 SLEUTH now has cases! |
  |
 Nov 7 2004, 09:58 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724  |
Ok folks...
I'm going to keep working on this problem as over half of you visiting the site use a browser other than IE. Right now, I'm at an impass and I'm dead ass tired. It's 6am and I need sleep. I'll get right on this first thing tomarrow. I apologize. |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 7 2004, 10:05 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
I have a fixed version locally, although I fixed it simply by ripping the page down it's bare elements and re-building. I'll rebuild the entire thing and upload it somewhere for you to check out, Stumps.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2004, 10:07 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
Thanks...but...what the hell was I doing wrong?
*just couldn't sleep with a bad page on my mind* |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 12:20 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I have a friend who figured out the problem and a fix about a week ago, but never told you because he was trying to find a way to say it that didn't sound like "I hate you and hope you die". I'll try to get his input over here.
You did, however, fix the problem with the links on the sidebar. Good on ye'. ~J |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Nov 8 2004, 01:42 AM
Post
#30
|
|
Guests |
Case #1 was black on black with Firefox 1.0PR.
But then I loaded one of my own CSS sheets via WebDeveloper. God, this thing pays for itself. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 01:50 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Seems to work fine for me with IE.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 01:53 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Yep, we've known it worked fine with IE from the beginning. IE is essentially the problem.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 01:59 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I guess that means I'm part of the problem and not part of the solution? :rotfl:
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:07 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Given that it's free... yeah. :-) I still prefer Safari overall on OSX, but when I'm doing web work, Firefox and various plugins are a godsend. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:08 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
I dont think thats particularly fair. IE certainly has its problems, but I hardly think that being able to make sense of poorly written code can be considered one of them. If anything, thats actually one of its positive aspects. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:21 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Positive in that it positively encourages the behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:33 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Again, I don't think it *encourages* the behavior so much as simply allows it. And if we *all* used IE, we wouldnt have had any problem in the first place. Which, of course, is probably the reason said functionality exists... but thats beside the point. The point is that IE manages to perform functionally in situations where other options are not functional, and that is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:37 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The last version of IE ever made for the Macintosh does not work with that code. Because IE for Windows works with that code, someone put a page up on the net that does not work properly with an entire OS, probably two. It allowed this, it enabled it. If the person had been testing with a browser that did not allow broken code, it would not have gotten uploaded.
That is why IE allowing broken code to work is bad, because we can't just all use IE when a page breaks. More importantly, we shouldn't have to. Should we be expected to all have off-road capable vehicle in case a road hasn't been built or maintained properly? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:40 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Once again, it's only a good thing in that it encourages (and it most certainly does encouarge it) the behavior. It retards people from learning proper coding practices by allowing them in the first place. It's the frelling Ebonics of the World Wide Web.
In effect its also no different from proprietary code. It encourages websites that only IE can view (by allowing code that shouldn't work at all, thus is no longer a baseline). If you want to fool yourself into thinking that it's a good thing, fine. Just don't expect anyone with half a clue to agree. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:44 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
This reminds me of a famous Chinese quote: Deng Xiaoping: It doesn't matter if it is a white cat or a black cat. If it catches mice it is a good cat. Mao Zedong: Which emperor said that? It does not matter if it is IE or not, as long as it surfs the Web and can view pages it is a good program. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:47 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Then feel free to go back to using Mosaic 1.0 if you like. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:47 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Just because it's famous does not make it correct. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:54 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Well, I could continue to argue the point, but it doesnt really matter. I, personally, also do not use IE anymore - I use Firefox. Its pretty goddamn incompetent to allow a jpeg to compromise your system. However, at the same time, it does piss me off every goddamn time I encounter a web page that doesnt load properly, and I would be overjoyed if they built functionality into Firefox that would allow it to read sloppily-coded pages properly, without sacrificing the enhanced security that was my reason for switching to it in the first place.
Continuing with the car analogy: no, you should not expect everyone to have an off-road vehicle to navigate city streets. However, building a car without any shocks because the roads *should* be pothole-free would not be considered a positive thing, and, well, is actually pretty stupid. But I'm done derailing the thread. Good luck fixing the code, Stumps. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 02:54 AM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Frankly, I think proper code has long since been railed by the use of web page editors. A lot of people don't even know how to code in the first place. To my credit, I have never used a web page editor. Since I've never actually used one, I don't actually know how they work. Back when I was in high school I learned some simple HTML code and all the pages I ever put up were coded by hand by me. But that was years ago and I actually forgot all my HTML by now. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 03:26 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Safari and MozillaFox in my experience have done perfectly well on quite a lot of invalid HTML. However, IE allows some horribly broken things to work. We're not talking potholes, we're talking craters. The potholes you probably don't even notice. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Nov 8 2004, 03:50 AM
Post
#46
|
||||
|
Guests |
Yes, but by some twisted design the Hand of Fate has left me without OSX. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 8 2004, 03:52 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I feel your pain.
~J, zealot since 1987 |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:07 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
So everyone can rest.
Adam re-did the page and made it work fine. Then I compared it to mine to see what was different. Most of it was harmless things that weren't involved in keeping the black on black problem. That, however, Adam had solved as well. Aparantly, only IE accepts numeric values as class names for CSS. TD.3 won't work when called as <td class="3"> in any browser but IE. TD.text will work when called as <td class="text"> in any browser. It's about that simple. I use numbers all the time in my css because I like the easy organization to it, but it turns out that this very common practice on my part was why I couldn't figure out what was wrong. It works fine now. [edit]Oh, and btw. If anyone notices errors in any of my sites or pages, let me know. Don't be afraid of sounding like an ass. Even if you're rude, I'll still get the notice that somethings wrong. I'd rather know than think it's all fine. Especially when 51% of you guys are using a browser other than IE. That's pretty important.[/edit] |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:14 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
TOO FUNNY. just loaded the page in firefox an' it works fine. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2004, 05:43 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
One more problem: you've got an extra e in November :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th September 2025 - 08:09 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.