Rant: Microsoft madness

[DuncanIdaho]

Hello

This is a rant. If you don't want to read it then don't, simple really.

I usually spend my working life buried away in the back ends (fnar) of
business systems. Serverside stuff over presentation stuff.
I've managed to steer clear of Microsoft stuff for most of my working
life, not really by design, it's just the way it turned out.

Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch
including the front end.

I chose Opera(V9.27), Firefox(V2.0.0.n) and Internet Explorer(V7.0) as
my dev browsers as these were the ones used by the eventual users of the
site.

What a nightmare.

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same
way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non
appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed
to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but
there seems little point.

Now I've always stood back when people dis' Microsoft and thought, "well
OK but it can't be that bad". Well actually it is. For gods sake, when
are these people going to GET A GRIP. IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to
css, at least in my experience.

I have spent(wasted) more time trying to get the layout to work in IE
when it works perfectly in the other browsers (even in older versions of
those browsers) than I care to remember.

The really sad thing is I have no option but to support this pile of
poo, it's by far the most widely used browser out there. If I had my way
I delete the bloody thing and be done with it.

Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 Surely a triumph of marketing over
usefullness.

Rant Over

Idaho

[Harris Kosmidhs]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

Hello

Now I've always stood back when people dis' Microsoft and thought, "well
OK but it can't be that bad". Well actually it is. For gods sake, when
are these people going to GET A GRIP. IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to
css, at least in my experience.

I have spent(wasted) more time trying to get the layout to work in IE
when it works perfectly in the other browsers (even in older versions of
those browsers) than I care to remember.

I used to spend such hours some time ago. When I learned (really
learned) CSS and html I stopped having such problems.

I found out that with writing html/css according to web standards and
validating the code my sites render well both on IE>=7, FF, opera,
safari. At least at the 95% of the them.

Harris

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

What a nightmare.

Perhaps you are attempting the non-attainable goal of "pixel precision"
pages. That never works. <g>

Post a URL to your page(s) and someone will have advice on what needs to
be fixed.

http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=flex

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

[Andy Dingley]

On 6 May, 13:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience.

It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with
non-conformant HTML & CSS. Mostly it gets it wrong in the areas around
error correction. Code perfectly (which isn't _that_ hard) and you'll
avoid the majority of the problems. If you feed it only a broad subset
of CSS, omitting those few aspects that just don't work at all, then
you might even get its performance up to "good", or at least
"acceptable".

A few years ago it was necessary to do bad and evil coding hacks to
get things to work at all. Things have improved since then - now we
can work just by being careful and avoiding a few problematic areas,
we don't have to actively abuse the code to get it to work.

Also forget about obsessions with, "Must look identical everywhere, on
every browser". That's a bad idea for starters.

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in news:V6-
dn******************@bt.com:

Hello

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same
way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non
appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed
to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but
there seems little point.

Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you?

In quirks mode IE(any version) reproduces all the bugs that were in version
5.5 and before. Opera and FF don't reproduce as many IE bugs.

Don't want those bugs? Use standards mode.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in news:V6-
dn******************@bt.com:

>Hello

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same
way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non
appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed
to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but
there seems little point.

Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you?

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

I have this

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Is that what you mean ?

Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff.

Case in point

I am applying a style to leaves in my navigation tree that is generated
on the fly by javascript via an AJAX call to a back end servlet.

I have two possible classes of hyperlink in my tree 'node' and 'leaf' I
have a default style that is applied to anything that isn't a leaf, if
it's a leaf I want to apply a different style.

in my stylesheet

a.leaf{
text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(254, 100, 253);
font-size: 0.75em;
}

I have the following in my javascript

textanchor.setAttribute("class", nodeType);

the result (in firebug) looks like this (fragment)

<span>
<a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a>
</span>
<br/>
<span>
<a class="leaf" href="products?catagoryId=1:1">Earrings</a>
</span>

This works perfectly in Firefox and Opera and any other non IE browser I
care to test it in, leaves are rendered in pink and nodes are rendered
in my default style(sky blue). In IE the browser ignores anything but
the default style... error handling, I don't think so.

I have tried all sorts of thing to get this to work to no avail. It just
doesn't work in IE ... just one example BTW, I have many others.

Go Figure

Idaho

[Blinky the Shark]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

rf wrote:

>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in news:V6-
dn******************@bt.com:

>>Hello

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same
way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non
appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed
to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but
there seems little point.

Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you?

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
NEW --Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se

[DuncanIdaho]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

DuncanIdaho wrote:

>rf wrote:

>>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in news:V6-
dn******************@bt.com:

Hello

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same
way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non
appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed
to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but
there seems little point.
Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you?

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html

Thanks for the link, interesting, OK, but this is not the issue then as
I have a doctype declaration right at the head of the doc.

Er well actually the document states

"Moreover, put the doctype declaration at the very start, since some
browsers go to Quirks Mode, if there is anything (even a comment) before
it... "

Well actually I have
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

So I removed it and tried and it doesn't seem to make any difference,
certainly not to the dynamic style application thing.

