By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,187 Members | 1,030 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,187 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Web sites that discuss IE gotchas?

P: n/a
I'm in the process of redesigning my web page and started working more
with CSS. I have, what I think is, a nice web layout (I'm no expert so
I could be wrong). When I tested it with Konqueror and Firefox it
works well (a few minor problems) but when I test it with IE 6.0 it
doesn't display or it jumbles everything up. I've tried using various
examples (conditionals) to get around IE problems but they are causing
more problems that they fix. I'd love to drop IE all together but it's
around 33% of my traffic so probably not a good idea.

Can anyone point me to site that explain how to design around IE's
problems? I've googled but I seem to be getting dribs and drabs of
information.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Dec 28 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
18 Replies


P: n/a
In article <sl****************@cookie.uucp>,
Neil Cherry <nj*@cookie.uucpwrote:
I'm in the process of redesigning my web page and started working more
with CSS. I have, what I think is, a nice web layout (I'm no expert so
I could be wrong). When I tested it with Konqueror and Firefox it
works well (a few minor problems) but when I test it with IE 6.0 it
doesn't display or it jumbles everything up. I've tried using various
examples (conditionals) to get around IE problems but they are causing
more problems that they fix. I'd love to drop IE all together but it's
around 33% of my traffic so probably not a good idea.

Can anyone point me to site that explain how to design around IE's
problems? I've googled but I seem to be getting dribs and drabs of
information.
First thing to do is to check your site for errors, there a few
in both css and html on the "main" site in your sig, look up in
validators. The other thing, do you need to use xhtml? Usually
best to keep to:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

There are a lot of problems with IE 6 and your best strategy is
to first get your code as kosher as possible. Beyond that, what
are the specific problems you have?

--
dorayme
Dec 28 '06 #2

P: n/a
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:38:34 +1100, dorayme wrote:
In article <sl****************@cookie.uucp>,
Neil Cherry <nj*@cookie.uucpwrote:
>I'm in the process of redesigning my web page and started working more
with CSS. I have, what I think is, a nice web layout (I'm no expert so
I could be wrong). When I tested it with Konqueror and Firefox it
works well (a few minor problems) but when I test it with IE 6.0 it
doesn't display or it jumbles everything up. I've tried using various
examples (conditionals) to get around IE problems but they are causing
more problems that they fix. I'd love to drop IE all together but it's
around 33% of my traffic so probably not a good idea.

Can anyone point me to site that explain how to design around IE's
problems? I've googled but I seem to be getting dribs and drabs of
information.

First thing to do is to check your site for errors, there a few
in both css and html on the "main" site in your sig, look up in
validators. The other thing, do you need to use xhtml? Usually
best to keep to:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
This is a good suggestion, I'll fall back from XHTML 1.0 Transitional
to 4.01 strict and see if that loosens things up first and run my page
and the css through the appropriate tools to see how correct they
really are.
There are a lot of problems with IE 6 and your best strategy is
to first get your code as kosher as possible. Beyond that, what
are the specific problems you have?
I'll get back to you as soon as I've checked the code (in a day or
two).

Thanks!

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Dec 28 '06 #3

P: n/a
Neil Cherry wrote:
>
Can anyone point me to site that explain how to design around IE's
problems?
IE6 has many CSS troubles. The best way to avoid them is to start with
clean, semantic markup - HTML 4.01 Strict is recommended. And Keep It
Simple, especially if you are not very fluent in CSS. You can gradually
move to more complex designs as your skill level increases. Just don't
try to bite off more than you can chew - you'll only end up with a mess,
probably in all browsers not just IE.

Understanding how the various positioning methods and the box model are
*supposed* to work goes a long way to avoiding problems in general, so
please learn these first. The specs are at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html

IE's quirks are triggered by a variety of conditions so you have to take
them individually when figuring out a resolution. The 2 best sources for
identifying the cause and work-around(s) are
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
http://www.quirksmode.org/bugreports/index.html

quirksmode.org lists bugs for all browsers and has JavaScript and HTML
bugs in there as well. There is a section devoted to IE 5-6. Thankfully,
the worst IE6 bugs have been corrected in IE7, but that doesn't mean IE7
is bug-free. No browser is bug-free, of course.

--
Berg
Dec 28 '06 #4

P: n/a
I want to thank everyone for their help. I haven't figured out why
things aren't working with IE but are with Firefox but I have learned
that that inheritance is important. I've found that if I take
something that works (blocks of text and images, centered) and just
add it into an existing page they no longer work. I'm going to fall
back to solving the block centering problem first, then the page
layout with fixed divs (header, content and footer) and scroll bars
then the drop down menu issues.

