473,325 Members | 2,816 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,325 software developers and data experts.

IE Div hack

I've got my front page(qldstorms.com) working fine on Firefox and others,
but in IE the images on the right hand sides of news stories go outside the
newsItem box. On firefox and konqueror I got around that using
overflow:hidden, but this doesn't seem to work with IE 6. I've tried a
workaround that someone on a website suggested(using position: relative in
the parent div) but that made things worse. Could anyone suggest an IE hack
that will fix this issue without breaking all the other browsers? Thanks,

David
Nov 23 '05 #1
31 2885
David Findlay <da***@davsoft.com.au> wrote:
I've got my front page(qldstorms.com) working fine on Firefox and others,
but in IE the images on the right hand sides of news stories go outside the
newsItem box.
You've got more important problems:
http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/temp.png

Also note the needless horizontal scrollbar.
Best viewed with


What browser a user uses is none of your business.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 23 '05 #2
Once upon a time *Spartanicus* wrote:
David Findlay <da***@davsoft.com.au> wrote:
I've got my front page(qldstorms.com) working fine on Firefox and others,
but in IE the images on the right hand sides of news stories go outside the
newsItem box.


You've got more important problems:
http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/temp.png

Also note the needless horizontal scrollbar.
Best viewed with


What browser a user uses is none of your business.


Well, he is really not telling what browser they should use, only that
the site is best viewed in some browsers. :)

But that's not good either, even if I don't mind annoying IE users
sometime, as a reply to those thousands of sites telling me the sites
is "Best viewed in IE".

In this case however, it's not true the site is best viewed in Ff and
Konqueror. It's equaly "best viewed" in e.g. the Mozilla Suite, at
least. But of course, the best advise is to drop the "Best viewed" and
make it equaly viewed in all browsers, or at least all major browsers.

--
/Arne

Now killing all Google Groups posters who don't quote
* From Google: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 23 '05 #3
Arne <in*****@domain.invalid> wrote:
But that's not good either, even if I don't mind annoying IE users
sometime, as a reply to those thousands of sites telling me the sites
is "Best viewed in IE".


The reasons why people put such things on their pages will include
incompetence, laziness, revenge, advocacy etc. Regardless of the reason
or the recommended client, the message doesn't belong on a web page. It
only serves to offend, estrange or confuse people, and it shows the
author off as a fool.

Even a message worded as in for example "Foobar is a great browser, get
it here" is likely to offend people who have tried Foobar but didn't
like it or found it to be unsuitable for their needs and are using
something else.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 23 '05 #4
I think a reason for placing such text as "best viewed in.. " could be
*not* incompetence or laziness, but ignorance (in the true sense of the
word: not knowing).

I designed my site in IE6 and have made every effort to make it also
work in Firefox.
But
How many other browsers does one have to try?
How does one know what they are?
How does one obtain the other browsers?
When does one call a halt to testing other browsers?

At the top of my main page, I put a test for IE
var appver = navigator.appVersion
var is_ie = (appver.indexOf('MSIE') != -1) ? true : false
var is_minor = parseFloat(appver.substring(appver.indexOf('MSIE') + 5,
appver.indexOf(';',appver.indexOf('MSIE')) ))
var is_major = parseInt(is_minor) }
if (!(is_ie && is_major == '6'))
document.getElementById("iedesign").innerHTML =
'<b>This site designed for IE6<br />'
+ 'Please Email me if you have problems</b>'
("iedesign" is a named <div> at the top of the page)

So a non-IE6 user sees the above message.

I am trying to say I did the best I could but if it isn't good enough,
tell me so that I can (try to) fix it.
Is this too provocative?
Is there a better way to do it, remembering that I (with a lot of other
website desginers) am not omniscient?

Nov 23 '05 #5
> What browser a user uses is none of your business.

The fact is that it just doesn't work with IE, despite being perfectly
valid CSS within the complete specs, and that's what I'm stating. When
IE respects the specs I'll add it as recommended. In the mean time I'd
just like to find some hacks to make IE work correctly. Thanks,

David
Nov 23 '05 #6
> But of course, the best advise is to drop the "Best viewed" and
make it equaly viewed in all browsers, or at least all major browsers.