Hmmmm

Idaho

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:DL*********************@bt.com:

rf wrote:

>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in news:V6-
dn******************@bt.com:

>>Hello

I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible.
Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the
same way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing
<div>s non appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when
they are supposed to or do expand when they are not supposed to ...
I could go on but there seems little point.

Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't
you?

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

Then bloody google for it. You will find three hundred and seventy three
thousand references to it.

I have this

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

The above line puts IE into quirks mode.

Anything at all, even a comment, before the doctype puts IE into quirks
mode.

This is one of the reasons you should not use XHTML, apart from the fact
that IE simply does not understand it, unless you serve it up as
text/html and rely on IE error correcting it correctly back to HTML.

<snip irrelevant stuff>

Run IE in standards mode and see if your other problems go away too.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:2M******************************@bt.com:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

>DuncanIdaho wrote:

>>Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html

Thanks for the link, interesting, OK, but this is not the issue then
as I have a doctype declaration right at the head of the doc.

Er well actually the document states

"Moreover, put the doctype declaration at the very start, since some
browsers go to Quirks Mode, if there is anything (even a comment)
before it... "

Well actually I have
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread before my prior reply.

It is now time for you provide a URL to this page that is giving your
problems.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

I have this

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Is that what you mean ?

Have a look at this, please:
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff.

Please be convinced!

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

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:DL*********************@bt.com:

>>>

Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

Then bloody google for it. You will find three hundred and seventy three
thousand references to it.

Irrelevant, it was a passing comment.
And don't swear at me.

>

>I have this

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

The above line puts IE into quirks mode.

Anything at all, even a comment, before the doctype puts IE into quirks
mode.

This is one of the reasons you should not use XHTML,

snip annoying stuff

Really, well now I'm even more annoyed, I think I'll put a link on the
front page suggesting people download Opera or Firefox.

As for posting a URL, well I'm working on a company intranet behind a
firewall, the network boffins laughed when I suggested they open up so I
can post URLs, they are setting me up a nice isolated server so I can
post stuff here.

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

DuncanIdaho wrote:

>Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode'

I have this

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Is that what you mean ?

Have a look at this, please:
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

Been there, read that, tried everything.

>

>Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff.

Please be convinced!

Anyway, thanks to everyone for all the input, it wasn't really an
attempt to get someone else to fix my problems, I'm quite happy to try
and figure it out myself (with a little help from my friends). Can't say
I've changed my views in any way at the moment. Still, perhaps IE 8 will
be better.

Thanks again
Idaho

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

>DuncanIdaho wrote:

>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Have a look at this, please:
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

Been there, read that, tried everything.

...including changing your page to HTML 4.01 Strict? Give it a try.

>>Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff.

Please be convinced!

.. Can't say I've changed my views in any way at the moment.

A little experimentation is always fun - and may prove useful in this
case.

Still, perhaps IE 8 will be better.

Hah. Don't count on it! (Oh, and lots of people are still using IE 6,
y'know.)

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

[DuncanIdaho]

>

>Still, perhaps IE 8 will be better.

Hah. Don't count on it! (Oh, and lots of people are still using IE 6,
y'know.)

Er, yea, actually I'm ignoring that issue hoping it will go away :-|
I found a nice big soft pile of sand to bury my head in.

I looked at the site in IE 6 and frankly felt a little sick.
Ah well, it's all character forming stuff so they tell me.

Idaho

[GTalbot]

On 7 mai, 06:56, rf <[e-mail]:

DuncanIdaho <[e-mail] innews:DL*********************@bt.com:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

The above line puts IE into quirks mode.

Richard,

Duncan is using IE 7 and that xml-declaration triggering quirks mode
was fixed in IE 7.
"
Details on our CSS changes for IE7
Details on some of the other bugs (from sources other than the
positioniseverything.net list) that we fixed:
(...)
<?xmlprolog no longer causes quirks mode
"
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/08/22/712830.aspx

Regards, Gérard

[GTalbot]

On 6 mai, 08:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch
including the front end.

I chose Opera(V9.27), Firefox(V2.0.0.n) and Internet Explorer(V7.0) as
my dev browsers as these were the ones used by the eventual users of the
site.

What a nightmare.

Duncan,

If you want precise help, contextual help, first make sure your
webpage passes markup validation, also passes CSS validation and then
provide an URL where the problem occurs along with a short, clear
description of the problem.

Why we won't help you
"Validation may reveal your problem. (...) Validation may solve your
problem."
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

I also fully agree with those saying to stop catering for IE 6 users.
IE 6 is just too buggy in my opinion.

Some recommendations:
1- avoid setAttribute because it's buggy in IE 7; use DOM 2 HTML
methods instead
2- avoid relying too much on float: it's very buggy in IE 7
3- consult this page for CSS webpage templates which will work in IE
7:
http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/Nv...bpageTemplates
You coded:

textanchor.setAttribute("class", nodeType);

Use instead

textanchor.className = nodeType;
<span>
<a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a>
</span>

javascript: pseudo-protocol should never be in href attribute. This is
a commonly seen error in accessibility.An href should always
referenced a retrievable resource on the web. Always. Otherwise, it
will create problems for those with javascript support disabled or
inexistent. As coded, your <ais not compliant with basic
accessibility guidelines.
Useful reading for general web development:

Using Web Standards in your Web Pages
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs...your_Web_Pages

Web development mistakes, redux by Roger Johansson
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...istakes_redux/

Truth & Consequences of web site design by Chris Beal.

