469,328 Members | 1,316 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,328 developers. It's quick & easy.

Can't locate problem in HTML code IE ignores but Firefox is displaying.

LRW
http://gto.ie-studios.net/index.php

When you view the above site in IE, if the 1st of the three product
images is tall enough to push the cell down a couple of pixels, IE
somehow doesn't show that happening.

But if you look at it in Firefox you can see the small gap of white
where the semi-circle image is broken.

I've tried changing the background colors to gray in cells and tables
where I can, but no change.

I know the proper fix is to change the size of the image to be a few
pixels smaller, and I will, but in the meantime, why can't I find what
cell is being puched, and why doesn't my changing bgcolors fix the
break from being so obvious, and why does Firefox show the break but
IE is somehow ignoring it. That's the more annoying question.

Thanks!
Liam
Jul 23 '05 #1
33 4559
"LRW" <me********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c**************************@posting.google.c om...
http://gto.ie-studios.net/index.php

When you view the above site in IE, if the 1st of the three product
images is tall enough to push the cell down a couple of pixels, IE
somehow doesn't show that happening.

But if you look at it in Firefox you can see the small gap of white
where the semi-circle image is broken.


No problem here with FF 1.0
Jul 23 '05 #2
LRW wrote:
http://gto.ie-studios.net/index.php

When you view the above site in IE, if the 1st of the three product
images is tall enough to push the cell down a couple of pixels, IE
somehow doesn't show that happening.

Perhaps if you added a DOCTYPE and fixed all the validation errors...?

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 23 '05 #3
LRW
"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:zN********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:
http://gto.ie-studios.net/index.php

When you view the above site in IE, if the 1st of the three product
images is tall enough to push the cell down a couple of pixels, IE
somehow doesn't show that happening.

Perhaps if you added a DOCTYPE and fixed all the validation errors...?


All the uh, validation errors?
Jul 23 '05 #4
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:
All the uh, validation errors?


Yes, all of them.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #5
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors?

New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 23 '05 #6
C A Upsdell wrote:

"LRW" <me********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c**************************@posting.google.c om...
http://gto.ie-studios.net/index.php

When you view the above site in IE, if the 1st of the three product
images is tall enough to push the cell down a couple of pixels, IE
somehow doesn't show that happening.

But if you look at it in Firefox you can see the small gap of white
where the semi-circle image is broken.


No problem here with FF 1.0


If you're talking about the area with the words beginning "Latest
and Hottest Products", I see the problem with Mozilla 1.7.3. That
text is in a white area. Above the white area is a gray area. The
boundary between the areas is an arc. At the very top of the arc,
there is a rectangular notch of white intruding into the gray.
Also, there is a small white streak in the gray just to the right
and slightly above the alignment of the notch; the streak is
rectangular at the left and then tapers to a point at the right.

You have problems. The page does not comply with HTML
specifications. While Mozilla and Firefox are quite tolerant of
non-standard HTML, you can't expect a perfect display from an
imperfect Web page. Further, the page is too wide; having to
right-left scroll to read each line (as well as the usual vertical
scrolling) will drive customers away.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <http://www.mozilla.org/>.
Jul 23 '05 #7
LRW
"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Re********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors?

New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>


Holy moly! You're kidding?! 76 errors on the one page? Even after using
Dreamweaver MX (so much for assuming it coded appropriately,) and what I
thought was pretty basic, standard, ordinary HTML when by hand.
That's...astounding.
How.
Looking through some of these...a lot are ALT tag required. Now, I know ALT
tags are nice for when people are using audible site readers or text
browsers like Lynx, but..."required"? Why are they required?
And, even for sites that have a LOT of individual images, especially when
they're just background, for appearance only images?
Jul 23 '05 #8
LRW

"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Re********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors?

New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>


Oh yeah, sorry to post again but I just thought of something else...
Line 255, column 94: value of attribute "ALIGN" cannot be "ABSMIDDLE"; must
be one of "TOP", "MIDDLE", "BOTTOM", "LEFT", "RIGHT"

Since when is "ABSMIDDLE" not allowed? It's an option in one of my HTML
books, one of my cheatsheets (a published one someone wrote, not one I
made,) and an option in Dreamweaver (which I guess is evidently
meaningless.)

