Viewing in Different Browsers

[LayneMitch]

Greetings everyone.

I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that looks
good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.

Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?

All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript solutions
or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

[rf]

"LayneMitch" <u39402@uwewrote in message news:7bd2bd19e5315@uwe...

Greetings everyone.

I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that
looks
good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.

Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?

All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript
solutions
or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
it wrong.

Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.

Test in Firefox first.

Next validate at http://validator.w3.org

Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
to hand.

Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.

--
Richard.

[dorayme]

In article <wx*******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <[e-mail]:

"LayneMitch" <u39402@uwewrote in message news:7bd2bd19e5315@uwe...

Greetings everyone.

I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that
looks
good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.

Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?

All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript
solutions
or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
it wrong.

Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.

Test in Firefox first.

Next validate at http://validator.w3.org

Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
to hand.

Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.

There are two issues. There's the html first. Does it make sense
without the least bit of added style? Will it allow a visitor to
get by and read your content, see your pics ok, get to your
links? Never mind the no frills look (it is quite a breathtaking
relief from some of the contortions some sites manage with their
styling. Make sure yours looks useful when it is naked.)

Next, time to style the html beyond what is barebones provided by
the browser itself. You will save yourself a lot of trouble if
you do not insist on results being identical across browsers.
Different browsers have different default settings for how they
render things.

The more you want the same, the more trouble you have to go to,
from supplying css to override the different defaults to learning
to either design for where the differences are not so noticeable
to the extreme of knowing each bug and variation and taking steps
to provide some browsers with different style instructions to
others via a variety of techniques.

--
dorayme

[Andy Dingley]

On 27 Nov, 04:54, "LayneMitch" <u39402@uwewrote:

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

* Begin by making valid code that looks good in FF _first_. This will
usually look good in IE too, without further effort.

* If it does need work to fix it in IE, then make sure you don't break
validity and correct display in FF. Re-check afterwards.

* Whenever you post questions to this newsgroup, include a URL. It
helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment
more than a couple of lines long.

[LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com]

Andy Dingley wrote:

>Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

* Begin by making valid code that looks good in FF _first_. This will
usually look good in IE too, without further effort.

* If it does need work to fix it in IE, then make sure you don't break
validity and correct display in FF. Re-check afterwards.

* Whenever you post questions to this newsgroup, include a URL. It
helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment
more than a couple of lines long.

Thanks for the advice. Validating it in FF seems to be the most common answer
I'm getting.
Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online. But, I'll
work to get that done as well. Thanks.

--
Message posted via WebmasterKB.com
http://www.webmasterkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/css/200711/1

[LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com]

rf wrote:

>Greetings everyone.

[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]

>>
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
it wrong.

Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.

Test in Firefox first.

Next validate at http://validator.w3.org

Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
to hand.

Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.

Thanks for the advice. I checked the validator and it found that I had 38
errors in the home page alone. I don't think my site would show in most
browsers with 38 errors. So I'm going to fix these first. Thanks.

--
Message posted via http://www.webmasterkb.com

[Andy Dingley]

On 27 Nov, 13:14, "LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com" <u39402@uwewrote:

Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online.

You need to fix that. Sometimes weird behaviour related to HTTP
headers (usually crazy HTTP headers) doesn't show up until you see the
pages on a web server, not jut through the filesystem.

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

[Sherman Pendley]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrites:

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
VirtualPC will suffice.

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Andy Dingley]

On 27 Nov, 16:34, Sherman Pendley <[e-mail]:

Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
VirtualPC will suffice.

That takes memory though. I've an endless supply of old PCs that are
fit for nothing else than being a low-load non-production web server,
but I always find it hard to squeeze extra memory onto old
motherboards that require some weird format you can't find any more
and are running out of spare slots.

[Bergamot]

Sherman Pendley wrote:

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrites:

>It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home

If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
VirtualPC will suffice.

If space and/or funds are limited, the free space provided by your ISP
or any number of free hosting services out there will suffice for a
quick test page. Running a server at home is a must for other testing,
though.

--
Berg

[Sherman Pendley]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrites:

On 27 Nov, 16:34, Sherman Pendley <[e-mail]:

>Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
VirtualPC will suffice.