I'm amazed at how many folks give examples of 'howto' and those
examples fail on a basic web page (inheritance from their style sheet
that they fail to mention). As with anything there is useful and
useless information on the web. I am thankful for the folks in this
newsgroup who help separate the wheat from the chaff. :-)

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Dec 29 '06 #5

P: n/a
Yes, I know one post followed up by another post followed up by yet
another, bad form! Anyway, I found the source of most of my
problems. I have a tendency to add the following line to the start of
my html files:

<!-- -*- mode: html; mode: auto-fill; -*- -->

This tells my editor to drop into a specific mode that I like to
use. I minimized my files down to the minimal html and css to perform
the task I couldn't get to work and found that 2 nearly identical
files behaved differently! When I removed the line above (it was the
very first line in the html file) both behaved identically. The file
verifies with the above line in it so I thought it was acceptable.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Dec 30 '06 #6

P: n/a
Neil Cherry <nj*@cookie.uucpwrites:
Yes, I know one post followed up by another post followed up by yet
another, bad form! Anyway, I found the source of most of my
problems. I have a tendency to add the following line to the start of
my html files:

<!-- -*- mode: html; mode: auto-fill; -*- -->

This tells my editor to drop into a specific mode that I like to
use. I minimized my files down to the minimal html and css to perform
the task I couldn't get to work and found that 2 nearly identical
files behaved differently! When I removed the line above (it was the
very first line in the html file) both behaved identically.
The absence of a DTD declaration on the first line of an HTML document will
trigger so-called "quirks mode" in many browsers. That results in different,
non-W3C layout rules being applied.

Have a look at <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/for more.

Emacs doesn't require your mode line to be at the very top. I use it all
the time with Perl scripts that begin with a #! line. So, you don't have
to remove that, just move it to below the DTD declaration.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Dec 30 '06 #7

P: n/a
Neil Cherry wrote:
>
<!-- -*- mode: html; mode: auto-fill; -*- -->

files behaved differently! When I removed the line above (it was the
very first line in the html file) both behaved identically.
IE6 requires the DOCTYPE in the first line or it triggers quirks mode.
The actual DOCTYPE in this case is ignored. google the archives for more
about quirks vs standards mode.

--
Berg
Dec 30 '06 #8

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>The absence of a DTD declaration on the first line of an HTML document will
trigger so-called "quirks mode" in many browsers.
Quirks mode is triggered in IE and an old version of Opera when there is
non whitespace before the doctype. The doctype declaration does not have
to be on the first line, and afaik no other browsers are affected.
>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.
That is a rather meaningless statement.

--
Spartanicus
Dec 30 '06 #9

P: n/a
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:38:04 -0500, Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neil Cherry <nj*@cookie.uucpwrites:
>Yes, I know one post followed up by another post followed up by yet
another, bad form! Anyway, I found the source of most of my
problems. I have a tendency to add the following line to the start of
my html files:

<!-- -*- mode: html; mode: auto-fill; -*- -->

This tells my editor to drop into a specific mode that I like to
use. I minimized my files down to the minimal html and css to perform
the task I couldn't get to work and found that 2 nearly identical
files behaved differently! When I removed the line above (it was the
very first line in the html file) both behaved identically.

The absence of a DTD declaration on the first line of an HTML document will
trigger so-called "quirks mode" in many browsers. That results in different,
non-W3C layout rules being applied.

Have a look at <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/for more.

Emacs doesn't require your mode line to be at the very top. I use it all
the time with Perl scripts that begin with a #! line. So, you don't have
to remove that, just move it to below the DTD declaration.
Good I'll do that. Thanks, I'm now much happier with the way things
are working. Especially now that they're following the standards more
closely. I'm certain I have plenty of clean up to do on my various
pages. Some of which were written more than 10 years ago (~ html
3.2). I'm not really sure I'm any more knowledgeable today than I was
then.

Thanks!

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Dec 30 '06 #10

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningless" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Dec 30 '06 #11

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningless" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?
Misleading is a better description.

There is no such thing as "W3C layout rules". Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner, this not even remotely the case. In IE6 a few bug
fixes have been tied to "standards mode" and IE6 applies the box model
rule that horizontal padding must be added to a specified width. But IE6
in it's so called "standards compliant" mode still has huge deficiencies
in it's CSS2 support, and a massive number of CSS bugs causing it to
behave in a non spec compliant manner.

--
Spartanicus
Dec 30 '06 #12

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>>>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningless" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?

Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner
I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser. Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

In other words, the two modes aren't simply different levels of success in
reaching the goal of W3C compliance, and characterizing them as such is what
would be misleading. They're different goals entirely, with different rules
being applied in the attempt to reach them.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Dec 30 '06 #13

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner

I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser.
The context was IE's quirks mode rendering.
>Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.
Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply that this is linked to older browsers and a certain way
of rendering, both are incorrect. "Tag soup" refers to HTML code which
does not validate against one of the public HTML DTDs and/or is not
authored for semantics. All WWW browsers are explicitly designed to
handle tag soup. Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.

--
Spartanicus
Dec 30 '06 #14

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>>Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner

I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser.

The context was IE's quirks mode rendering.
Oh, I see now, you're referring to the "IE gotchas" in the subject. We appear
to have drifted quite a ways from the original context. I was referring to
"quirks mode" in general, not to any specific browser's implementation of it.
I've changed the subject to reflect the topic drift - is that better?
>>Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply
I meant what I said, no more and no less. Please stop putting words in my
mouth and then telling me that they're wrong.
Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.
Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Dec 30 '06 #15

P: n/a
VK

Sherm Pendley wrote:
Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.
There is not "Quirks mode" as a technical term as such. It is a slang
word, and as many slang words it may refer to a widest variety of of
things depending on who's using it - just like with "tag soup" slang
term. This way trying to find some exact technical meaning of "Quirks
mode" is pointless.

In the technical aspect there is compatMode ("Compatability Mode")
which is either BackCompat or CSS1Compat and can be read (but not set)
from document.compatMode.

Skipping on euphemistical blah-blah:
BackCompat mode is "How IE did, does and will do by its own standards".
CSS1Compat mode means "As close as we could get to how W3C wants us to
do".

Originally introduced in IE6, it was adopted by all rivals as well:
because besides the commitment to the standards many people also have
more material needs to ensure, which is difficult to do with a company
went under ;-)

BackCompat/CSS1Compat switch is based on DOCTYPE declaration as
specified at
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp>

This is the original MSDN specs but other UAs are going by it as well.

Despite the switch is based on DOCTYPE declaration, it has no relation
of any kindr to DTD issues. It was just chosen by Microsoft as a formal
sign, because it is always conveniently allocated (if presented) at the
very top of the document.

So this switch gave developers a choice to 1) place a proper DOCTYPE
declaration and do with the W3C standards - taking into account broken
or underimplemented standards on a particular browser or 2) do not use
DOCTYPE and "give up to Microsoft".

So far the trend still seems staying on the first option.
>From the other side it is like with fairness: more you brake it -
easier to brake it even more the next time.

See for instance what does Firefox have to propose just one year after
the "fall for BackCompat":

<html>
<head>
<title>BackCompat</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">

html * {
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
}

body {
background-color: #FFFFFF;
color: #000000;
}
</style>
</head>
<body onload="window.alert(document.compatMode)">
<div style="
width: 550px;
height: 400px;
background-color: #FFFF00;
margin: 0px 0px;
padding: 20px auto;
border: 1px solid red;
">
<div style="
width: 100%;
background-color: #FF0000;
margin: 0px 0px;
padding: 20px auto;
border: 1px solid yellow;
">Demo</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

Dec 31 '06 #16

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>>>"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply

I meant what I said, no more and no less. Please stop putting words in my
mouth and then telling me that they're wrong.
Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong. Other statements
have been vague, likely to be misunderstood, ergo: misleading. If you
can't handle this being pointed out then usenet is not for you.
>Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.

Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.
Look up "intrinsic" in the dictionary and re-read the definition of "tag
soup" that I provided.

--
Spartanicus
Dec 31 '06 #17

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong.
No, the claims you invented and then tried to attribute to me were wrong,
hence my request to please stop putting words in my mouth.

Please - respond to what I actually said, or don't respond at all.

Frankly, I suggest the latter. I'm killfiling this thread anyway, since it
appears to be going nowhere useful. The OP's problem has been solved, and
I don't see how this endless hair-splitting you want to indulge in could
possibly be of any use.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Dec 31 '06 #18

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
>Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong.

No, the claims you invented and then tried to attribute to me were wrong,
Again both of these claims you made are wrong:
>>The absence of a DTD declaration on the first line of an HTML document will
trigger so-called "quirks mode" in many browsers.
>>"Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible
>I don't see how this endless hair-splitting you want to indulge in could
possibly be of any use.
It is an attempt to prevent /others/ from accepting your erroneous and
misleading information. I don't care about what you find useful or not.

--
Spartanicus
Dec 31 '06 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.