Weird CSS Link problem in Firefox

[Daniel Kaplan]

So my style sheet has many different types of LINK styles. And they all
work fine on IE, even different styles on the same page.

But in Firefox, all link throughout my site all follow JUST the first link
class on any page.

Any thoughts?

As a side thought, in my style sheet I changed what I guess was the
"Default" link style (as seen below). Was I wrong in doing that?

A:link
{
text-decoration: none;
color: blue;
font-variant: small-caps;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
}

[dorayme]

In article <12***************@nntp.acecape.com>,
"Daniel Kaplan" <No****@NoSpam.comwrote:

So my style sheet has many different types of LINK styles. And they all
work fine on IE, even different styles on the same page.

But in Firefox, all link throughout my site all follow JUST the first link
class on any page.

Any thoughts?

And you don't think a URL is relevant?

--
dorayme

[Daniel Kaplan]

"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in message
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...

In article <12***************@nntp.acecape.com>,
"Daniel Kaplan" <No****@NoSpam.comwrote:

And you don't think a URL is relevant?

How about this, if it helps. Below is my style sheet info on links. Keep
the first section
(nested in between the /////////////////////////////////) and all my
different links work in IE, but not in Firefox.
Remove the nested section and it all works in both browsers.

And in my code I use them as <a class="HT" ... when I want one of the
custom ones.

Perhaps I shouldn't be messing with the default? Or maybe I am using the
style sheet incorrectly?

/////////////////////////////////
A:link
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A:visited
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A:hover
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A:active
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}
/////////////////////////////////
A.HT:link
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A.HT:visited
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A.HT:hover
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}

A.HT:active
{
color: #CC0000;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
font-weight: bold;
}


A.GHT:link
{
color: #009900;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.GHT:visited
{
color: #009900;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.GHT:hover
{
color: #009900;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.GHT:active
{
color: #009900;
font-size: 100%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}
A.XHT:link
{
color: #008800;
font-size: 110%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.XHT:visited
{
color: #008800;
font-size: 110%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.XHT:hover
{
color: #008800;
font-size: 110%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

A.XHT:active
{
color: #008800;
font-size: 110%;
text-decoration: underline;
font-variant: normal ;
}

[dorayme]

In article <12***************@nntp.acecape.com>,
"Daniel Kaplan" <No****@NoSpam.comwrote:

"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in message
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...

In article <12***************@nntp.acecape.com>,
"Daniel Kaplan" <No****@NoSpam.comwrote:

And you don't think a URL is relevant?

How about this, if it helps. Below is my style sheet info on links.

And the HTML? And the doctype and ...

How about a URL?

--
dorayme

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Daniel Kaplan:

>And you don't think a URL is relevant?

How about this, if it helps. Below is my style sheet info on links.

Which part of the abbreviation "URL" do you fail to understand?

Which part of the abbreviation "html" in the newsgroup name do you fail
to understand?

Please continue using the same apparently forged From field until you
have a clue. Thank you in advance.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Daniel Kaplan]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:4d****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi ...

Which part of the abbreviation "URL" do you fail to understand?

Which part of the abbreviation "html" in the newsgroup name do you fail to
understand?

Please continue using the same apparently forged From field until you have
a clue. Thank you in advance.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Actually, the forged from field is common for a plethora of reasons:

Spammers,
Hackers who will Google your name (for newsgroups postings) in the hopes of
finding a way into your site
and high and mighty people like you that need to stop being so
condescending.

Strange, with such an attitude one would think you've already learned the
reason for using a forged field in newsgroups.

I'll have to make a duplicate page of my site one which works, and one which
doesn't and post it in the right group (mis-posts happen you know).
Hopefully someone there less snobbish will be kind enough to look at it.

Thanks.

Daniel

[John Hosking]

Daniel Kaplan wrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:4d****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi ...

>Which part of the abbreviation "URL" do you fail to understand?

Which part of the abbreviation "html" in the newsgroup name do you fail to
understand?

Please continue using the same apparently forged From field until you have
a clue. Thank you in advance.

>
Actually, the forged from field is common for a plethora of reasons:

"Common" doesn't always equal "right" or "good".

>
Spammers,

Use something like da***********@myfirm.com.invalid. People (who even
care) will trim the .invalid, spammers will probably not take the time.

Hackers who will Google your name (for newsgroups postings) in the hopes of
finding a way into your site

So use some non-traceable address, like da***********@gmail.com.invalid.
Then there's no connection to D-Kaplan Amalgamated Industries, Inc.

and high and mighty people like you that need to stop being so
condescending.

Wait, you're afraid that Jukka, because he's so high and mighty, might
reverse the character you've perceived him to have and will start
*spamming* you? Why would someone so condescending deign to send you a
single e-mail?

>
Strange, with such an attitude one would think you've already learned the
reason for using a forged field in newsgroups.

Someone claiming as much Internet experience as you will presumably have
realized the effects of posting someone else's domain in a forged
address. Or do you actually own or control nospam.com?

>
I'll have to make a duplicate page of my site one which works, and one which
doesn't and post it in the right group (mis-posts happen you know).

Yes. But that saves us all, individually, making a new file, copying
your markup from your post (although you hadn't provided it here),
pasting it into the new file, copying the CSS from your post (which may
or may not have been complete), pasting that into the new file, saving
the file and viewing in a browser locally, or uploading to a server and
then viewing it from the server, and STILL not knowing whether we are
using the same doctype or charset or content-type.