14 well written articles on very frequently encountered mistakes on
web design and how to correct them. I highly recommend these articles
to beginners.
http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/index.html
a.leaf{
text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(254, 100, 253);
font-size: 0.75em;

}

Using font-size: 0.75em;
is demanding to the browser to set the font-size to 75% of the
preferred normal size for the user! This is NOT what I would do.

Web standards checklist by Russ Weakley.
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/checklist.htm
In 44 items, Russ covers all the issues a web designer required for a
web designer to create web standards compliant websites. Just
excellent! (for beginners and intermediates)

Regards, Gérard
--
Internet Explorer 7 bugs (130 bugs so far)
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/

Internet Explorer 7 bugs (79bugs so far)
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/

[GTalbot]

On 6 mai, 08:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

<a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a>

Duncan,

To be more thorough, accurate on that issue...:

"javascript:" links break accessibility and usability of webpages in
every browser.

* "javascript:" pseudo-links become dysfunctional when javascript
support is disabled or inexistent. Several corporations allow their
employees to surf on the web but under strict security policies: no
javascript enabled, no java, no activeX, no Flash. For various reasons
(security, public access, text browsers, etc..), about 4% to 8% of
users on the web surf with javascript disabled.
* "javascript:" links will interfere with advanced features in tab-
capable browsers: eg. middle-click on links, Ctrl+click on links, tab-
browsing features in extensions, etc.
* "javascript:" links will interfere with the process of indexing
webpages by search engines.
* "javascript:" links interfere with assistive technologies (e.g.
voice browsers) and several web-aware applications (e.g. PDAs and
mobile browsers).
* "javascript:" links also interfere with "mouse gestures"
features implemented in browsers.
* Protocol scheme "javascript:" will be reported as an error by
link validators and link checkers.

Regards, Gérard

[GTalbot]

On 6 mai, 09:38, Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

On 6 May, 13:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience.

It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with
non-conformant HTML & CSS. Mostly it gets it wrong in the areas around
error correction. Code perfectly (which isn't _that_ hard) and you'll
avoid the majority of the problems.

Andy,

While I really want to agree with you, it must be said that
nevertheless IE 7 is really still very buggy (and I mean bugs here,
incorrect implementations of CSS 2.1, incorrect implementations of DOM
1 Core, DOM 1 HTML, DOM 2 Core interfaces, even HTML 4.01) when
comparing with Firefox 2, Opera 9.50, Safari 3.1.1.

I've said about 12 months ago that IE 7 had about 750 bugs in HTML 4,
CSS 1 and CSS 2.1 and in DOM 1. Yes, writing valid markup code and
valid CSS code will avoid a majority of problems and issues but in a
minority of cases, you will still have headaches, nightmares, etc...
with IE 7.

Worst bugs so far in IE 7:
- float implementation
- z-index implementation
- adjoining margin collapsing
- inherit keyword
- still many positioning issues
- inline box model implementation
- negative margins

130 bugs in Internet Explorer 7 (but most likely 750 bugs)
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/

Gérard

[DuncanIdaho]

GTalbot wrote:

On 6 mai, 08:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

>Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch
including the front end.

I chose Opera(V9.27), Firefox(V2.0.0.n) and Internet Explorer(V7.0) as
my dev browsers as these were the ones used by the eventual users of the
site.

What a nightmare.

Duncan,

If you want precise help, contextual help, first make sure your
webpage passes markup validation, also passes CSS validation and then
provide an URL where the problem occurs along with a short, clear
description of the problem.

OK, well lots of good advice there and lots of reading to be done but
I've already explained elsewhere on this thread why I am unable to post
a URL.

Actually I never explicitly asked for help, all I wanted to do was have
a grizzle about the nonsense that I was experiencing with Microsoft IE 7
call it catharsis if you like.

The line of code
textanchor.className = nodeType; works in all my browsers seemingly
independant of the DOCTYPE declaration, sorry if that offends anyone
it's just observation that leads me to this conclusion. HTML DOM, XHTML
DOM, FOO DOM whatever, it works regardless and for that I thank all of
you who suggested it. This code does however make my code asymetric, as
someone who has spent his entire working life using Object Oriented
languages this offends me.

Finally then, the fact that so many people have taken the time and
trouble to explain why IE doesn't work in the way I was expecting
(hoping) it would (ie like other browsers) only leads me to believe that
my original assertion (slightly more qualified this time) is indeed
correct. For me, in my experience, as someone who is working out of his
comfort zone, IE 7 is indeed rubbish. However I have no choice but to
live with it. Perhaps the developers of this piece of software read this
list, at least it appears so from other responses. If so, for gods sake
get a grip and get it working like other browsers do, rightly or wrongly
it's what the vast majority of people who write for the web want.

