By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,677 Members | 1,807 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,677 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Difference in IE and Netscape

P: n/a
Ben
I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK in IE,
but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and height
attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape seems to not
respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height, resulting in the cells
being too short.

What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the answer, but
my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it centered).

Please Help!!! You can go to the page to see what I'm talking about.

Thanks,
Ben
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
16 Replies


P: n/a
Ben wrote:
I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp)
Wow. That's an enormous amount of js. What does it do? Is it necessary?
you should put it in a separte file, so that non-js browsers won't have
to download it.
that displays OK in IE
A happy accident since, it appears, you didn't bother validating your code.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
but not in Netscape.
Which version? 4.x is a completely different browser than 6.x +.
I used a combination of padding-top and height
attributes to get a total height on four cells.


Tables for layout? That's too bad.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

(tries to hide from the troll who'll likely be along shortly)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Ben wrote:
I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp)
Wow. That's an enormous amount of js. What does it do? Is it necessary?
you should put it in a separte file, so that non-js browsers won't have
to download it.
that displays OK in IE
A happy accident since, it appears, you didn't bother validating your code.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
but not in Netscape.
Which version? 4.x is a completely different browser than 6.x +.
I used a combination of padding-top and height
attributes to get a total height on four cells.


Tables for layout? That's too bad.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

(tries to hide from the troll who'll likely be along shortly)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Ben wrote:
I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK
in IE, but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and
height attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape
seems to not respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height,
resulting in the cells being too short.
It isn't clear what you think the problem is. I've just viewed that page in a
number of browsers, and passed screen-shots to Photoshop, and the heights are
not very different. (IE 6, Netscape 7.1, and Firefox 0.8). The heights ranged
from 510 to 519 pixels.

I've just build a table in a test page, and Netscape 7.1 certainly respects
padding all round. (If you mean NN4, I can't comment. I ignore its problems).

Different browsers have different default margins on such things as paragraphs
& headers. It can be useful to set these explicitly.
What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the
answer, but my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it
centered).

[snip]

In general, you can't control tables at the pixel-level via controls on the
tables & cells themselves. At some point, the content will override whatever
controls you try to apply. That is one of the benefits of tables, although it
may not appear that way! For example, your layout breaks quite badly when
viewed with a larger text size. It might break if the user's system had
different fonts from the ones you developed with. You appear to be trying to
position text over the bottom cell of the table using absolute positioning. I
think that is what you are posting about. That is a very risky task.

If you really want pixel-level control of the height (and width) of a table,
you probably need to wrap the content of each cell in <div>...</div>, then
control that <div> via CSS. { height: 300px; overflow: auto; }. The table will
react to the size of that <div>. But this is probably unwise. You would be
much safer allowing the height of the table to expand as much as needed, for
example if the user runs with larger text. This means, don't try to position
text over the table using absolute positioning, but put it *into* the cells,
so it will move with them. As you did with the button in the bottom bar.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Ben wrote:
I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK
in IE, but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and
height attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape
seems to not respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height,
resulting in the cells being too short.
It isn't clear what you think the problem is. I've just viewed that page in a
number of browsers, and passed screen-shots to Photoshop, and the heights are
not very different. (IE 6, Netscape 7.1, and Firefox 0.8). The heights ranged
from 510 to 519 pixels.

I've just build a table in a test page, and Netscape 7.1 certainly respects
padding all round. (If you mean NN4, I can't comment. I ignore its problems).

Different browsers have different default margins on such things as paragraphs
& headers. It can be useful to set these explicitly.
What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the
answer, but my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it
centered).

[snip]

In general, you can't control tables at the pixel-level via controls on the
tables & cells themselves. At some point, the content will override whatever
controls you try to apply. That is one of the benefits of tables, although it
may not appear that way! For example, your layout breaks quite badly when
viewed with a larger text size. It might break if the user's system had
different fonts from the ones you developed with. You appear to be trying to
position text over the bottom cell of the table using absolute positioning. I
think that is what you are posting about. That is a very risky task.

If you really want pixel-level control of the height (and width) of a table,
you probably need to wrap the content of each cell in <div>...</div>, then
control that <div> via CSS. { height: 300px; overflow: auto; }. The table will
react to the size of that <div>. But this is probably unwise. You would be
much safer allowing the height of the table to expand as much as needed, for
example if the user runs with larger text. This means, don't try to position
text over the table using absolute positioning, but put it *into* the cells,
so it will move with them. As you did with the button in the bottom bar.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Ben
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought. I used
the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert from HTML
layout to CSS layout). I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be
a lot simpler and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.