So it would be a big waste of time, even before we actually started to
think about your actual question, and we'd be doing it repeatedly, all
over the world.

Which sounds more efficient?

BTW, the added bonus of making simplified versions of troublesome pages
is that one often finds the problem oneself, without even having to ask.

Hopefully someone there less snobbish will be kind enough to look at it.

Yes, one hopes so. But people react less warmly when one repeatedly
offends (for varying values of "offend").
--
John

[Jonathan N. Little]

Daniel Kaplan wrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message

Actually, the forged from field is common for a plethora of reasons:

Spammers,
Hackers who will Google your name (for newsgroups postings) in the hopes of
finding a way into your site
and high and mighty people like you that need to stop being so
condescending.

BTW nospam.com is a valid domain name. If you must mung your email, do
it properly with an address that is positively invalid. Example:
email.invalid

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Daniel Kaplan]

"John Hosking" <Jo**@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALIDwrote in message
news:48**********@news.bluewin.ch...

Daniel Kaplan wrote:

>"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:4d****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.f i...

Wait, you're afraid that Jukka, because he's so high and mighty, might
reverse the character you've perceived him to have and will start
*spamming* you? Why would someone so condescending deign to send you a
single e-mail?

Uh no...people who talk like him in emails probably tick off the wrong
person once in a while and get placed on lists. No joking, I'm not that
type. But would be surprised that this hasn't happened to him already.

Seriously people, make the internet a better place. Before you type
anything condescending or the likes, just pretend you are talking to that
person face to face. Put away the e-balls and realize that you would most
likely not answer in such a prickish manner. Newsgroups keep programmers
chugging along. Holier than thou posters make people with sincere
questions ask less.

Not saying my post was correct by all standards. But deserving of rudeness
from someone who can put me down because they're behind a screen, please.

As for nospam.com being real, wow. I've used that header for AGES, I wonder
which came first (1997). Thanks for pointing that out, will change it.

[David Stone]

In article <12***************@nntp.acecape.com>,
"Daniel Kaplan" <No****@NoSpam.comwrote:
[huge snip]

As for nospam.com being real, wow. I've used that header for AGES, I wonder
which came first (1997). Thanks for pointing that out, will change it.

Well, since you didn't attempt to register it when you first started
doing it, it doesn't really matter does it? ;)

Joking aside, the only _safe_ domain names to use for address munging
purposes are those names specifically reserved so that they will
never actually become "real" domains (example.com, example.net).
or that are explicitly invalid (.invalid)

I seem to recall nospam.com having actually existed since the
nineties, though...

[Jim Moe]

On 05/14/08 03:53 pm, Daniel Kaplan wrote:

So my style sheet has many different types of LINK styles. And they all
work fine on IE, even different styles on the same page.

But in Firefox, all link throughout my site all follow JUST the first link
class on any page.

Any thoughts?

Sounds like there is a syntax error somewhere in the CSS. Have you
validated both the CSS and HTML?
Please offer an URL that demonstrates the behavior.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

David Stone wrote:

I seem to recall nospam.com having actually existed since the
nineties, though...

Domain name: NOSPAM.COM

Administrative Contact:
administration, domain co*************@10.com
P.O. Box 309 ,Ugland House
George Town, Grand Cayman
KY
212-937-2077 Fax: [phone]

....
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 11-Sep-2007.
Record expires on 05-Oct-2008.
Record created on 06-Oct-1997. <---------

I would guess that with all the abuse from unclued munging people, they
don't even bother using email at that domain. <g>

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

[Daniel Kaplan]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:48***********************@roadrunner.com...

David Stone wrote:

>I seem to recall nospam.com having actually existed since the
nineties, though...

Domain name: NOSPAM.COM

Record created on 06-Oct-1997. <---------

I can't swear I've been using it since then, but it's a STRONG possibility.
Still, will change it to the example one. Much better. But whoever said
it, said it best: They must not use it at all....

[Rik Wasmus]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:03:43 +0200, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalidwrote:

David Stone wrote:

>I seem to recall nospam.com having actually existed since the
nineties, though...

Domain name: NOSPAM.COM

Administrative Contact:
administration, domain co*************@10.com
P.O. Box 309 ,Ugland House
George Town, Grand Cayman
KY
212-937-2077 Fax: [phone]

...
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 11-Sep-2007.
Record expires on 05-Oct-2008.
Record created on 06-Oct-1997. <---------

I would guess that with all the abuse from unclued munging people, they
don't even bother using email at that domain. <g>

It's probably a nice honeypot :)
--
Rik Wasmus
....spamrun finished

[GTalbot]

On 15 mai, 11:38, "Daniel Kaplan" <[e-mail]:

Seriously people, make the internet a better place.

Daniel,

You asked in your first post this:

>Any thoughts?

You have been replied and invited politely to provide an URL.

You see, there is very very little we can do without being able to
actually examine and investigate the whole code of your webpage,
including http headers. No amount of discussion or chunks of code will
compensate or replace an URL.
Also, make sure you use a doctype declaration, that your markup code
is valid and CSS code is valid too.

Daniel, if you want meaningful assistance, then try to be as helpful
as possible. You want help? Be helpful for starters. Simple.

Good luck,

Gérard