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

GTalbot wrote:

On 6 mai, 08:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

<a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a>

Duncan,

To be more thorough, accurate on that issue...:

"javascript:" links break accessibility and usability of webpages in
every browser.

* "javascript:" pseudo-links become dysfunctional when javascript
support is disabled or inexistent. Several corporations allow their
employees to surf on the web but under strict security policies: no
javascript enabled, no java, no activeX, no Flash. For various reasons
(security, public access, text browsers, etc..), about 4% to 8% of
users on the web surf with javascript disabled.
* "javascript:" links will interfere with advanced features in tab-
capable browsers: eg. middle-click on links, Ctrl+click on links, tab-
browsing features in extensions, etc.
* "javascript:" links will interfere with the process of indexing
webpages by search engines.
* "javascript:" links interfere with assistive technologies (e.g.
voice browsers) and several web-aware applications (e.g. PDAs and
mobile browsers).
* "javascript:" links also interfere with "mouse gestures"
features implemented in browsers.
* Protocol scheme "javascript:" will be reported as an error by
link validators and link checkers.

Regards, Gérard

All good and valid reasons I'm sure Gerard, however I rather like the
idea of making my web site behave more like a desktop application,
consequently when I 'discovered' that the XMLHttpRequest class existed
in my browser I was absolutely delighted. Are we now saying then that
AJAX (to use a common acronym) should not be used to implement a
smoother experience for our users ... do I really want to refresh an
entire page just because a user selects a different node on my
navigation tree or puts something in their cart ? no, not if I can help it.

As I'm sure you know if you've read the rest of this thread I'm well out
of my comfort zone here. So maybe you can help me out.

If I can't use javascript:getMenuUpdate('1') to call a method of mine
which in turn instantiates and invokes methods on a javascript component
how might I do it otherwise.

Thanks in advance

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

GTalbot wrote:

On 6 mai, 09:38, Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

>On 6 May, 13:45, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

>>IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience.

It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with
non-conformant HTML & CSS. Mostly it gets it wrong in the areas around
error correction. Code perfectly (which isn't _that_ hard) and you'll
avoid the majority of the problems.

Andy,

While I really want to agree with you, it must be said that
nevertheless IE 7 is really still very buggy (and I mean bugs here,
incorrect implementations of CSS 2.1, incorrect implementations of DOM
1 Core, DOM 1 HTML, DOM 2 Core interfaces, even HTML 4.01) when
comparing with Firefox 2, Opera 9.50, Safari 3.1.1.

I've said about 12 months ago that IE 7 had about 750 bugs in HTML 4,
CSS 1 and CSS 2.1 and in DOM 1. Yes, writing valid markup code and
valid CSS code will avoid a majority of problems and issues but in a
minority of cases, you will still have headaches, nightmares, etc...
with IE 7.

Worst bugs so far in IE 7:
- float implementation
- z-index implementation
- adjoining margin collapsing
- inherit keyword
- still many positioning issues
- inline box model implementation
- negative margins

130 bugs in Internet Explorer 7 (but most likely 750 bugs)
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/

Gérard

Can we add 'putting white space under a <formelement'. I mean, what he
hell is that about.

Idaho

[GTalbot]

On 7 mai, 14:44, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

The line of code
textanchor.className = nodeType; works in all my browsers seemingly
independant of the DOCTYPE declaration, sorry if that offends anyone
it's just observation that leads me to this conclusion.

We (a large majority of web developers) have reported buggy support
for setAttribute in the past. It will be fixed in IE 8. Already,
setAttribute for class attribute has been fixed in IE 8 beta 1; there
are event handlers and a few cases still left (reated to table model)
to fix for IE 8 final.

Finally then, the fact that so many people have taken the time and
trouble to explain why IE doesn't work in the way I was expecting
(hoping) it would (ie like other browsers) only leads me to believe that
my original assertion (slightly more qualified this time) is indeed
correct. For me, in my experience, as someone who is working out of his
comfort zone, IE 7 is indeed rubbish.

Nobody seriously argued on this.
The last time I checked the %tage of failure of IE 7 for the CSS 2.1
test suite, Internet Explorer 7 fails 129 tests out of 500 (25.8%
failure) while other browsers failed less than 10%.
I would have to run the tests again since the testsuite changed a bit
and Opera, Safari and Firefox have new releases.

Same thing with DOM 1 Core and DOM 1 HTML: IE 7 fails fails 85 tests
out of 224 tests, a 37.9% rate failure which is well over/above the
percentage rate of Firefox 2 (6.3% failure rate) and Opera 9 (5.1%
failure rate).
Remember that 25.8% and 37.9% still mean that IE 7 will pass the
testsuite for a majority of cases.

Same thing with HTML 4.01 tests.
http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results
IE 7: 44; other browsers: 70 and higher

However I have no choice but to
live with it. Perhaps the developers of this piece of software read this
list

Do you really think/expect/hope that IE dev. team visit and has been
visiting comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets forum discussion
in the last 6 years?