I'll check into allmyfaqs.com for more learning.

Thanks for the info! Do you recommend where I start when learning how to
layout completely with CSS?

--
Ben


"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| Ben wrote:
| > I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp)
|
| Wow. That's an enormous amount of js. What does it do? Is it necessary?
| you should put it in a separte file, so that non-js browsers won't have
| to download it.
|
| > that displays OK in IE
|
| A happy accident since, it appears, you didn't bother validating your
code.
|
|
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
|
| > but not in Netscape.
|
| Which version? 4.x is a completely different browser than 6.x +.
|
| > I used a combination of padding-top and height
| > attributes to get a total height on four cells.
|
| Tables for layout? That's too bad.
|
| http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
|
| (tries to hide from the troll who'll likely be along shortly)
|
| --
| Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
| http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Ben
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought. I used
the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert from HTML
layout to CSS layout). I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be
a lot simpler and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.

I'll check into allmyfaqs.com for more learning.

Thanks for the info! Do you recommend where I start when learning how to
layout completely with CSS?

--
Ben


"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| Ben wrote:
| > I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp)
|
| Wow. That's an enormous amount of js. What does it do? Is it necessary?
| you should put it in a separte file, so that non-js browsers won't have
| to download it.
|
| > that displays OK in IE
|
| A happy accident since, it appears, you didn't bother validating your
code.
|
|
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
|
| > but not in Netscape.
|
| Which version? 4.x is a completely different browser than 6.x +.
|
| > I used a combination of padding-top and height
| > attributes to get a total height on four cells.
|
| Tables for layout? That's too bad.
|
| http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
|
| (tries to hide from the troll who'll likely be along shortly)
|
| --
| Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
| http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Ben
I'm using netscape 7.1 and there is white space below the right panes due to
the padding-top not being calculated in (or so I assumed). I'm looking into
div tags. I know little about them, but hopefully I can learn fast!

Thanks for your help, I'll probably be posting back in the future about
divs!

Humbled,
Ben
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gq***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
| Ben wrote:
| > I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK
| > in IE, but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and
| > height attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape
| > seems to not respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height,
| > resulting in the cells being too short.
|
| It isn't clear what you think the problem is. I've just viewed that page
in a
| number of browsers, and passed screen-shots to Photoshop, and the heights
are
| not very different. (IE 6, Netscape 7.1, and Firefox 0.8). The heights
ranged
| from 510 to 519 pixels.
|
| I've just build a table in a test page, and Netscape 7.1 certainly
respects
| padding all round. (If you mean NN4, I can't comment. I ignore its
problems).
|
| Different browsers have different default margins on such things as
paragraphs
| & headers. It can be useful to set these explicitly.
|
| > What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
| > height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the
| > answer, but my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it
| > centered).
| [snip]
|
| In general, you can't control tables at the pixel-level via controls on
the
| tables & cells themselves. At some point, the content will override
whatever
| controls you try to apply. That is one of the benefits of tables, although
it
| may not appear that way! For example, your layout breaks quite badly when
| viewed with a larger text size. It might break if the user's system had
| different fonts from the ones you developed with. You appear to be trying
to
| position text over the bottom cell of the table using absolute
positioning. I
| think that is what you are posting about. That is a very risky task.
|
| If you really want pixel-level control of the height (and width) of a
table,
| you probably need to wrap the content of each cell in <div>...</div>, then
| control that <div> via CSS. { height: 300px; overflow: auto; }. The table
will
| react to the size of that <div>. But this is probably unwise. You would be
| much safer allowing the height of the table to expand as much as needed,
for
| example if the user runs with larger text. This means, don't try to
position
| text over the table using absolute positioning, but put it *into* the
cells,
| so it will move with them. As you did with the button in the bottom bar.
|
| --
| Barry Pearson
| http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
| http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
| http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
|
|
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Ben
I'm using netscape 7.1 and there is white space below the right panes due to
the padding-top not being calculated in (or so I assumed). I'm looking into
div tags. I know little about them, but hopefully I can learn fast!

