Page 1 of 2
Retarded firefox problems...
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:29 pm
by Dale
If you view my
site with FireFox you will notice that you cannot see the logo backgound image gong along the top like you do in Internet Explorer.
Code: Select all
.top {
background-image: url('<?php print $imgsrv; ?>/logobg.gif');
}
^ Thats what im using for the image, with
$imgsrv being pointed to my image directory.
Code: Select all
<div style="e;margin: 0 auto; width: 100%;"e; class="e;top"e;>
<div style="e;float: left;"e;><img src="e;<?php print $imgsrv; ?>/logo.gif"e; alt="e;d-frame"e;></div>
</div>
^ Thats what i use to produce my continuous background thing.
Why does it not show properly in FireFox ???
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:57 pm
by John Cartwright
NOTE: If you are viewing this site in FireFox, it doesn't show up properly. To fix this, use a better browser.

d-frame, 2005
Illadvised words I must say. But I'm running out the door and will look into this when I come back.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:01 pm
by Dale
Jcart wrote:NOTE: If you are viewing this site in FireFox, it doesn't show up properly. To fix this, use a better browser.

d-frame, 2005
Illadvised words I must say. But I'm running out the door and will look into this when I come back.
I personally don't liek FireFox (*me prepares for flames*), however I'll be waiting

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:50 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Lose the single quotes... that's invalid CSS
Code: Select all
background-image: url(images_folder/image.gif);
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:11 pm
by stukov
Hehe, in my opinion, Firefox has a better interpretation of "valid" HTML and CSS. But that's only my opinion

.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:11 am
by John Cartwright
stukov wrote:Hehe, in my opinion, Firefox has a better interpretation of "valid" HTML and CSS. But that's only my opinion

.
Its not an opinion, its the truth.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:16 am
by m3mn0n
Jcart wrote:stukov wrote:Hehe, in my opinion, Firefox has a better interpretation of "valid" HTML and CSS. But that's only my opinion

.
Its not an opinion, its the truth.
I second that.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:50 am
by wwwapu
This works. Personally I have never liked floating objects, especially at the top of the page. Not to mention IEs ability to float something under the background-color. Must have happened to some of you also.
Code: Select all
<style type="e;text/css"e;>
<!--
body {
margin: 0 0 0 0;
background: #000000;
color: #FFFFFF;
font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
background-image: url(http://www.d-frame.co.uk/images/logobg.gif);
background-repeat: repeat-x;
}
a {
color: #EAEAEA;
text-decoration: none;
}
.titles {
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: bold;
}
#top {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
}
#content{
position:relative;
top: 150px; /* or the bgimages height */
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="e;margin: 0 auto;"e; id="e;top"e;>
<div style="e;float: left;"e;><img src="e;http://www.d-frame.co.uk/images/logo.gif"e; alt="e;d-frame"e; /></div>
</div><br /> <div id="e;content"e; style="e;margin: 0 auto; width: 99%;"e;>
<div style="e;float: left; text-align: left; width:160px;"e;>
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:44 am
by Chris Corbyn
Jcart wrote:stukov wrote:Hehe, in my opinion, Firefox has a better interpretation of "valid" HTML and CSS. But that's only my opinion

.
Its not an opinion, its the truth.
I'll extend on that by proving why...
Firefox developer's have followed the specifications. Microsoft have made half of their own rules up because they think they can get away with it being a big company as they are and everyone will just have to join in with them and make new standards... they're wrong. We need a universal standard so that things work consistently so if they followed the ones that were already laid out we'd have far less compatibility issues. I'm lead to believe IE7 makes a better job of going with standards but I wonder what else they have fiddled with too...
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:34 am
by Dale
Code = Thanks
Explanations of why FireFox is good = Still won't convert me.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:54 am
by wwwapu
This is not about if Firefox is better than IE or if IE is better than Firefox. It's just that as d11wtq said
We need a universal standard so that things work consistently so if they followed the ones that were already laid out we'd have far less compatibility issues.
Life would be so much easier if all browsers behaved according the W3C standards. Maybe even too easy, what more is web designer than problem solver? (not that I'm neither, sometimes I suck like overpowered vacuum cleaner)
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:08 am
by pickle
I've noticed from time to time that some people code their pages so that they work 100% in IE. Then, when they don't work in other browsers, they complain about the inadequecy(sp?) of those other browsers. It's like writing a book in Polish and calling everyone that can't read it, stupid.
People do this for Firefox too, of course. The difference is, that code custom engineered towards Firefox can also be validated against the standards.
I'm not saying, ~Dale, that you did this, but your question has just reminded me of this problem.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:21 am
by Roja
Since the original question has been answered, I'll risk going offtopic for a bit..
Dale wrote:Explanations of why FireFox is good = Still won't convert me.
What exactly would convert you? If explanations of why something is good don't help, what will?
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:28 am
by Dale
Roja wrote:What exactly would convert you? If explanations of why something is good don't help, what will?
Well if FireFox was the last browser around i'll convert, but at the moment i'm sticking to CrazyBrowser & Maxthon Browser.

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:10 pm
by Ambush Commander
Maxthon actually looks pretty good from the website. If you want a trimmed down version of Maxthon that has the ability to get all of its features, go for Firefox.
When Firefox 1.5 comes out, we'll start yelling at you to switch. Well, at least you're not using IE.