Regards, Gérard

[Steve Swift]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

Can we add 'putting white space under a <formelement'. I mean, what he
hell is that about.

I'm with you on that one. I discovered, quite by chance, that if you
put the FORM inside a TABLE, but outside of the TR and TD elements then
you suppress the space. An evil bypass.

If you don't close the TD and TR elements in the table, then the extra
space gets dumped into the last cell on the first row, as horizontal
space, for some strange reason. The HTML is so invalid, it's pointless
wondering why.

I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd
space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, and I had plenty of
users on slow modem connections whose only concern was "minimalistic"
HTML at all costs.

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

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Steve Swift wrote:

I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd
space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ...

Never used Netscape 4?

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

[Nik Coughlin]

"DuncanIdaho" <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in message
news:m8******************************@bt.com...

>
All good and valid reasons I'm sure Gerard, however I rather like the idea
of making my web site behave more like a desktop application, consequently
when I 'discovered' that the XMLHttpRequest class existed in my browser I
was absolutely delighted. Are we now saying then that AJAX (to use a
common acronym) should not be used to implement a smoother experience for
our users ... do I really want to refresh an entire page just because a
user selects a different node on my navigation tree or puts something in
their cart ? no, not if I can help it.

Yes, you do want to refresh the whole page. But only for users that don't
have JavaScript. Degrade gracefully. You don't have to just have one or
the other. You can have both. Add your Javascript links to the DOM *using*
Javascript. Have an equivalent link that forces a page refresh that you
either 1) enclose in noscript tags or 2) hide using Javascript.

As I'm sure you know if you've read the rest of this thread I'm well out
of my comfort zone here. So maybe you can help me out.

If I can't use javascript:getMenuUpdate('1') to call a method of mine
which in turn instantiates and invokes methods on a javascript component
how might I do it otherwise.

Thanks in advance

Idaho

[Ben C]

On 2008-05-07, DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:
[...]

Can we add 'putting white space under a <formelement'. I mean, what he
hell is that about.

I think that's just a margin in the quirks mode default stylesheet. At
least that's what it is in Firefox.

form { margin: 0 } gets rid of it.

It may be something more horrific in IE I am unaware of.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Steve Swift wrote:

>I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd
space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ...

Never used Netscape 4?

Ah the memories...miss on </trand poof no table! Let's you know in an
instant that you've made a mistake!

--
Take care,

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

[DuncanIdaho]

Ben C wrote:

On 2008-05-07, DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:
[...]

>Can we add 'putting white space under a <formelement'. I mean, what he
hell is that about.

I think that's just a margin in the quirks mode default stylesheet. At
least that's what it is in Firefox.

form { margin: 0 } gets rid of it.

It may be something more horrific in IE I am unaware of.

Never bothered me in Firefox or Opera

display:inline; gets rid of it in IE although why the heck a non UI
component should interact with the UI in the first place is beyond me as
well.

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

DuncanIdaho wrote:

snip

>
What a nightmare.

snip

Hello

I realise this thread has probably run it's course but I thought it
would be good to make one final comment

Today, at 11:30am I uploaded the first draft of the user interface for
the new intranet site. I'm asking for comments and input on the look and
feel of the site.

I have spent the best part of 10 working days getting it to look the
same in my chosen browsers. It's important that it looks the same in all
browsers so we can conduct training sessions without having to have
three sets of slides. I would say at least half this time has been spent
reworking things that work fine in Opera and Firefox (for whatever
reason) just to get them to work in IE 7. So there we have it, 50% of
the effort has been expended just because Microsoft released a complete
pile of crap. Fantastic, can I bill them for wasted time do you think ?

I have taken on board everything that has been said in this thread, I
have learned a lot about how things should work and how they actually
work in IE 7. I still have a lot to learn.

One respondent suggested that if I actually took the time to learn
HTML/XHTML whatever then I would not have so many problems, others seem
to refute this by virtue of the fact that there are hundreds of bugs
outstanding in IE 7, percentages of test suite failures have been
mentioned as well that should convince anyone that IE 7 is a poor piece
of software.

It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in
software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such
rubbish I would be sacked, in fact I have a certain pride in my work
that will not allow me to release bug infested software, even if it
means I have to stay behind and work in my own time.

I guess the fact that this browser is packaged with the 'operating
system' that ships with most new PCs these days means Microsoft don't
really have to try, why should they care when people have no choice.

For years I have kept out of the 'Microsoft is rubbish' arguments
because I don't really use Microsoft software unless there is no
alternative, consequently I don't feel in a position to comment.
Well I'm afraid to say that in the case of IE 7, if any one asks me I
will recommend anything BUT Internet Explorer, when they ask me why I
will say 'because it's rubbish' and I will feel I have plenty of data to
back up my assertion.

That's it

Thanks for listening

Idaho

[Ben C]

On 2008-05-08, DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

DuncanIdaho wrote:

snip

>>
What a nightmare.

snip

Hello

I realise this thread has probably run it's course but I thought it
would be good to make one final comment

[...]