That is the intention, but until I can get it to work with IE, it's best
viewed with something else. Thanks,

David
Nov 23 '05 #7
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
I think a reason for placing such text as "best viewed in.. " could be
*not* incompetence or laziness, but ignorance (in the true sense of the
word: not knowing).
An ignorant web coder is an incompetent web coder.
I designed my site in IE6 and have made every effort to make it also
work in Firefox.
Wrong way round.
But
How many other browsers does one have to try?
If you stick to currently widely supported recommendations and
standards, and you know the languages you use including the bits not
supported by popular browsers (information widely available in
publications), the usual minimum requirement is to test in one proper
browser, and IE6/win.
At the top of my main page, I put a test for IE
var appver = navigator.appVersion
var is_ie = (appver.indexOf('MSIE') != -1) ? true : false
var is_minor = parseFloat(appver.substring(appver.indexOf('MSIE') + 5,
appver.indexOf(';',appver.indexOf('MSIE')) ))
var is_major = parseInt(is_minor) }
if (!(is_ie && is_major == '6'))
document.getElementById("iedesign").innerHTML =
'<b>This site designed for IE6<br />'
+ 'Please Email me if you have problems</b>'
("iedesign" is a named <div> at the top of the page)

So a non-IE6 user sees the above message.


The fundamental flaws of your approach:

a) It advertises your incompetence.
b) What makes you think users would go to the trouble of emailing you
instead of using the back feature of their browser?
c) What possible benefit would there be to the *user* of emailing you?
d) A significant number of users have Javascript disabled.
e) User-Agent strings are regularly spoofed.

I'm no Javascript wiz, but even I can spot some of the problems with the
particular Javascript you are using:

a) Relies on the (afaik) MS IE proprietary innerHTML method (although it
may be supported by some other browsers).
b) Your UA string recognition is dumb and prone to failure.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 23 '05 #8
Once upon a time *Trevor L.* wrote:
I think a reason for placing such text as "best viewed in.. " could be
*not* incompetence or laziness, but ignorance (in the true sense of the
word: not knowing).


The same could be said about your way of replying in newsgroups then.
To show less ignorance, check the link in my sig.

--
/Arne

Now ignoring all Google Groups posters who don't quote
* From Google: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 23 '05 #9
In article <11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
I think a reason for placing such text as "best viewed in.. " could be
*not* incompetence or laziness, but ignorance (in the true sense of the
word: not knowing).
I certainly agree with that. I'm reading this group in the hope that
eventually I will move out of the ignorant group into the ... well,
slightly less ignorant at least. So I am certainly not the right person
to specify what to do.
I designed my site in IE6 and have made every effort to make it also
work in Firefox.
I used to take a lot of care to make sure everything I did was written
to such a low risk approach that I could guarantee it worked in
everything. However it also left my sites pretty plain. Since they
were mostly words this wasn't a great disadvantage.

Now I think I took entirely the wrong approach. I am increasingly
coming to the view that to write the site to CSS standards is the best
initial approach. Plus write so as to kick browsers into standards mode
rather than quirks mode (so HTML 4.01 Strict or something Strict).
Perhaps there will be a few CSS items that should be avoided. That way
most standards based browsers will work, and you need only test one or
two. Then you see whether IE 5. or 5.5 or 6 works. If that breaks on
some page that meets standards, then you look up the bug workaround that
gets past that problem. I think in the long run this is going to be
less of a problem and end up saving time. Especially since Microsoft
are saying IE7 will fix a lot of their known bugs.
But
How many other browsers does one have to try?
How does one know what they are?
How does one obtain the other browsers?
When does one call a halt to testing other browsers?
I am not sure it is relevant. If your pages comply with standards, then
it may well be that the browser will fix the problem soon. The only
browser worth putting in fixes for is IE (simply because they have so
much of the market).
At the top of my main page, I put a test for IE
But I have Javascript off. Unless I know your page has something that
needs Javascript (and that I am interested in using) I hardly have JS
on while surfing. I am not sure the risks are great, but I would prefer
not to find otherwise.
Is this too provocative?


Anyone surfing with anything except IE probably made a conscious
decision to do so, based on an evaluation of browser quality and risk.
Whereas IE is the default, so the user may not be emotionally committed
to it to the same extent (pace Firefox campaign). Any message aimed at
non-IE users runs some risk of being seen as provocative. It is almost
a statement that says "why did you change from the default?"

I have been considering a page on my website (when I get around to
rewriting it) explaining that I have written the pages to meet the
appropriate standards, and asking _any_ browser user who finds problems
to contact you. You could add that you have made a special attempt to
work around any known problems with IE6 (or whatever other versions you
made special provision for).

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #10
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:58:29 +1000, Eric Lindsay
<NO**********@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
I am increasingly
coming to the view that to write the site to CSS standards is the best
initial approach. Plus write so as to kick browsers into standards mode
rather than quirks mode (so HTML 4.01 Strict or something Strict).
Perhaps there will be a few CSS items that should be avoided. That way
most standards based browsers will work, and you need only test one or
two. Then you see whether IE 5. or 5.5 or 6 works. If that breaks on
some page that meets standards, then you look up the bug workaround that
gets past that problem. I think in the long run this is going to be
less of a problem and end up saving time. Especially since Microsoft
are saying IE7 will fix a lot of their known bugs.


Spot on. All lurkers please copy.

Furthermore IMHO IE 5.0 usage certainly and IE 5.5 usage probably has
now dropped to the level where providing a readable page is sufficient:
if the layout is a bit wonky I wouldn't worry about it any more.

It may be time to introduce as standard an IE 5 browser-hiding hack
equivalent to @import for Netscape 4. Hide all your CSS (or all except a
few simple rules) from IE 5 and you don't need to re-test each time you
add or change a rule. If it isn't time yet it will be very soon.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Nov 23 '05 #11
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Eric Lindsay wrote:
Now I think I took entirely the wrong approach. I am increasingly
coming to the view that to write the site to CSS standards is the
best initial approach.
I think you'll find general agreement with that here!

Due to known bugs, though, there are benefits from an approach which
makes only quite conservative use of some parts of the CSS
specifications (positioning, to take a particular example), or which
screens buggy browsers from the parts they're likely to get wrong.

Fortunately, the need for this is fading with time as the buggy
browsers (I'm thinking particularly of NN4.* and earlier versions of
Win MSIE, also Mac IE) fall out of use.
Plus write so as to kick browsers into standards mode
rather than quirks mode
Indeed, although this is a concept that didn't exist in earlier
browser versions.
(so HTML 4.01 Strict or something Strict).
There are good reasons for aiming at Strict, but that isn't in itself
the switch between quirks and standards mode.
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ is a good overview.
Anyone surfing with anything except IE probably made a conscious
decision to do so, based on an evaluation of browser quality and
risk. Whereas IE is the default, so the user may not be emotionally
committed to it to the same extent (pace Firefox campaign). Any
message aimed at non-IE users runs some risk of being seen as
provocative. It is almost a statement that says "why did you change
from the default?"
Well put.
I have been considering a page on my website (when I get around to
rewriting it) explaining that I have written the pages to meet the
appropriate standards, and asking _any_ browser user who finds
problems to contact you. You could add that you have made a special
attempt to work around any known problems with IE6 (or whatever
other versions you made special provision for).


For most purposes, a web page should "just work". As TimBL said in a
somewhat different context, but it applies just as much here, "don't
mention the mechanics". The skill of making a web page shows in what
the reader *doesn't* notice, not in how many different HTML/CSS/WAI...
conformance logos the author sticks on their pages.

I don't see anything wrong with having an "about this site..." link,
to page(s) where the author goes into technical detail about the
philosophy and methods used. And such matters are also on topic when
writing pages about web design, of course. But for any other field of
discourse, the techniques used should take very much a back seat, in
my opinion: the site should just calmly work, so that every kind of
user gets the best that they can out of the pages, each in their
different browsing situations. That's the theory, anyway.