Are ALL of these errors serious errors? I mean, will 90% of them really
cause any actual problems for anyone?
Jul 23 '05 #9
LRW

"Mark Parnell" <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
news:11******************************@markparnell. com.au...
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:
All the uh, validation errors?


Yes, all of them.

When you say "all of them," I guess you're refering to some kind of checker
I'm not aware of?
Someone else posted this link:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline
which I'd not been aware of before.
I question in another reply the seriousness of some of these, like ALT tags
being "required" and ABSMIDDLE not allowed.
Jul 23 '05 #10
LRW wrote:
Holy moly! You're kidding?! 76 errors on the one page?
Indeed!
Even after using
Dreamweaver MX (so much for assuming it coded appropriately,)
Excuse me while I laugh until I wet myself.
and what I
thought was pretty basic, standard, ordinary HTML when by hand.
That's...astounding.
Yes.
How.
I don't know, I'm, still damp.
Looking through some of these...a lot are ALT tag required.
ALT tags?
Now, I know ALT
tags
ALT TAGS?????

<alt>?

Or do you mean the alt attribute? See, I'm sorta picking on you, but I
mean to illustrate that when you use the wrong term it looks sorta silly
and makes people react in a different way than you'd prefer. Since you're
obviously new to HTML I'll cut you a little slack.

But I'll tell you a secret - I rarely post here without looking shit up,
without testing code on 4 different browsers, and you know why? I don't
want to be seen as an idiot. That's the lengths I go to, and I think
they're appropriate...
are nice for when people are using audible site readers or text
browsers like Lynx, but..."required"? Why are they required?
What if the user is on a low bandwidth connection and must turn off
browsers to do anything within 20 minutes? It's sure nice for them.

It's not nice, however, for the blind. It's ESSENTIAL. And that's why it's
required.
And, even for sites that have a LOT of individual images, especially when
they're just background, for appearance only images?


If the image delivers a specific message, use that as the alt value.

<img src="buynow.png" ... alt="Buy WhamNet Now!!!">

If the image gives information otherwise not available in the content,
provide it in the alt.

<img src="chart3.jpg" ... alt="In 1997, Joe Flank owned 37% of WhamNet
stock, Sally Poopstain owned 31%, and Hopkin Green Frog owned the
remaining 32%.">

If the image could be eliminated and the user would suffer no loss in
content, use null alt text.

<img src="prettypic.jpg" ... alt="">
Jul 23 '05 #11
In our last episode, <IaQqd.175919$R05.163664@attbi_s53>, the lovely and
talented LRW broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Re********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors? New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>

Holy moly! You're kidding?! 76 errors on the one page? Even after using
Dreamweaver MX (so much for assuming it coded appropriately,) and what I
thought was pretty basic, standard, ordinary HTML when by hand.
That's...astounding.
How.
Looking through some of these...a lot are ALT tag required. Now, I know ALT
tags are nice for when people are using audible site readers or text
browsers like Lynx, but..."required"? Why are they required?
And, even for sites that have a LOT of individual images, especially when
they're just background, for appearance only images?

Since the ALT text is supposed to be substituted for the image, it is
logical to use an empty ALT text (i.e. ALT="") when the image is purely
decorative (like scrollwork, for example). Otherwise many user agents will
insert something like [IMAGE] and the user will wonder what the image is
(besides the all of the [IMAGE]s where the images are only spacers will make
mincemeat out of the page). There is no ALT attribute for images that are
only background, but then, they don't belong in the HTML.

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ei*****@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague
Jul 23 '05 #12
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:42:12 GMT, LRW <de**@celticbear.com> wrote:

"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Re********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors? New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>


Oh yeah, sorry to post again but I just thought of something else...
Line 255, column 94: value of attribute "ALIGN" cannot be "ABSMIDDLE";
must
be one of "TOP", "MIDDLE", "BOTTOM", "LEFT", "RIGHT"

Since when is "ABSMIDDLE" not allowed? It's an option in one of my HTML
books, one of my cheatsheets (a published one someone wrote, not one I
made,) and an option in Dreamweaver (which I guess is evidently
meaningless.)


I like you. Here's a link.

[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html]

This is a list of every official HTML 4.01 element in existence. And the
following is all the attributes.