Thanks for your help, I'll probably be posting back in the future about
divs!

Humbled,
Ben
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gq***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
| Ben wrote:
| > I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK
| > in IE, but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and
| > height attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape
| > seems to not respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height,
| > resulting in the cells being too short.
|
| It isn't clear what you think the problem is. I've just viewed that page
in a
| number of browsers, and passed screen-shots to Photoshop, and the heights
are
| not very different. (IE 6, Netscape 7.1, and Firefox 0.8). The heights
ranged
| from 510 to 519 pixels.
|
| I've just build a table in a test page, and Netscape 7.1 certainly
respects
| padding all round. (If you mean NN4, I can't comment. I ignore its
problems).
|
| Different browsers have different default margins on such things as
paragraphs
| & headers. It can be useful to set these explicitly.
|
| > What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
| > height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the
| > answer, but my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it
| > centered).
| [snip]
|
| In general, you can't control tables at the pixel-level via controls on
the
| tables & cells themselves. At some point, the content will override
whatever
| controls you try to apply. That is one of the benefits of tables, although
it
| may not appear that way! For example, your layout breaks quite badly when
| viewed with a larger text size. It might break if the user's system had
| different fonts from the ones you developed with. You appear to be trying
to
| position text over the bottom cell of the table using absolute
positioning. I
| think that is what you are posting about. That is a very risky task.
|
| If you really want pixel-level control of the height (and width) of a
table,
| you probably need to wrap the content of each cell in <div>...</div>, then
| control that <div> via CSS. { height: 300px; overflow: auto; }. The table
will
| react to the size of that <div>. But this is probably unwise. You would be
| much safer allowing the height of the table to expand as much as needed,
for
| example if the user runs with larger text. This means, don't try to
position
| text over the table using absolute positioning, but put it *into* the
cells,
| so it will move with them. As you did with the button in the bottom bar.
|
| --
| Barry Pearson
| http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
| http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
| http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
|
|
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Ben wrote:
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought. I
used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
from HTML layout to CSS layout). I assumed that tables must be used
still, but can be a lot simpler and the only formatting needed was
the cellspacing.

[snip]

They are neither mandatory nor prohibited. They are simply a technique for you
to use if they suit your purpose at any time.

But, indeed, if you use them, make them simple and control them via CSS.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Ben wrote:
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought. I
used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
from HTML layout to CSS layout). I assumed that tables must be used
still, but can be a lot simpler and the only formatting needed was
the cellspacing.

[snip]

They are neither mandatory nor prohibited. They are simply a technique for you
to use if they suit your purpose at any time.

But, indeed, if you use them, make them simple and control them via CSS.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Ben
Ok, how would I position the Email Login bar and cells underneath it using
CSS? You can see what I have so far at:
www.eastex.net/ben/NewETNcss/index.htm

The panes on the right need to stretch all the way to right of the browser,
but the left side starts at 557px. This stuff gets confusing fast!

--
Ben
"Ben" <ben at eastex dot net> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK in
IE,
| but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and height
| attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape seems to not
| respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height, resulting in the
cells
| being too short.
|
| What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
| height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the answer, but
| my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it centered).
|
| Please Help!!! You can go to the page to see what I'm talking about.
|
| Thanks,
| Ben
|
|
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

[top-posting fixed, but quote marks may be a bit off]

Ben wrote:
www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp
Brian wrote...
it appears, you didn't bother validating your code

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp


Ben wrote:
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought.
Well, this is not a question of CSS, it is the HTML, which is more
important. Your CSS had no errors. Your HTML had lots. The problem
there is that even good CSS can go bad when the HTML has errors. Think
of it as a nice coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation.
I used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
from HTML layout to CSS layout).
A good reference.
I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be a lot simpler
and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.


You can, but I don't recommend it. I recommend dumping layout tables.
Markup the data correctly -- headings in <h1> or <h2 or...; lists in
<ul> or <ol>; paragraphs in <p>; etc. -- then apply the css.

But regardless of what markup you use, it *must* be validated if you
want a fighting chance at getting your css to work. So the question is,
do you want references for HTML and validation?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Ben
Ok, how would I position the Email Login bar and cells underneath it using
CSS? You can see what I have so far at:
www.eastex.net/ben/NewETNcss/index.htm

The panes on the right need to stretch all the way to right of the browser,
but the left side starts at 557px. This stuff gets confusing fast!