Nov 23 '05 #12
Spartanicus wrote
An ignorant web coder is an incompetent web coder. The reason I said "ignorant in the true sense" is that many translate
"ignorant" as "rude, unfeeling"
Similary, I could translate "incompetent" as "useless, incapable", and
I could feel offended. Are you intending to offend?
I try to increase my knowledge as much as I can, but together with many
other web users, I always have more to learn, and (I think this is
important) if one doesn't know what to learn, then one can't learn it
or find out where to learn it.
If you stick to currently widely supported recommendations and standards, .... What is the best place to find these standards?
a) It advertises your incompetence. Same comment as the first above
b) What makes you think users would go to the trouble of emailing you
instead of using the back feature of their browser? Because I tried to be as polite as possible and I hoped for a polite
response
c) What possible benefit would there be to the *user* of emailing you? I could read what they have written and try to modify my code
accordingly. Perhaps the user won't benefit, but I am asking them to
help me. Many people respond to being asked for help
e) User-Agent strings are regularly spoofed. Please explain (and reduce my incompetence - actually my ignorance)
a) Relies on the (afaik) MS IE proprietary innerHTML method (although it
may be supported by some other browsers).

I wasn't aware of any problems. It works in Firefox

b) Your UA string recognition is dumb and prone to failure.
Please explain (and reduce my incompetence - actually my ignorance)
--

Nov 23 '05 #13
Arne,

Is it better to say:
To see what you did wrong, read this ..........
or
What you did wrong is ...................

And who sets the rules, anyway ?

Nov 23 '05 #14
Eric,
Thank you for your considered, polite reply

You wrote
But I have Javascript off. Unless I know your page has something that
needs Javascript (and that I am interested in using) I hardly have JS
on while surfing I also have a <noscript> section which warns uses that my page uses
Javascript. Of course, unless they turn it on, they won't see the
message about IE6 design, so I may have to rethink this.
I have been considering a page on my website (when I get around to
rewriting it) explaining that I have written the pages to meet the
appropriate standards

This is very similar to what I am trying to do. The difference is that
you use the word "standards" whereas I say IE6 ( which is not a
standard)
Are you saying that if one meets the CSS and HTML4.01 standards, then
all shoud be O.K. but check that Ie6 works as well as Firefox?
If so, what is the best source for standards? Is it w3schools.com?

Again, thanks for yuur thoughts

Nov 23 '05 #15
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
An ignorant web coder is an incompetent web coder.
The reason I said "ignorant in the true sense" is that many translate
"ignorant" as "rude, unfeeling"
That is unlikely given the context and the full dictionary definition:

"ignorant ig¢ner*ent,
adjective lacking knowledge, ill-educated; uninformed; having no
understanding or awareness (with of); showing or arising from lack of
knowledge; discourteous, rude, ill-bred; keeping back knowledge
(Shakespeare); unknown (obsolete)."

Source: MS Bookshelf Basic, (c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

I'm no linguist, but it seems to me that dictionary word definitions are
listed in order of probability. In case of doubt the meaning of a word
should be derived from the context. I don't believe that an objective
reader would attach a meaning of "rude, unfeeling" to "incompetence",
even more so given the context in which it was used. I can only conclude
that your pick of "rude, unfeeling" is an attempt to distort what was
written.
Similary, I could translate "incompetent" as "useless, incapable"
That would be a correct interpretation (within the context).
, and
I could feel offended. Are you intending to offend?
You lack elementary web coding skills, you are therefore an incompetent
web coder. You have ego issues if that statement offends you.

I'd say that I'm competent with all things that are required to make a
quality web site, but I'd be the first to declare my authoring
incompetence with many things like Javascript, Perl, PHP, (My)SQL etc.
etc.
If you stick to currently widely supported recommendations and standards, .... What is the best place to find these standards?
Usually at various places on the web. Knowing what is widely supported
needs to be learned. There is no central place that teaches the latter,
it takes experience.
b) What makes you think users would go to the trouble of emailing you
instead of using the back feature of their browser? Because I tried to be as polite as possible and I hoped for a polite
response
You didn't answer the question.
e) User-Agent strings are regularly spoofed. Please explain (and reduce my incompetence - actually my ignorance)
A significant number of browsers and/or users play tricks or spoof the
User-Agent string, sometimes beyond recognition. At the very least that
makes using it difficult, and essentially a fundamentally flawed method.
a) Relies on the (afaik) MS IE proprietary innerHTML method (although it
may be supported by some other browsers).