[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/attributes.html]

If it's not in these lists, it cannot validate.

Now, some browsers will accept non-standard attributes and values. It's
like the sign, though, hung in a nearby trailer park: "This home protected
by shotgun three nights a week. You guess which 3."
Are ALL of these errors serious errors? I mean, will 90% of them really
cause any actual problems for anyone?


All will cause problems for someone, I can't say more. But as it's so easy
to cause problems for no one, why do it?>
Jul 23 '05 #13
LRW
"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
LRW wrote:
Even after using Dreamweaver MX (so much for assuming it coded appropriately,)


Excuse me while I laugh until I wet myself.


Wow. There was a time I laughed at people who used Frontpage...little did I
know Dreamweaver would become today's Frontpage. =/
ALT TAGS?????

<alt>?

Or do you mean the alt attribute? See, I'm sorta picking on you, but I
mean to illustrate that when you use the wrong term it looks sorta silly
and makes people react in a different way than you'd prefer. Since you're
obviously new to HTML I'll cut you a little slack.
OK, I'm going to go ahead and embarass myself and say that I'd been using
HTML since 1996 with "Teach Yourself HTML is 21 Days".
I used to write Web pages with CoffeeCup and Notepad and laugh and people
who used GUI's. Until I realized why the heck am I spending 4 times as long
to do something I could use a GUI for (mainly talking about tables) and so
started using Dreamweaver.
Yeah, so I use the wrong terms all the time...that comes from teaching
oneself how to do something by looking at other people's source code. =/
It's not nice, however, for the blind. It's ESSENTIAL. And that's why it's
required.
Fairnuff.
If the image could be eliminated and the user would suffer no loss in
content, use null alt text.

<img src="prettypic.jpg" ... alt="">


Never thought of that. I guess that's a good tip to remember.
Thanks.
Jul 23 '05 #14
LRW

"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*******************@goodwill.io.com...
Since the ALT text is supposed to be substituted for the image, it is
logical to use an empty ALT text (i.e. ALT="") when the image is purely
decorative (like scrollwork, for example). Otherwise many user agents
will
insert something like [IMAGE] and the user will wonder what the image is
(besides the all of the [IMAGE]s where the images are only spacers will
make
mincemeat out of the page). There is no ALT attribute for images that are
only background, but then, they don't belong in the HTML.

Wait, what? Don't belong in the HTML? OK you lost me here. How can something
not be in the HTML? I mean, even dynamicly generated data like PHP, the echo
to the browser still has to be in HTML.
What evidently basic and fundamental aspect of Web design am I completely
missing?
(I have a feeling it's something to do with CSS or XML...or something. The
former I've only taught myself enough to not use FONT tags anymore, and the
later....I know how to spell. *g*).

Thanks for replying!
Liam
Jul 23 '05 #15
LRW

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
Since when is "ABSMIDDLE" not allowed? It's an option in one of my HTML
books, one of my cheatsheets (a published one someone wrote, not one I
made,) and an option in Dreamweaver (which I guess is evidently
meaningless.)
I like you. Here's a link.

[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html]

This is a list of every official HTML 4.01 element in existence. And the
following is all the attributes.

[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/attributes.html]

Well, thanks. That's some good info I was not aware of.
All will cause problems for someone, I can't say more. But as it's so easy
to cause problems for no one, why do it?>


OK, here's my problem. Aside from being an idiot. As I mentioned before, I
taught myself HTML back in '96, and since then basically piecemeal from
Google searches and source code viewing and Dreamweaver. (And to think I
thought that was an industry standard program.) I thought I already knew the
basics of HTML. Little did I realize that it's actually heavily regulated
and standardized and...whatever.
So, although I know how to write a table by hand in Notepad and use DIV tags
more than your average Web author, I guess I didn't know that there was a
LOT that I didn't know. Know what I mean?
Now that I know I know not at all close to what I thought I knew, and
evidently should know...uhm, what do you recommend I do from here to relearn
the right way? or new way for all I know. A lot has probably changed in 8
years. (Hey, I'm fortunate I found out FONT tags were no longer appropriate
and learned about CSS's. *g*)
Is there a particular book or beginners Web site you'd recommend for the
HTML beginner who is at least bright enough to have taught himself once
before?

Thanks for the replies!
Liam
Jul 23 '05 #16
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:

[background images]
Wait, what? Don't belong in the HTML?
That's what he said. :-)
OK you lost me here. How can something not be in the HTML?
Don't put it there.
I mean, even dynamicly generated data like PHP, the echo
to the browser still has to be in HTML.
Doesn't *have* to be, but usually the content of the page is in the
HTML, yes.
What evidently basic and fundamental aspect of Web design am I completely
missing?
CSS.
(I have a feeling it's something to do with CSS or XML...or something.
You feel right. HTML describes the semantic structure of the page. CSS
suggests the presentation.
The
former I've only taught myself enough to not use FONT tags anymore,


Then its about time to learn. :-)

css tutorials and other fun 'n giggly css stuff:
http://www.css.nu/
http://www.mako4css.com/
http://www.richinstyle.com/
http://www.blazonry.com/css/
http://www.w3schools.com/css/
http://www.websitetips.com/css/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/
http://www.pageresource.com/dhtml/indexcss.htm
http://www.climbtothestars.org/coding/cssbasic/
http://www.htmlcenter.com/tutorials/index.cfm/css/
http://www.freewebmastertips.com/php...nt.php3?aid=48
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/web/wri...ylesheets.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/ian/books/xht...pt/css-4a.html
http://idm.internet.com/articles/200...utorial1a.html
http://www.greytower.net/en/archive/.../tsutsumi.html
http://www.westciv.com.au/style_mast.../css_tutorial/
http://webmonkey.com/authoring/style...tutorial1.html

layout examples:
http://www.glish.com/css/
http://www.csszengarden.com/
http://www.wannabegirl.org/css/
http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/
http://www.saila.com/usage/layouts/
http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~apple77/columns/
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
http://www.htmler.org/tutorials/3/1.html
http://css.nu/articles/floating-boxes.html
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/
http://www.roguelibrarian.com/lj/index.html
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssLayouts
http://ecoculture.com/styleguide/r/rollovers.html
http://thenoodleincident.com/tutoria...son/index.html
http://www.webreference.com/authorin...yout/advanced/

rounded corners:
http://www.albin.net/CSS/roundedCorners/
http://www.webweaver.org/dan/css/corners/
http://www.guyfisher.com/builder/workshop/css/corners/

slants: http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/slantinfo.html
centring: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/centre/
lists: http://www.alistapart.com/stories/taminglists/
pure css menus: http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/menus/demo.html

master compatibility charts:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/intro.html
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/index.html
http://macedition.com/cb/resources/a...sssupport.html
old:
http://www.immix.net/html/CSSGuide.htm
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...3/css-support/

hiding CSS from crappy browsers:
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/bonus/trick-hide.html
http://www.w3development.de/css/hide_css_from_browsers/

css checkers:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/csscheck/

cascading style sheets, level 1 specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1.html
cascading style sheets, level 2 specification
http://www.w3.org/tr/rec-css2/cover.html
cascading style sheets, level 2 revision 1 working draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/

(thanks brucie)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #17
In our last episode, <MvQqd.110641$V41.33887@attbi_s52>, the lovely and
talented LRW broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*******************@goodwill.io.com...
Since the ALT text is supposed to be substituted for the image, it is
logical to use an empty ALT text (i.e. ALT="") when the image is purely
decorative (like scrollwork, for example). Otherwise many user agents
will
insert something like [IMAGE] and the user will wonder what the image is
(besides the all of the [IMAGE]s where the images are only spacers will
make
mincemeat out of the page). There is no ALT attribute for images that are
only background, but then, they don't belong in the HTML.

Wait, what? Don't belong in the HTML? OK you lost me here. How can something
not be in the HTML? I mean, even dynamicly generated data like PHP, the echo
to the browser still has to be in HTML.
What evidently basic and fundamental aspect of Web design am I completely
missing?


Removing things like background-image to stylesheets. Okay you can
put it in style attributes. But there is still no ALT attribute required
(or allowed) for background images.

Okay, there is a way to emulate ALT text for background images. Use
display: none; with the text. Styles-enabled browsers will show the
background image and ignore the text. Browsers without style or with
styles off will show the text and ignore the background image.