--
Ben
"Ben" <ben at eastex dot net> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| I have a page (www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp) that displays OK in
IE,
| but not in Netscape. I used a combination of padding-top and height
| attributes to get a total height on four cells. Netscape seems to not
| respect the padding-top, and only goes by the height, resulting in the
cells
| being too short.
|
| What options do I have in CSS? I would like to be able to specify the
| height by using a definite attribute (I thought height was the answer, but
| my text then goes to the top of the cell, and I want it centered).
|
| Please Help!!! You can go to the page to see what I'm talking about.
|
| Thanks,
| Ben
|
|
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

[top-posting fixed, but quote marks may be a bit off]

Ben wrote:
www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp
Brian wrote...
it appears, you didn't bother validating your code

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp


Ben wrote:
Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought.
Well, this is not a question of CSS, it is the HTML, which is more
important. Your CSS had no errors. Your HTML had lots. The problem
there is that even good CSS can go bad when the HTML has errors. Think
of it as a nice coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation.
I used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
from HTML layout to CSS layout).
A good reference.
I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be a lot simpler
and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.


You can, but I don't recommend it. I recommend dumping layout tables.
Markup the data correctly -- headings in <h1> or <h2 or...; lists in
<ul> or <ol>; paragraphs in <p>; etc. -- then apply the css.

But regardless of what markup you use, it *must* be validated if you
want a fighting chance at getting your css to work. So the question is,
do you want references for HTML and validation?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Ben
Alright, I got everything validated through W3C! However, I'm still using
tables simply because I could not get it looking right with CSS. That will
have to be a future correction. I also put the javascript in a an external
file.

Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for your help, and the links were useful.

--
Ben
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
| http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
|
| [top-posting fixed, but quote marks may be a bit off]
|
| Ben wrote:
| > www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp
|
| Brian wrote...
|
| >> it appears, you didn't bother validating your code
| >>
| >>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
|
| Ben wrote:
|
| > Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought.
|
| Well, this is not a question of CSS, it is the HTML, which is more
| important. Your CSS had no errors. Your HTML had lots. The problem
| there is that even good CSS can go bad when the HTML has errors. Think
| of it as a nice coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation.
|
| > I used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
| > from HTML layout to CSS layout).
|
| A good reference.
|
| > I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be a lot simpler
| > and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.
|
| You can, but I don't recommend it. I recommend dumping layout tables.
| Markup the data correctly -- headings in <h1> or <h2 or...; lists in
| <ul> or <ol>; paragraphs in <p>; etc. -- then apply the css.
|
| But regardless of what markup you use, it *must* be validated if you
| want a fighting chance at getting your css to work. So the question is,
| do you want references for HTML and validation?
|
| --
| Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
| http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Ben
Alright, I got everything validated through W3C! However, I'm still using
tables simply because I could not get it looking right with CSS. That will
have to be a future correction. I also put the javascript in a an external
file.

Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for your help, and the links were useful.

--
Ben
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
| How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
| http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
|
| [top-posting fixed, but quote marks may be a bit off]
|
| Ben wrote:
| > www.eastex.net/ben/NewETN/index3.asp
|
| Brian wrote...
|
| >> it appears, you didn't bother validating your code
| >>
| >>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...N%2Findex3.asp
|
| Ben wrote:
|
| > Ok, I abviously know a lot less about CSS than originally thought.
|
| Well, this is not a question of CSS, it is the HTML, which is more
| important. Your CSS had no errors. Your HTML had lots. The problem
| there is that even good CSS can go bad when the HTML has errors. Think
| of it as a nice coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation.
|
| > I used the first chapter of Eric Meyer on CSS (showing how to convert
| > from HTML layout to CSS layout).
|
| A good reference.
|
| > I assumed that tables must be used still, but can be a lot simpler
| > and the only formatting needed was the cellspacing.
|
| You can, but I don't recommend it. I recommend dumping layout tables.
| Markup the data correctly -- headings in <h1> or <h2 or...; lists in
| <ul> or <ol>; paragraphs in <p>; etc. -- then apply the css.
|
| But regardless of what markup you use, it *must* be validated if you
| want a fighting chance at getting your css to work. So the question is,
| do you want references for HTML and validation?
|
| --
| Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
| http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.