It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in
software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such
rubbish I would be sacked, in fact I have a certain pride in my work
that will not allow me to release bug infested software, even if it
means I have to stay behind and work in my own time.

I guess the fact that this browser is packaged with the 'operating
system' that ships with most new PCs these days means Microsoft don't
really have to try, why should they care when people have no choice.

For years I have kept out of the 'Microsoft is rubbish' arguments
because I don't really use Microsoft software unless there is no
alternative, consequently I don't feel in a position to comment.
Well I'm afraid to say that in the case of IE 7, if any one asks me I
will recommend anything BUT Internet Explorer, when they ask me why I
will say 'because it's rubbish' and I will feel I have plenty of data to
back up my assertion.

You're right, it is rubbish, and significantly more rubbish than any of
their other stuff (much of which is reasonably good if you like that
sort of thing, which I don't).

I was also quite taken aback by it when I knew enough about these things
to realize just how bad it is.

Recent article by Lie in The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...s_reform_plan/

"Microsoft's IE is bug-ridden and the company, despite its vast
resources, has shown little interest in fixing problems that cost
web designers time and sleep. IE dominates the web due to its being
bundled with Windows. This forces web designers to prioritize coding
for IE. Coding for standards-compliant browsers becomes a secondary
consideration.

"Microsoft is keenly aware of this and therefore has little interest
in improving their support for standards. They will never become
standards compliant unless forced by someone in a position to demand
a change, something that users and customers are not. Requiring
standard compliance would greatly lessen Microsoft's monopolistic
stranglehold in the web browser market, would delight web developers
everywhere and would, ironically, make IE a better product."

[Andy Dingley]

On 8 May, 04:08, "Jonathan N. Little" <[e-mail]:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Steve Swift wrote:

I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd
space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ...

Never used Netscape 4?

Ah the memories...miss on </trand poof no table! Let's you know in an
instant that you've made a mistake!

So it's not a bug, it's a feature?

[GTalbot]

On 8 mai, 08:39, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

DuncanIdaho wrote:

[snipped]

I have spent the best part of 10 working days getting it to look the
same in my chosen browsers. It's important that it looks the same in all
browsers

Duncan,

Several people and experts in web design will tell you (and have told
you in this thread) that trying to achieve perfect-pixel design in all
browsers is a mistake, a grave error in judgment. I am telling you
that too. Target fluid, scalable webpage design is the way to go.

so we can conduct training sessions without having to have
three sets of slides. I would say at least half this time has been spent
reworking things that work fine in Opera and Firefox (for whatever
reason) just to get them to work in IE 7. So there we have it, 50% of
the effort has been expended just because Microsoft released a complete
pile of crap. Fantastic, can I bill them for wasted time do you think ?

I have taken on board everything that has been said in this thread,

Really?

I
have learned a lot about how things should work and how they actually
work in IE 7. I still have a lot to learn.

One respondent suggested that if I actually took the time to learn
HTML/XHTML whatever then I would not have so many problems, others seem
to refute this by virtue of the fact that there are hundreds of bugs
outstanding in IE 7, percentages of test suite failures have been
mentioned as well that should convince anyone that IE 7 is a poor piece
of software.

That's not what I remember from the whole thread. Learn good web
design techniques first by reading recommendable tutorials, articles,
columns... not by visiting w3schools.com, not by visiting
dynamicdrive, not by using Front-Page, etc.

I have provided you with such suggestions, recommendations.

Then, yes, eventually, you'll occasionally reach problems and
limitations in IE 7, then you will, yes, stumble on real bugs in IE 7,
incorrect implementations, partial implementations, buggy stuff in IE
7. We know there are bugs in IE 7... but we also know there are lots
of amateur web designers out there using Front-Page, Yahoo geocities,
and other poor, weak, buggy, Krusty-The-Clown softwares... web
designers who never heard of standards compliant rendering mode,
doctype declaration, strict DTD, etc.

It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in
software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such
rubbish I would be sacked, in fact I have a certain pride in my work
that will not allow me to release bug infested software, even if it
means I have to stay behind and work in my own time.

We
Never
Saw
Any
Webpage [sample]
From
You.
Not even a sample or reduced example of your webpage causing you
headaches, problems in IE 7. All we saw is a very few and very small
chunks of code and we have provided corrective proposals.

Gérard

[DuncanIdaho]

GTalbot wrote:

On 8 mai, 08:39, DuncanIdaho <[e-mail]:

>DuncanIdaho wrote:

[snipped]

>I have spent the best part of 10 working days getting it to look the
same in my chosen browsers. It's important that it looks the same in all
browsers

Duncan,

Several people and experts in web design will tell you (and have told
you in this thread) that trying to achieve perfect-pixel design in all
browsers is a mistake, a grave error in judgment. I am telling you
that too. Target fluid, scalable webpage design is the way to go.

snip

>
We
Never
Saw
Any
Webpage [sample]
From
You.
Not even a sample or reduced example of your webpage causing you
headaches, problems in IE 7. All we saw is a very few and very small
chunks of code and we have provided corrective proposals.

Jeez man you do go on don't you.