I wasn't aware of any problems. It works in Firefox

b) Your UA string recognition is dumb and prone to failure. Please explain (and reduce my incompetence - actually my ignorance)


Questions regarding javascript should go to an appropriate group like
comp.lang.javascript.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 23 '05 #16
Spartanicus wrote
e) User-Agent strings are regularly spoofed.

Trevor L. <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote: Please explain (and reduce my incompetence - actually my ignorance)


See http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I used to have a handle on life, but it broke."
Nov 23 '05 #17
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Darin McGrew wrote:
See http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html


Hmmm. One of the sites listed in Dan's "hall of shame" on that page
is http://www.englishtown.com/

Dan predicts a "rude brushoff" for those with better browsers.

But when I try to access that site, blow me down if they don't send me
off to Dan's very own page. It seems as if they're actually proud of
their "dishonor" listing...?

Nov 23 '05 #18
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Darin McGrew wrote:
See http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html


Hmmm. One of the sites listed in Dan's "hall of shame" on that page
is http://www.englishtown.com/


Heh, talk about a brush-off!

"Your web browser configuration does not seem to allow cookies to be set
on your computer.
Englishtown requires cookies to be enabled so that we can bring you a
highly interactive and personal experience. Please enable cookies and
return to Englishtown! Thank you.

Englishtown is the world's largest community for English learners and
teachers on the internet."

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #19
In article <11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
I also have a <noscript> section which warns uses that my page uses
Javascript. Of course, unless they turn it on, they won't see the
message about IE6 design, so I may have to rethink this.
Using a good noscript section is great. However it doesn't really get
around the problem of what to do about Javascript, so perhaps if we
consider that first.

You could simply decide that since 90% (or 80% or whatever) of people
use IE and have Javascript on by default, then you don't need to worry
about the rest. That is a perfectly valid decision, although I happen
to think it is the wrong one.

You could ask why some browsers don't use Javascript, and indeed, which
ones don't use it. One obvious possible answer to that is that search
bots from Google and others may not use Javascript. If this is still
the case, then if you have links that require Java, search engines may
have trouble indexing your site. This is usually not a good thing for
search engine position.

If people have deliberately turned Javascript off, then they may well
have a good reason for it. So just suggesting your site works better
with Javascript may not be sufficient for them to stay. The next site
is just one click away. Now the reason may be concerns about security.
If it turns out that some super Windows malware targets lots of people
via Javascript, you may find over a very short period that lots more
people turn it off. I don't say that is likely, but it is a
consideration.

Finally, even if people have Javascript turned on, which Javascript are
we talking about? As far as I know, Javascript is a proprietary term
for a scripting language from Netscape. The language Internet Explorer
uses is probably actually JScript. And the one that seems to have the
standards track is ECMAScript from Europe. So, which one are your
scripts actually targeting?

However I think the main thing people are trying to get at here is that
we all need to think about what we are doing when we use some technology
on the web. Just what problem are you solving by using Javascript?
Could the problem be solved in a better manner? Indeed, are you solving
the wrong problem with Javascript.

If you are using Javascript to detect whether a browser is IE, then it
won't work. Because of the number of people who try to do that, pretty
much all other browsers can be set to lie about which browser they are.
Sort of like a blind British Army sentry in WWII yelling "friend or
foe", and the uniformed German soldier yelling back "friend". It is
just something out of a comedy.
I have been considering a page on my website (when I get around to
rewriting it) explaining that I have written the pages to meet the
appropriate standards

This is very similar to what I am trying to do. The difference is that
you use the word "standards" whereas I say IE6 ( which is not a
standard)
Are you saying that if one meets the CSS and HTML4.01 standards, then
all shoud be O.K. but check that Ie6 works as well as Firefox?


Maybe a bit more involved than that, but certainly that is a good
starting point. If your page is valid as both HTML 4.01 and CSS, and
especially if it is valid Strict, you can be pretty sure that most
modern browsers will just work. That may even end up including IE7 when
it appears. There may be some problems, but once you have a general
HTML template that works, the only problems are typos and little
mistakes like that. Equally, since the CSS will apply to the whole site
usually from one or two CSS style sheets, once you get that right,
adding a new page should not cause any new problems.