<div class="sample">
<p class="hide">Extreme close-up of foo in background</p>

</div>
with the styles:

..sample { background-image: url("bigfoo.gif"); }
/* Note: no place for an alt attribute in url */
..hide { display: none; }
(I have a feeling it's something to do with CSS or XML...or something. The
former I've only taught myself enough to not use FONT tags anymore, and
the later....I know how to spell. *g*). Thanks for replying!
Liam

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ei*****@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
War on Terrorism: Bad News from the Sanity Front
"Tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden
camps in the desert of Afghanistan." -Thomas Woodrow,_Washington Times_
Jul 23 '05 #18
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:
Well, thanks. That's some good info I was not aware of.
Unfortunately many (probably most) web authors aren't.
OK, here's my problem. Aside from being an idiot. As I mentioned before, I
taught myself HTML back in '96, and since then basically piecemeal from
Google searches and source code viewing and Dreamweaver. (And to think I
thought that was an industry standard program.)
It pretty much *is* the industry standard. Doesn't mean it's any good.
:-)
So, although I know how to write a table by hand in Notepad and use DIV tags
more than your average Web author, I guess I didn't know that there was a
LOT that I didn't know. Know what I mean?
Indeed. BTW: You *do* know that using tables for layout purposes is
frowned upon, don't you? ;-)
Now that I know I know not at all close to what I thought I knew, and
evidently should know...uhm, what do you recommend I do from here to relearn
the right way?
Read the specs. Then read them again. Then if you've got any questions,
ask here.
or new way for all I know. A lot has probably changed in 8
years.
Yes, a *lot* has changed since 1996.
(Hey, I'm fortunate I found out FONT tags were no longer appropriate
and learned about CSS's. *g*)
That's just the beginning of what CSS can do.
Is there a particular book or beginners Web site you'd recommend for the
HTML beginner who is at least bright enough to have taught himself once
before?


http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #19
LRW wrote:
Is there a particular book or beginners Web site you'd recommend for the
HTML beginner who is at least bright enough to have taught himself once
before?


I'd recommend [http://www.w3schools.com] for a starter. Do it all in
Notepad, or download Crimson Editor, which is what I use
[http://www.crimsoneditor.com]. Then, look at [http://www.htmldog.com] but
do not fall for the XHTML bit, it's not needed and if it ever is a
well-coded HTML 4.01 Strict page will easily convert. Use HTML 4.01
Strict, which is amazingly similar to XHTML 1.0 Strict (because it's based
on HTML) aside from a few quirks you'll discover.
Jul 23 '05 #20
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Lars Eighner
<ei*****@io.com> said:
Okay, there is a way to emulate ALT text for background images. Use
display: none; with the text. Styles-enabled browsers will show the
background image and ignore the text. Browsers without style or with
styles off will show the text and ignore the background image.


Though browsers with styles on but images off still won't get either.
However as you say, background images shouldn't ever need alt text.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #21
LRW
"Mark Parnell" <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
news:15******************************@markparnell. com.au...
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:

So, although I know how to write a table by hand in Notepad and use DIV
tags
more than your average Web author, I guess I didn't know that there was a
LOT that I didn't know. Know what I mean?


Indeed. BTW: You *do* know that using tables for layout purposes is
frowned upon, don't you? ;-)


:::hangs head in shame and sighs in angst-ridden frustration:::
My life was so simple, so together before an hour ago. =/
Jul 23 '05 #22
LRW
"jmm-list-gn" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Re********************@giganews.com...
LRW wrote:

All the uh, validation errors?

New to HTML, eh?
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>


Woohoo!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline
Down from 76 errors to 8. And all but one of them is because of a Flash
embed, the other can be fixed by properly doing a CSS...element(?).
If I can figure out an alternate for the embed tags, then I'll be set.

And no, not new. Embarassingly. I taught myself back in 1996, and between
not having kept up with all the changes since then and not teaching myself
the complete right way to begin with, my knowledge is half depricated. =)
Jul 23 '05 #23
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:
If I can figure out an alternate for the embed tags, then I'll be set.


http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #24
"LRW" <de**@celticbear.com> wrote in message
news:sEQqd.417022$wV.305450@attbi_s54...
I thought I already knew the basics of HTML. Little did I realize that
it's actually heavily regulated and standardized and...whatever.