I don't wish to be rude as you have provided some good advice but I have
explained at least twice in this thread that I am unable to post URLs as
I am working in a restricted environment. Short of paying for a server
out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being.
Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according
to my reading of past postings. Given that I am unable to post URLs and
don't wish to offend anyone by posting (possibly incomplete) web pages
verbatim and given that I never explicitly asked for help I don't really
understand why this is such an issue for you ...

I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad
idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-))

OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the
site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and
pleased that I had managed to get the thing looking and working the same
in all our recommended browsers ...

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))
Idaho

[dorayme]

In article <Mr*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

Short of paying for a server
out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being.

There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without
ads. Please send me $US5 and I will give you a URL of a beauty.

Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according
to my reading of past postings.

This is nonsense. The fact is that, with one or two exceptions, no one
worth listening to would condemn anyone for posting a relevant fragment.
It is when the fragment is not relevant or truly representative of the
problem that the objections reasonably appear.

I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad
idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-))

You will stop getting on with your work and you will damn well hang
around here and amuse us. Is that clear?

OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the
site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and
pleased that I had managed to get the thing looking and working the same
in all our recommended browsers ...

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))

Just hold it right there! You will request a Merc Bus with all mod cons
so that we all can trip around Europe and have some fun. The HTML/CSS
bus. Seating arrangements to be decided later. JK, rf and I, naturally
will sit together, drinkin' and fightin' and singin'... named
individuals and disgraceful cowards all behaving badly and without
inhibition...

--
dorayme

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))

Buy some free web space.

Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[DuncanIdaho]

dorayme wrote:

In article <Mr*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

>Short of paying for a server
out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being.

There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without
ads. Please send me $US5 and I will give you a URL of a beauty.

Only 5 bucks, bargain, post your postal address here and I'll send you a
nice surprise. Do they support transactional MySQL databases for free as
well, how about Java and Tomcat, my own private JVM, root access to the
servers so I can start them on port 80 etc, Linux (a real OS etc).
Fantastic, $US5, bargain .

>Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according
to my reading of past postings.

This is nonsense.

Whatever

>I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad
idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-))

You will stop getting on with your work and you will damn well hang
around here and amuse us. Is that clear?

Glad to be of service, I mean this group can be soooooooo serious
sometimes don't you think.

>OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the
site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and
pleased that I had managed to get the thing looking and working the same
in all our recommended browsers ...

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))

Just hold it right there! You will request a Merc Bus with all mod cons
so that we all can trip around Europe and have some fun.

Europe isn't any fun anymore, too many bloody Americans all over the
place, besides Americans can't hold their beer like us Europeans.

Have a nice day

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:

>Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))

Buy some free web space.

Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.

Why do I have to buy it if it's free ?

Idaho

[dorayme]

In article <br*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <Mr*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

Short of paying for a server
out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being.

There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without
ads.

Do they support transactional MySQL databases for free as
well, how about Java and Tomcat, my own private JVM, root access to the
servers so I can start them on port 80 etc, Linux (a real OS etc).

There is an offer for a free service here and you are upping your
requirements already? I am going to be generous here and tell you about
one: 890m.com; it is certainly adequate to post things for problems with
CSS, which is what this group here is about. So check it out.

--
dorayme

[DuncanIdaho]

dorayme wrote:

In article <br*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

>dorayme wrote:

>>In article <Mr*********************@bt.com>,
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote:

Short of paying for a server
out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being.
There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without
ads.

>Do they support transactional MySQL databases for free as
well, how about Java and Tomcat, my own private JVM, root access to the
servers so I can start them on port 80 etc, Linux (a real OS etc).

There is an offer for a free service here and you are upping your
requirements already? I am going to be generous here and tell you about
one: 890m.com; it is certainly adequate to post things for problems with
CSS, which is what this group here is about. So check it out.

I will do, thanks.

Idaho

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:br*********************@bt.com:

rf wrote:

>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:

>>Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))

Buy some free web space.

Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.

Why do I have to buy it if it's free ?

Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-)

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:br*********************@bt.com:

>rf wrote:

>>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))
Buy some free web space.

Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.

Why do I have to buy it if it's free ?

Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-)

<humourmode state='on'>

Ah ha ha, of course. ;)

</humourmode>

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:NP******************************@bt.com:

rf wrote:

>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:br*********************@bt.com:

>>rf wrote:
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:

Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))
Buy some free web space.

Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.

Why do I have to buy it if it's free ?

Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-)

<humourmode state='on'>

Ah ha ha, of course. ;)

</humourmode>

<grin/>

In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free host
perhaps) is a good two very good reasons.

Firstly, it allows us to see exactly what you are talking about. And
often what you are talking about is not the actual problem. the problem
can well be elsewhere, especially when IE is involved.

Secondly, by building such an example page you may serendipitously find
the problem yourself as you revisit the code and prepare it for
republication.

I have forgotten what your original problem may have been but I can
assure you that if you had posted an example to support your original
rant you would have had explicit solutions to not only your problem but a
whole range of other issues as well, in far less time than this thread
has been running. So far you have a whole lot of conjecture about
something only you can see. Step outside the door and try viewing it from
our side.