If you do that right, browsers that can't handle CSS will get the HTML,
and should be fine using it. The only problems will be older browsers
that think they can handle CSS but fail. The people here can explain a
few simple tricks to help cope with these. You may however want to
check your site statistics, to see whether older browsers with problems
are still being used.

The big exception will probably be Internet Explorer 5, 5.5 and 6. Now,
you simply have to work around the problems with that, because they are
so widely used. Also, they don't have the same bugs. However, every
person who writes a standards based site encounters the same problems,
so there are solutions out there. There are lists of IE bugs. There
are lists of ways to avoid certain IE bugs. There are suggestions about
what CSS things to be careful about. I am still learning about all this.

It changes the problem from "I don't know how to make this work with
every browser", to "I just need a list of IE bug fixes".
If so, what is the best source for standards? Is it w3schools.com?


I think the folks here would prefer that you look at w3.org, who write
the standards, as some here don't seem to have a high opinion of
w3schools.com However if you have specific questions they will usually
point you to a solution. One obvious thing about standards is to use
html http://validator.w3.org, plus the CSS validator at
http://jigsaw.w3.org to check your pages.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #20
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:55:50 +1000, Eric Lindsay
<NO**********@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
If you are using Javascript to detect whether a browser is IE, then it
won't work. Because of the number of people who try to do that, pretty
much all other browsers can be set to lie about which browser they are.
Sort of like a blind British Army sentry in WWII yelling "friend or
foe", and the uniformed German soldier yelling back "friend".
More like the German shouting back "foe" and the British sentry saying
"pass, foe" ...

Sorry - I've just discovered that there's an IE6 variant at large that
ignores CSS { display: none } and I'm feeling even more cheesed off with
it than usual.
It is
just something out of a comedy.


A black comedy.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Nov 23 '05 #21
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
I've just discovered that there's an IE6 variant at large that
ignores CSS { display: none }


Do tell.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 23 '05 #22
Els
Stephen Poley wrote:
Sorry - I've just discovered that there's an IE6 variant at large that
ignores CSS { display: none } and I'm feeling even more cheesed off with
it than usual.


I haven't followed the entire thread, but what do you mean by IE6
ignoring 'display:none;' ? I've never ever seen that...

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Nov 23 '05 #23
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:14:59 +0100, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote:
Stephen Poley wrote:
Sorry - I've just discovered that there's an IE6 variant at large that
ignores CSS { display: none } and I'm feeling even more cheesed off with
it than usual.


I haven't followed the entire thread, but what do you mean by IE6
ignoring 'display:none;' ? I've never ever seen that...

Well, once upon a time [1] there was a site with breadcrumbs. Then the
owner decided he didn't want the breadcrumbs any more. And he also
wanted some things restructuring. So I did the restructuring. On those
pages which I was editing anyway I removed the breadcrumbs. Rather than
edit all the other pages I just set the breadcrumb style to
{ display: none } A colleague and I checked the results in four or five
browsers, including two flavours of IE6 (NT and XP Pro), validated the
CSS and a couple of sample HTML pages, and everything looked fine.

A few days ago I got a message from another colleague that he couldn't
make sense of the breadcrumbs! He sent me a screenshot, and the styling
was being applied normally, except that the breadcrumbs were visible!
(And, due to the restructuring, some were indeed not making sense.)

He confirmed he was using IE6. Somehow I just couldn't summon up the
enthusiasm to investigate any further. Apart from anything else he was
at a client some 80 km away so it wasn't a question of quickly popping
round. I just stripped out all the breadcrumbs from all the pages. So I
don't know the precise circumstances under which IE6 ignores the rule
{ display: none } or which sub-subversion, or anything. I just know that
at least one version does it sometimes.
[1] i.e. a few months ago.
--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Nov 23 '05 #24
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> writes:
A few days ago I got a message from another colleague that he couldn't
make sense of the breadcrumbs! He sent me a screenshot, and the styling
was being applied normally, except that the breadcrumbs were visible!
(And, due to the restructuring, some were indeed not making sense.)