That takes memory though. I've an endless supply of old PCs that are
fit for nothing else than being a low-load non-production web server,
but I always find it hard to squeeze extra memory onto old
motherboards that require some weird format you can't find any more
and are running out of spare slots.

Certainly - I've done that too. I'm not disagreeing with that approach,
just pointing out that other options exist too. Horses for courses, and
all that. :-)

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Steve Swift]

Andy Dingley wrote:

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system.
http://swiftys.org.uk/ — I already had the swiftys.org.uk domain for my
"real" website, so I just pointed swiftys.org.uk at my desktop here at home.

The only drawback so far is that the Windows filesystem is
case-insensitive, so it leads me into sloppy ways not tolerated by
apache under Linux or AIX.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

[Andy Dingley]

On 28 Nov, 06:58, Steve Swift <[e-mail]:

I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system.

Apache works pretty well under Windows these days, which certainly
wasn't the case not too long ago. However your hosting is still likely
to be Unix-based, so a bit of hands on knowledge gained at home with
no pressure is always going to come in handy.

For that matter, you still need shell access on a Windows box, so
install Cygwin (a Unix-like Bash-derived command-line shell that runs
under Windows, runs on the Windows filesystem, but makes it look
broadly like a Unix environment). This is a capable command-line shell
in the way that the Windows command prompt is still anything but! (How
do they ever get any work done at Redmond?) You'll also pick up enough
entry-level Unix command line experience to get by for most simple
tasks on your host.

[LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com]

Andy Dingley wrote:

>I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system.

Apache works pretty well under Windows these days, which certainly
wasn't the case not too long ago. However your hosting is still likely
to be Unix-based, so a bit of hands on knowledge gained at home with
no pressure is always going to come in handy.

For that matter, you still need shell access on a Windows box, so
install Cygwin (a Unix-like Bash-derived command-line shell that runs
under Windows, runs on the Windows filesystem, but makes it look
broadly like a Unix environment). This is a capable command-line shell
in the way that the Windows command prompt is still anything but! (How
do they ever get any work done at Redmond?) You'll also pick up enough
entry-level Unix command line experience to get by for most simple
tasks on your host.

Hey...

Thanks guys for the advice on establishing a basic host on my PC. You are
right, if I plan to have my site work it would only make sense to setup some
inexpensive hosting program.

But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs
of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much?

--
Message posted via WebmasterKB.com
http://www.webmasterkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/css/200711/1

[dorayme]

In article <7bebcfc07171e@uwe>,
"LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com" <u39402@uwewrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system.

Apache works pretty well under Windows these days, which certainly
wasn't the case not too long ago. However your hosting is still likely
to be Unix-based, so a bit of hands on knowledge gained at home with
no pressure is always going to come in handy.

For that matter, you still need shell access on a Windows box, so
install Cygwin (a Unix-like Bash-derived command-line shell that runs
under Windows, runs on the Windows filesystem, but makes it look
broadly like a Unix environment). This is a capable command-line shell
in the way that the Windows command prompt is still anything but! (How
do they ever get any work done at Redmond?) You'll also pick up enough
entry-level Unix command line experience to get by for most simple
tasks on your host.

Hey...

Thanks guys for the advice on establishing a basic host on my PC. You are
right, if I plan to have my site work it would only make sense to setup some
inexpensive hosting program.

But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs
of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much?

Gosh, 2.5 + Gb! I have a server run on a windows 2000 box, Apache
and the thing has less than 500MB of Ram. I don't think RAM is
something a home server on your working machine gobbles up for
most things you are likely to be wanting.

--
dorayme

[Andy Dingley]

On 29 Nov, 04:46, "LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com" <u39402@uwewrote:

But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs
of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much?

That's plenty to start running virtual machines in it.

My Windows desktop has 2GB in it and I use about 1.3GB tops. One of
the main memory hogs is TortoiseSVN (the version-control client). Only
if I fire up SQL Server on my desktop machine too do I statrt to use
1.9GB or so.

[Steve Swift]

LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com wrote:

But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs
of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much?

It depends on how much work your apache has to do, but if that is just
supporting a test site for your own use that is not much.

My apache is currently using less than 17Mb — it's very efficient.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk