a lot like the early days of javascript.
What good is w3c validation if the layouts still differ
from browser to browser?

I did use a lot of width: some%; sizing.
When I changed to hard-coded pixel sizes
the differences between browsers became
less apparent, but were still there and still
visually disconcerting.

Does learning CSS mean learning the quirks
of all the major browsers? The now unfashionable
use of tables-based layouts is at least portable.

[dorayme]

In article <3f************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Andrew <sorry.no.email @post_NG.comwro te:

On 15 Nov 2006 12:46:53 -0800, "sciontolog ist"
<Sa************ ***@gmail.comwr ote:

What is a troll. I was expressing
anger and dissapointment.

I was pissed off because I had such
high hopes for CSS, and (at first glance)
it started to look like deja-javascript all over again.

.... spent a few hours making a template.
It did validate. It did look different in
IE6, than on Firefox.

I will post it at some point.
Can't do it now.

Hi,

Did I hear someone ask 'What is a troll'?

http://www.andrews-corner.org/troll.html

Although you sound more frustrated than troll-like :-)

Still, it is a condition that can be lessened. I know. I remember
well my first meeting:

I walked into it, chairs all in a circle, people already there:

"Hi, my name is dorayme... and I am a troll"

Believe me, it helped. I don't like the prayer stuff, but it is
still worth it...

--
dorayme

[David Stone]

In article <11************ ********@m7g200 0cwm.googlegrou ps.com>,
"sciontolog ist" <Sa************ ***@gmail.comwr ote:

BTW, we newsgroup readers, who don't use that abominable Google Groups
interface would appreciate if you replied to the correct posts, and
didn't start new threads when a reply should be used. Thanks for your
consideration.

I do have a tendancy to do what ever the hell I like.
I did notice that valid css (once I got the DOCTYPES synched up)
looked essentially the same everywhere, on all browsers,
but *ONLY* if I used hard-coded pixel widths and locations.
And I don't like those because 400px means different things
at different resolutions.

And when I switched to percentage widths like:
width: 90%; the results stayed much the same on
Firefox and Safari, but STILL Looked awful on IE6

Did you consider trying em units instead of %? That seems to work
for me... (Not knowing exactly what differences you are seeing
are, makes it hard to give useful suggestions)