If the only stylesheet change was setting { display: none; } on the
breadcrumbs (and/or none of the other changes showed), then I suspect
that your colleague's browser had a cached version of the stylesheet
and was using this to display the page.

--
Chris
Nov 23 '05 #25
Darin McGrew wrote:
Spartanicus wrote
e) User-Agent strings are regularly spoofed.


See http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html


See also
<URL:http://www.pgts.com.au/pgtsj/pgtsj0208c.html>
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Nov 23 '05 #26
Spartanicus wrote
The reason I said "ignorant in the true sense" is that many translate "ignorant" as "rude, unfeeling"That is unlikely given the context and the full dictionary definition

Hey, I wasn't talking about the dictionary definition. I can look that
up and I know that ignorant is derived from the Latin ignoramus = I do
not know (or is that we do not know). My Latin studies were to Leaving
Certificate level (here in Aus.) but a long time ago. Nevertheless, it
still stands me in good stead for explaining and understanding many
English words.

I was talking about common usage. Even your quote includes
"discourteous, rude, ill-bred"
I don't believe that an objective reader would attach a meaning of "rude, unfeeling" to "incompetence", I was attaching this meaning to ignorant not to incompetent. Again,
your quote includes this meaning.
Similary, I could translate "incompetent" as "useless, incapable"

That would be a correct interpretation (within the context).

And yet I can create a website - neither useless not incapable !!
You lack elementary web coding skills, you are therefore an incompetent web coder. On what basis do you state that I lack elementary skills?
That statement is incorrect, although I can say that I lack advanced
skills
I'd say that I'm competent with all things that are required to make a quality web site,
You have ego issues if that statement offends you. So your ego allows you to state that you can make a quality site, but
mine doesn't allow me to object to being put down. Come on, get real!
b) What makes you think users would go to the trouble of emailing you
instead of using the back feature of their browser?

Because I tried to be as polite as possible and I hoped for a polite response

You didn't answer the question.

I did. My answer was: "Many people respond to being asked for help"
Questions regarding javascript should go to an appropriate group like
comp.lang.javascript

I am fine with that, but you did raise the question about innerHTML I
merely responded.

I thank you for the useful information that you did supply.

I ask you to compare your response to that of Eric Lindsay in this
thread. I don't know what his skill level is, and he doesn't ask what
mine is. He simply answers my questions with well thought out answers
and useful information.

I wonder whether other readers of this newsgroup would care to comment
on the relative courtesy given by different respondents to my comments.

Nov 23 '05 #27
Eric,
Thank you for the time and trouble you have taken to answer my posting.

You have supplied much useful information that I will ponder at my
leisure. (I will keep you replies in a special folder of "Useful
Information" on my hard disk)

Thanks for the standards references. I have used these, so I will
continue to do so.

Nov 23 '05 #28
In article <11*********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
I wonder whether other readers of this newsgroup would care to comment
on the relative courtesy given by different respondents to my comments.


You said it all. Courtesy is relative. The correct advice is invaluable.
Many of the people who will give you the best advice, do so brusquely.
It's Usenet, not googlegroups. It's been around far longer than the web.
It's been my experience that crafting my remarks with the understanding
that there's always an expert or ten in the ciwa* category that can
obliterate my argument works for me, and I normally post accordingly or
pay the consequences. YMMMV.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
Nov 23 '05 #29
In article <11*********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"Trevor L." <ta****@homemail.com.au> wrote:
I ask you to compare your response to that of Eric Lindsay in this
thread. I don't know what his skill level is, and he doesn't ask what
mine is. He simply answers my questions with well thought out answers
and useful information.


I can assure you that Spartanicus is so far above me in his skill level
as to make any comparison not worth considering. What little I know has
mostly been because people in this group have corrected my errors
(sometimes gently, sometime is haste), and pointed me to resources that
have helped me learn more. Well, not even so much errors, as things I
_knew_ that turned out not to be so.

