Troubles with f*** IE

Having trouble installing serendipity?
Post Reply
.g@sp.
Regular
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Troubles with f*** IE

Post by .g@sp. »

I've enabled the plugin "Browser Compatibility" (maybe too late)
As you can see here, it's a mess on IE, and it works perfectly on Mozilla firefox...
I really don't understand :x :cry:
Sorry for my poor english ;)
judebert
Regular
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:57 am
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by judebert »

Looks pretty similar to me. (Wow, I haven't started IE in months.) The only difference that's readily apparent is the dotted bottom-border on the banner; that's likely a one-pixel difference because IE implements a broken box model.

Actually, looking at your CSS, it appears to be a difference between what IE and FireFox consider "thin". Try setting it to 1px.
Judebert
---
Website | Wishlist | PayPal
.g@sp.
Regular
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Post by .g@sp. »

you're right
once again ;)
IE and FF don't have the same interpretation of thin, big, small, and so on...

so replacing all these terms by pixels seems to be the best thing to do
Sorry for my poor english ;)
judebert
Regular
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:57 am
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by judebert »

While that's true, consider the purpose of the web: to distribute information. HTML was designed with that purpose in mind, and it succeeds spectacularly: any kind of hardware, graphics or text, even "readers" with no visual display that read the contents of the page out of the speaker... everything reads HTML.

CSS was designed to bring some formatting to the HTML. Although it allows very fine control over the screen, should it really be used that way? Can any designer really consider all the possibilities? Especially when you consider that there are CRTs, LCDs, printers, readers, 640x480, 1600x1200...

The only way to tame this chaos is to embrace it. Use "thin" and "small". Let the user decide what that means -- either by picking a browser that renders as he likes, or customizing his own. After all, "small" to a vision-impaired person with default font set to 60pt isn't the 8px font you'll be choosing.

Of course, that means your page won't look the same everywhere. But it will be usable for everyone. That's the big question: do you want to have a site that looks right, or conveys the information you really want?

Sorry. I've been reading too many CSS websites lately. Feel free to ignore me.
Judebert
---
Website | Wishlist | PayPal
.g@sp.
Regular
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Post by .g@sp. »

yeah i really understand...
i'm really trying to keep relative values
but please have a look on an extended entry on IE...
I don't understant why there is no problem on home page, and everything is changing when you're reading an entry...
It's the same CSS, but the view is completely different...

do you have an idea why it's like that ??
Sorry for my poor english ;)
garvinhicking
Core Developer
Posts: 30022
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:45 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Post by garvinhicking »

Hi!

Have a look at the output of the validator:

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... on....html

It tells you that there are some problems with unclosed </h2> or </div> elements.

Those can be responsible for a completelydifferent output on browsers.

(Disregard the errors with <meta>...)

Regards,
Garvin
# Garvin Hicking (s9y Developer)
# Did I help you? Consider making me happy: http://wishes.garv.in/
# or use my PayPal account "paypal {at} supergarv (dot) de"
# My "other" hobby: http://flickr.garv.in/
.g@sp.
Regular
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Post by .g@sp. »

you're great garv'
i had an <h2>blablabla<h2>
Closing the </h2> solved this big mess

really thanx
i'll think about validator next time ;)
Sorry for my poor english ;)
Post Reply