Hiding "behind the firewall" or "I can't upload my database to a free
server" or "my page needs PHP" or whatever is an option. At the very
least you simply "save as webpage" any page you have that exhibits the
problem. Publish that, which does not need any server side skulduggery.
File off serial numbers as required.

What you see (and save) in your browser is a totally static page,
independent of any server side dynamics. We don't need to see your
"application". We need to see an example of some HTML and CSS that causes
your problem. With few exceptions your problem has been seen before and
can be commented on. But only if we can actually see it.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:NP******************************@bt.com:

>rf wrote:

>>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:br*********************@bt.com:

rf wrote:
DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:Mr*********************@bt.com:
>
>Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-))
Buy some free web space.
>
Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it.
>
Why do I have to buy it if it's free ?
Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-)

<humourmode state='on'>

Ah ha ha, of course. ;)

</humourmode>

<grin/>

In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free host
perhaps) is a good two very good reasons.

Firstly, it allows us to see exactly what you are talking about. And
often what you are talking about is not the actual problem. the problem
can well be elsewhere, especially when IE is involved.

Secondly, by building such an example page you may serendipitously find
the problem yourself as you revisit the code and prepare it for
republication.

I have forgotten what your original problem may have been but I can
assure you that if you had posted an example to support your original
rant you would have had explicit solutions to not only your problem but a
whole range of other issues as well, in far less time than this thread
has been running. So far you have a whole lot of conjecture about
something only you can see. Step outside the door and try viewing it from
our side.

Hiding "behind the firewall" or "I can't upload my database to a free
server" or "my page needs PHP" or whatever is an option. At the very
least you simply "save as webpage" any page you have that exhibits the
problem. Publish that, which does not need any server side skulduggery.
File off serial numbers as required.

What you see (and save) in your browser is a totally static page,
independent of any server side dynamics. We don't need to see your
"application". We need to see an example of some HTML and CSS that causes
your problem. With few exceptions your problem has been seen before and
can be commented on. But only if we can actually see it.

A very sane and reasoned response and one that is hard to argue with.

My post was originally designed to 'relieve the tension' so as to speak.
I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing and needed to 'share' with
others (HR tells us it good to share our problems). I really wasn't
asking for any explicit help (I'm starting to sound like a broken record
here). I have now found what promises to be the answer to my prayers, a
free host at http://www.890m.com/ Thank you 'rf'.

So now I have a way of posting code, prepare to be amazed and astounded
by my naivety.

Thank goodness for Java, Linux and jakarta.apache.org, I don't think I'd
stay sane very long if I had to do this for the rest of my working life.

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:NP******************************@bt.com:

Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com

Idaho

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:mp*********************@bt.com:

rf wrote:

>In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free
host perhaps) is a good two very good reasons.

<snippily>

A very sane and reasoned response and one that is hard to argue with.

My post was originally designed to 'relieve the tension' so as to
speak. I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing and needed to
'share' with others (HR tells us it good to share our problems).

Hmmm. Not to be pedantic but you shared your rath, not your problem :-)

I
really wasn't asking for any explicit help (I'm starting to sound like
a broken record here). I have now found what promises to be the answer
to my prayers, a free host at http://www.890m.com/ Thank you 'rf'.

So now I have a way of posting code, prepare to be amazed and
astounded by my naivety.

Waiting ;-)

But, be warned, somebody *will* comment on *everything*, especially on your
choice of font size.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:mp*********************@bt.com:

rf wrote:

>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:NP******************************@bt.com:

Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com

Strewth, was dorayme in this thread? I'll bet she was trying to sell you
something :-)

Idaho

BTW the convention is to precede your signature with dash dash space CR, as
in

--
Idaho

That way our newsreaders automatically trim it. Does not Thunderbird do
this?

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:mp*********************@bt.com:

>rf wrote:

>>In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free
host perhaps) is a good two very good reasons.

<snippily>

>A very sane and reasoned response and one that is hard to argue with.

My post was originally designed to 'relieve the tension' so as to
speak. I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing and needed to
'share' with others (HR tells us it good to share our problems).

Hmmm. Not to be pedantic but you shared your rath, not your problem :-)

Correct, at last. I shared my rath(sic) not my problems. Glad you can
see that. Horray.

Idaho

[DuncanIdaho]

rf wrote:

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:mp*********************@bt.com:

>rf wrote:

>>DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:NP******************************@bt.com:

Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com

Strewth, was dorayme in this thread? I'll bet she was trying to sell you
something :-)

Tried to tap me for $US5 actually, lucked out though. I spent the bonus
on a new Bentley (I wish).

>

>Idaho

BTW the convention is to precede your signature with dash dash space CR, as
in

Yes, Thunderbird does indeed trim it

Is this better

--
Idaho

[rf]

DuncanIdaho <Du**************@googlemail.comwrote in
news:iL******************************@bt.com:

[sig]

Is this better

--
Idaho

No. dash, dash, space, CR.

You are missing the space.

Stupid convention I know, for years outlook express trimmed the space off
the end of the sig separator.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org