I have a lot of little (virtual) postit notes of things Spartanicus has
said. Plus his own web site is a wonderful resource. Yes, he can
sometimes be a bit blunt. I can live with that. After all, this group
is putting up with me asking silly questions, and not always
understanding the answers at first. I hope that by the time I have
finished taking notes (80 pages of them now) and testing bits of web
pages I will be able to pull apart my own old web site and rebuild a
much nicer one.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #30
On 21 Nov 2005 21:09:53 +0000, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote:
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> writes:
A few days ago I got a message from another colleague that he couldn't
make sense of the breadcrumbs! He sent me a screenshot, and the styling
was being applied normally, except that the breadcrumbs were visible!
(And, due to the restructuring, some were indeed not making sense.)


If the only stylesheet change was setting { display: none; } on the
breadcrumbs (and/or none of the other changes showed), then I suspect
that your colleague's browser had a cached version of the stylesheet
and was using this to display the page.


Well, the problem was seen several weeks after the changes were made, so
that seems unlikely (especially given the reputed tendency of IE to ask
for things more often then necessary) but I suppose that is just within
the realms of possibility, yes. It might be that.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Nov 23 '05 #31
Stephen Poley wrote in message news:9d********************************@4ax.com...
On 21 Nov 2005 21:09:53 +0000, Chris Morris wrote:
Stephen Poley writes:
A few days ago I got a message from another colleague that he couldn't
make sense of the breadcrumbs! He sent me a screenshot, and the styling
was being applied normally, except that the breadcrumbs were visible!
(And, due to the restructuring, some were indeed not making sense.)


If the only stylesheet change was setting { display: none; } on the
breadcrumbs (and/or none of the other changes showed), then I suspect
that your colleague's browser had a cached version of the stylesheet
and was using this to display the page.


Well, the problem was seen several weeks after the changes were made, so
that seems unlikely (especially given the reputed tendency of IE to ask
for things more often then necessary) but I suppose that is just within
the realms of possibility, yes. It might be that.


Once upon a time[1], to get rid of a lot of nuisance on the web, I
installed Proxomitron, a proxy filter.
Well, it gets rid of a lot of nuisance, but it also, every now and then,
affects "valid" pages. Could it be that your colleague has something
similar installed? Just a wild[2] guess.

[1] about 4 years ago.
[2] lots of stuff happens in the World Wild Web.

Nov 23 '05 #32

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
by: Haines Brown | last post by:
I thought I had understood this issue and implemented a work around, but now when I check on IE5, it is not working: ... #IE-hack { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 20em;...
3
by: cr88192 | last post by:
for various reasons, I added an imo ugly hack to my xml parser. basically, I wanted the ability to have binary payload within the xml parse trees. this was partly because I came up with a binary...
11
by: Chris Beall | last post by:
Here's the problem: http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/Demo/theproblem.html The page contains inline text, then some additional pairs of text which are floated right and left. (This is a...
2
by: Ing. Rajesh Kumar | last post by:
Hi everybody I have about 50 code behind *.vb files from which i have created a single *.dll file. This single *.dll file and all the *.aspx files i will put on a clients computer. So i just...
5
by: Nmx | last post by:
Hi everyone, I'm writing a patch to a search engine (aspseek http://www.aspseek.org/) compile under gcc 3.4.4 on FC3. At some point, I found this piece of code: -- // Dirty hack to avoid...
0
by: Xah Lee | last post by:
In this article, i explain how the use of bit masks is a hack in many imperative languages. Often, a function will need to take many True/False parameters. For example, suppose i have a function...
12
by: Ivo | last post by:
I am programming forum. Tech is ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server 2005. I want to see is my site safe, have I made some security problems. Can you try to hack my site untill 10-september-2007.:...
7
by: badc0de4 | last post by:
Is this a stupid hack or a clever hack? Is it a "hack" at all? ==================== #include <stdio.h> /* !!HACK!! */ /* no parenthesis on the #define'd expression */ #define...
11
by: howa | last post by:
... width:202px; *width:200px; ... The setting with * only can be read by IE, but I want to know... 1. What is the name of this hack? 2. Is all attribute can be combined with a star so only...
0
by: freehackers | last post by:
FreeHackers Group : Only 6 Steps to get cracked your target password 1- Fill in the E-Mail Cracking order form , to the best of your knowledge “contact us to freehackers.007gmail.com with...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.