It is not a matter of being heavily regulated. It is to help you to make
pages that render properly: if your code is invalid, your browser will have
to guess what you really want, and you are at the mercy of what it decides
to do.

Jul 23 '05 #25
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:38:27 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
"LRW" <de**@celticbear.com> wrote in message
news:sEQqd.417022$wV.305450@attbi_s54...
I thought I already knew the basics of HTML. Little did I realize that
it's actually heavily regulated and standardized and...whatever.


It is not a matter of being heavily regulated. It is to help you to make
pages that render properly: if your code is invalid, your browser will have
to guess what you really want, and you are at the mercy of what it decides
to do.


Of course if your browser is IE, that tends to be the case anyway ...

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 23 '05 #26
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:10:32 GMT, "LRW" <de**@celticbear.com> wrote:
Is there a particular book or beginners Web site you'd recommend for the
HTML beginner who is at least bright enough to have taught himself once
before?


Others have made some good suggestions. I have a page which approaches
the issue from a different angle: what to check out when you've already
put a page together. In case it helps:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/checklist.html

Oh, and I have a few suggestions on ALT attribute values as well:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/alt.html

HTH

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 23 '05 #27
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:29:45 -0800, David Ross <no****@nowhere.not>
wrote:
You have problems. The page does not comply with HTML
specifications. While Mozilla and Firefox are quite tolerant of
non-standard HTML, you can't expect a perfect display from an
imperfect Web page. Further, the page is too wide; having to
right-left scroll to read each line (as well as the usual vertical
scrolling) will drive customers away.


Finding the page in the quiet of 3:00am and having music blast me with
no obvious way of shutting it off will drive me away even quicker. And
then when I tried to find the OFF control, I couldn't read the text
due to the color scheme. So I hovered and no ALT tag to tell me what
the link was. If I was a customer for the product, I'd be headed back
to Google for a vendor with a friendlier page.

Erik
--
Erik
Jul 23 '05 #28
Neal wrote:
LRW wrote:

Looking through some of these...a lot are ALT tag required.

ALT tags?
Now, I know ALT tags

ALT TAGS?????


Yes. But it might help to know that all tags are merely commands. ;-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #29
LRW wrote:
"jmm-list-gn" wrote ...
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgto.ie-studios.net%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automati cally%29&doctype=Inline>

Holy moly! You're kidding?! 76 errors on the one page?

Looking through some of these...a lot are ALT tag required. Now, I
know ALT tags are nice for when people are using audible site readers
or text browsers like Lynx, but..."required"?


Yes, the syntax of HTML 4 requires an alt attribute for each image
element. If you want your document to validate, then you must conform to
that syntax.

You can choose to ignore invalid markup, of course. And you might not
have any problems with e.g. absmiddle. But the folks here in ciwah won't
know if the validation is causing your problems or not, and won't bother
to find out. We always insist that you validate your code first, then
post problems. It's sort of a filter to rule out certain things.
Why are they required?


For situations where the image is inappropriate (www robots, blind
people, etc.).

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #30
Stephen Poley wrote:
"C A Upsdell" wrote:
if your code is invalid, your browser will have to guess what you
really want, and you are at the mercy of what it decides to do.

Of course if your browser is IE,


IE isn't a browser! :-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #31
LRW

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:vj*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Stephen Poley wrote:
"C A Upsdell" wrote:
if your code is invalid, your browser will have to guess what you
really want, and you are at the mercy of what it decides to do.

Of course if your browser is IE,


IE isn't a browser! :-)


::blinkblink:: What is it?
Jul 23 '05 #32
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, LRW
<de**@celticbear.com> said:
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:vj*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
IE isn't a browser! :-)

::blinkblink:: What is it?


An operating system component that also attempts to function as a
browser (and fails miserably).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #33
LRW wrote:
"Brian" wrote ...
Stephen Poley wrote:
Of course if your browser is IE,


IE isn't a browser! :-)


::blinkblink:: What is it?


An operating system component, as Microsoft testified in court. I might
also add that MSIE/Win's accept headers do not explicitly include
text/html, but I think your head already hurts, so let's leave it with
MS' own testimony, shall we?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #34

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

8 posts views Thread by Mario T. Lanza | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Dean Speir | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by mattrapoport | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by haryvincent176 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.