Jul 2nd 2002, 19:27 GMT

I already want to rework the design used on my website. There are a couple of rendering problems I’m going to try and fix while still maintaining valid code. (That reminds me, I should run the site thrugh the W3C validator and make sure it is actually valid…)

Update1: With a couple of minor fixes, (like specifying the character encoding,) the site now validates as HTML 4.0 Transitional. The CSS validates as well. Wheeee!

Update2: With a few more tweaks, the site now validates as HTML 4.01 Strict. (Except for the blog page.)

The page displays as intended in Mozilla 1.0 (Mac and PC). Opera 6 (PC) does a pretty good job of it, save for a problem with the page headlines. IE Mac (I foget which version is installed on that test machine) is better than IE 6 (PC) — but both are doing wierd crap to the margins. I think opera was doing something weird too – but it wasn’t as noticable as with IE.

I was afraid to open the page in NS4, and with good reason. I think I’m going to employ some of the techniques described on the WaSP and ALA websites to deal with that.

Edited on Jul 2nd 2002, 20:17 by Hooloovoo

Edited on Jul 2nd 2002, 21:09 by Hooloovoo

Published by


Robert Belknap has been writing online sporadically since 2001. See the colophon for more details.

16 thoughts on “Jul 2nd 2002, 19:27 GMT”

  1. Looks cool to me. The colour scheme is pretty cool and the yellow stands out well against the background. I get horizontal scroll bars when I view it (IE5.5 under Win98 at 1024×768) but I guess that’s down to some table-related shenanigans. Keep it up!

  2. Actually there are no tables in that design. Just pure, clean, glorious CSS πŸ™‚

    The rendering problem you describe (the horizontal scroll bars) is one of the things I want to try to solve. I’m pretty sure it’s a problem with the browser, (bad IE, bad, bad IE) as opposed to the code, but with a little research, I hope to find a “non-hack” solution for it.

    Thanks for the encouragement. πŸ™‚

  3. Looks cool, mate!

    Got horizontal scroll in 1024×768 (work ‘puter max resoution, bleh) in ie6. just a fyi in case ya cared πŸ™‚

  4. Regarding the hoizontal scroll: I know IE is doing that. It’s not really a resolution problem. It happens at ANY resolution, and the amount of scroll is the same, unles your browser window is less than, (fires up screen calipers…) about 360px wide.

    From what I can tell, its an IE CSS rendering bug. I need to do a little more research to make sure I haven’t written any bad CSS, and see if there is an elegant way to solve that problem. (BTW: The CSS is valid according to W3C.)

    Question: how the hell am I supposed to have a link open in a new window (without resorting to javascript) if there is no “target” attribute in the “a” element??

    Update: If I read this correctly, “target” is a valid attribute of “a” – grumble… does that mean the validator is bugged?

    (That’s the error I get when trying to validate the “blog” page using the HTML4.01 Strict doctype.)

    Edited on Jul 2nd 2002, 21:41 by Hooloovoo

  5. @5

    Thank you! I like them too. πŸ™‚ I need to borrow a digital camera and take some more pics of them. Haven’t done that since we moved.

  6. You should.

    I have one and take loads of pictures. Arafel (means “fog” or “myst” in Hebrew) is the favorite of family and friends too–she is the sort of lovable thing that wins everyone over in 1 twitch of bicolored whiskers. πŸ™‚

  7. @10 he’s referring to a typo in the “on-site” menu.

    view = veiw πŸ™‚

    (edit: good lord, i typo’d it the same way in my explanation.. *bonk*)

    Edited on Jul 2nd 2002, 22:27 by ekoostik

  8. @12 – D’oh, I hate when I do stupid stuff like that. I’ll fix it when I’m done here.

    @11 & 13

    That’s how it “should work” ( The reason I bitched about the “a” tag is because the w3c validator claims that “target” is not a valid attribute of “a” — but from what I can tell, it is:

    [Link] (scroll down to “target” in the first column)

    It seems silly to not have “target” as a valid attribute, but whatever. I’ll stop complaining about it now.

    there’s a reason view is mis-spelled. It’s the same reason I edited this comment…

    Edited on Jul 3rd 2002, 00:18 by Hooloovoo

  9. [Quote] there’s a reason view is mis-spelled. It’s the same reason I edited this comment… [Quote]

    hehe, i can relate all too well.

    That’s odd about the taret, i had no idea. Hell, i alwys use it. hrm. If u figure out the “right” way to do it, lemme know.

  10. well, “target” should be the right way to do it. I’m not using on the site anywhere right now, so I’m not too worried.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *