View Full Version : Argh! Need some webdesign help!

21-04-2004, 05:20 PM
Arrrrrrrrghhh! Sorry, some frustration. Spent ages trying to nut this out.


Look at it in IE, then Mozilla/firefox

That spectwhatsit logo with the round corners. How do I fix that?

And yes, I want it fixed. No I am not happy for just all the 95% of people to be able to see it good, the ones with IE.

Probably some stupid little obvious ANNOYING thing i have overlooked.

Narf, gnargh heee bleargh. Insane?

Help would be welcome.

There is a CSS file, I can not be bothered finding a link for, but if you do not know how to find that, then you probably can not help. Ehh, finding a link would have been quicker than typing that, ah what the heck. http://bloggsworld.orcon.net.nz/test/kane/spectakasm.css

21-04-2004, 05:33 PM
Oh, and sorry about the mess, it might be a bit hard to follow, I got frustrated and started plonking anything in.

Noel Nosivad
21-04-2004, 06:19 PM
Hey mejobloggs,

I don't mind helping you out, although would you like me saying that you haven't kept to XHTML 1.0 Strict standards?

Now, if anything, make sure you keep standards and not use enhancements that the other browsers make. If you have the page written to standard and the browser displays a problem then obviously the browser hasn't met the w3c standards.

I've displayed in it IE and looks fine, I've looked in Mozilla and notice that the corners aren't inline.

Try and get the code to standard, if you need help I can help there. I'll try and find a way to fix the page, although it may be easier writing browser specific pages, but I prefer a page that is standard for all browsers.

Noel Nosivad

21-04-2004, 08:21 PM
Yeah, I kept to the standards. I just missed a few alt tags in images when I was trying different things for that table. Also, one td height when I got really angry, and reverted to html 4.

None of that had any effect on the problem though, thats why I didnt bother.

Its a draft anyway.


21-04-2004, 10:02 PM
I dunno what is wrong with it. It is just table there, how can that go wrong?

I notice on mozilla, I can not get the table cells below 20px or something. If I change my body font to smaller, then it works fine. Yet, I tried for those cells, to put font size of 0, line height as 0, and cell height as 10. It still will not work, unless I put the body height below a certain size, and then it is too small for my liking.

I guess I will just have to flag the body text, and put it into two sections. 1 font size for the menu, and then when I get up to the writing/content/page section, just give it a class name, with the font size, and go that way.

I still do not see why it does not work. If I declare the body as 12px, and the in that table, make the font 0px it should work, as the table one would override the body one. Maybe it wont do 0px? Or maybe I should set the font sizes in the table, not the cells.

I dunno, I will have a look when I can get to a computer with mozilla.

21-04-2004, 10:51 PM
Ah, fixed it. Just set the font size for the table, and not the cells. Thanks

22-04-2004, 12:16 AM
> Ah, fixed it.

Ya sure? Still looks out in Firefox

22-04-2004, 10:57 AM
Had not uploaded it.

22-04-2004, 09:43 PM

Mozilla problem again.

Noel Nosivad
24-04-2004, 02:59 PM
> Yeah, I kept to the standards. I just missed a few
> alt tags in images when I was trying different things
> for that table. Also, one td height when I got really
> angry, and reverted to html 4.
> None of that had any effect on the problem though,
> thats why I didnt bother.
> Its a draft anyway.
> Thanks

Hey mejobloggs,

I'm not talking about the validator, which has limited functionality in checking XHTML properly, it's the DTD Strict standard that you defined. Basically this is default for any web programmer, and Strict is hard to conform to, that's why I said your code was not correct because of some elements.

HTML tags were originally to defined the contents of a document. e.g. This is a paragraph

, this is a table <table>, etc. But with this they included attributes that would define what is more presentational/style.

It's these presentational elements that are not present in DTD Strict standard e.g. width, height, color, etc, this is to keep the document clean looking. That was the only thing I picked up just from seeing your DOCTYPE and noticing presentational elements.

Apart from that your code is fine and is considered DTD Transitional which has less restrictions than Strict and allows presentational elements. If you wanted to make it Strict standards then presentational elements should reside in the CSS file, which was created for the purpose of adding all style information.

I'm not bagging you or anyone else, I believe if there's standards involved then we should push more towards them, even if they seem out of place and not relevent, but they are set as guidelines we should all follow. The strict standards are to show clean HTML, the presentational elements however made HTML messy and took away HTML's purpose, which was not web designing but presenting well-formed documents.

Noel Nosivad

24-04-2004, 03:05 PM
Ah, what?

I have not got much stuff in the css file, because I have not finished. I just use the style tag for everything while I am still building it. Are you saying that because you can not use height in xhtml, you should not just bypass that, by using height in css?

24-04-2004, 04:37 PM
might be a bit over your head, but i dont really see a reason for using a table in the first place. with a <u>little</u> know how, you can get away with out a confusing (source code wise) table in the mix ;)

i might try whip up an example.

24-04-2004, 07:57 PM
so i done a bit of whipping, and managed to cook this up : spectakasm.zip (http://sal.neoburn.net/imagef1/files/spectakasm.zip)

XHTML 1.1 valid, including CSS (...almost), pretty much this -- close looking to yours, works best in Moz ;\

25-04-2004, 09:11 PM
Heh, the readme.

Yeah, I am using tables now, because that is easiest for me. I am just starting to learn without tables, I must say, it is actually quite a bit easier. Still need to get the hang of it more though.

Thanks a lot, I will try and get it going in IE now.