Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Ummm...duh?

  1. #1
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    http://prod.adamwebdesign.com/portfolio2.asp?page=12

    The box in the bottom renders exactly as it was intended to in Firefox, but in IE just totally throws the layout for a loop (it stretches it to an ungodly size.)

    Whether I specify the width in pixels or percentage doesn't seem to matter, nor does it if it's a div or table.

    Anyone got any ideas?
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  2.  

  3. #2
    WDF Staff mlseim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Minnesota
    Posts
    7,723
    Member #
    5580
    Liked
    718 times
    I tried my hardest to figure it out....

    The nested tables are just too much. That's where the problem
    must be. If using CSS, why are there tables to begin with?

    The colspans are spanning spans ... if that makes any sense.


  4. #3
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    Because when I used DIVs it looked like crap, I've never been a fan of DIVs to begin with, and because the layout is more suited for tables. I've also tried it with using a table in the same spot and the same thing happened.

    And no, what you said doesn't really make sense. You're going to have to dumb that one down a shade or two.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  5. #4
    Senior Member karinne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aylmer QC Canada
    Posts
    1,607
    Member #
    4335
    Liked
    8 times
    wow... sorry but looking at that source is giving me a headache! :knockedout:

    have you tried putting the page through the validator it might pick up something.

    other than that... indent your code man!

    one other thing... maybe break it up? comment some sections out to try to figure out what's giving you the huge scrolling?
    [a web design portfolio - Currently NOT AVAILABLE for work | web design | Re-coding | PSD-to-HTML]
    I'm also on: virb - facebook - twitter - flickr - del.icio.us

  6. #5
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    It validated fine, except for one target="_new" tag which I can easily enough solve as soon as I figure out the exact syntax for setting the doctype to XHTML 1.1 Transitional.

    I isolated it to the grey box specifically by commenting stuff out too. So I know that's what is throwing off the whole layout.

    I've also got it indented in ASP, but I use Response.Write (whatever) for code speed reasons. I also hate looking at code when it's all indented in source. I can't read it then. Too much blank space.

    So...I know it's the grey box. I know it validates. I just don't know why IE can't handle it.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  7. #6
    Senior Member glyakk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Member #
    3828
    Liked
    6 times
    What it looks like to me is you have your content streatched out 100 times (or more) the width of your browser.

    That could easily happen, especially in IE, if you are not paying attention to your percentage values. It could be something like a 100% width/height value being muliplied 100 times from another 100% width/height value. Althought I do not have time to go through it piece by piece at the moment, if I get time later i will look at your css more in depth.

    On another note...
    It wouldnt hurt to settl on either tables or css for layout because using both makes it that much harder to debug layout issues...


  8. #7
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    I would, but I still haven't seen a logical reason why a layout with three columns should be in DIVs, given the overall issues associated with creating a three-column layout that is even remotely cross-browser compatible. I tried going that route, and it didn't work. Then I realized that with three columns of equal height (or cells), that's basically a table layout.

    Like I said, I don't see why both can't be combined. This is why I'm becoming less and less of a fan of XHTML as I go through it: too much reliance on CSS, which has always caused browser compatibility issues, and not enough on inline code which generally doesn't. The whole lower case thing doesn't appeal to me either...I like coding things using the Queen's English (upper/lowercase) since it's easier to read and it doesn't remind me of some conversation on the net. "hi, how r u?" "i m fine, how r u?"

    So if there's anything I've learned from this, it's that XHTML isn't quite ready for mass use yet.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  9. #8
    Senior Member glyakk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Member #
    3828
    Liked
    6 times
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGAME1264
    I would, but I still haven't seen a logical reason why a layout with three columns should be in DIVs, given the overall issues associated with creating a three-column layout that is even remotely cross-browser compatible. I tried going that route, and it didn't work. Then I realized that with three columns of equal height (or cells), that's basically a table layout.

    Like I said, I don't see why both can't be combined. This is why I'm becoming less and less of a fan of XHTML as I go through it: too much reliance on CSS, which has always caused browser compatibility issues, and not enough on inline code which generally doesn't. The whole lower case thing doesn't appeal to me either...I like coding things using the Queen's English (upper/lowercase) since it's easier to read and it doesn't remind me of some conversation on the net. "hi, how r u?" "i m fine, how r u?"

    So if there's anything I've learned from this, it's that XHTML isn't quite ready for mass use yet.
    I didnt say witch one you need to stick to,(althought you know my preference) only that it would be best to stick to one of them.. The reason why they should not be combined for layout purposes is because it makes fixing issues like this that much more difficult and complex. If nothing else use tables for your layout and css for your styling.

    One more thing.. if you are going to use css to simply make sites that look like they have been created with tables(ie three colum as you stated) Then it would best be done with tables because it is much simplier to achive such designs, they are almost made for that. But almost every other layout out there is much better achived through css. If you ever want to make a site that has more pop then a site that looks like an online news paper It would be best to stop thinking in terms of grids and more in terms of rules.


  10. #9
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    That may be the case, but it's hard to think in terms of rules when the rulers for this stuff are like the rulers manufacturers use to measure pants. If it were consistent, then yeah, I can see changing my thinking. THe fact remains that it's not. And I'm very tempted to revert back to HTML 4.01 since at least it's consistent.

    Thinking in grids vs. thinking in rules really isn't that different. I personally think of the top point of a website as 0, 0 and plot coordinates accordingly for each thing from there. The two coordinates combine to create grid logic. So it's really pretty close to the same thing.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  11. #10
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    UPDATE: I have since figured out how to solve this issue. I used ASP to detect the browser type, then generated slightly different code and stylesheets for IE and Firefox.

    Yes, it's a hack, and a cheap one. But if it works...that's all I care about.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com