Declaring a doctype makes NS screw up

Mozilla has a thing called "Quirks Mode" to simulate IE's horrible rendering. Not having a DTD will fire it.

Hit CTRL-I and see what rendering more it is in.

If it is in standards compliant mode, then you are actually expecting the page to render incorrectly. IE is rendering is wrong, while Moz is doing it correctly.

That seems to be it, is there any way to use the DTD and still have it render the same way in IE and Netscape/Mozilla?

Use the DOC tag to validate the page if nothing else, then remove it. Its just another thing that is to ahead of itself (or backwards) in the web today.

sometimes trying to find a work around is way to intense when you can just remove the tag, still have correct coding and page works similar in all browsers.

Actually, leave the DOCTYPE in, just either remover the url portion, or upgrade your code to a higher level.

It's a known issue with using table layouts and Netscape.

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
It's a known issue with using table layouts and Netscape.

The issue is with Internet Explorer (and every single other non-Gecko browser), not Netscape 6+. This is a very important distinction to make.

heh... it's a perspective thing -- the known issue is that using what you think is fine code in Netscape has apparent display errors. Semantics aren't going to help people find out how to fix the problem.

When you can take a perspective from an absolute standpoint, it tends to be a little easier to defend.

Fact: The W3C HTML, XHTML, and CSS recommendations agree with Mozilla's interpretation and not any other browser's.

Therefore, every non-Mozilla web browser is incorrect in their interpretation of HTML.

Q.E.D.

It is up to you however if you want to code correctly.

Coding correctly and displaying correctly aren't the same thing.
I've had a site done to XHTML Strict that wouldn't align properly using the DOC tag, removed url part as Suzanne mentioned above but then wouldn't validate.

The old catch 22

Busy makes my point -- there is a difference, and a large one, between being precise and with being accurate.

Regardless, I didn't say that the problem was with Netscape doing something wrong. The problem is that it doesn't display properly in Netscape. People are going to look for that solution (why doesn't my table layout work in Netscape?), not think, oh, Netscape is perfect (not! there is no perfect browser, yet), it must be that the rest of the world is wrong.

However, there is no reason not to explain why the problem isn't Netscape, but rather complex table-layouts and W3C standards being in conflict after years of complex table-layouts and loose coding WERE the standards.

What I am saying is that sometimes people are just looking for an explanation, not the entire history of development of the software, and saying "it's a known issue" helps them a) not feel like idiots, and b) help other people who find the same apparent display "error" in Netscape 6+.

Lets burn our browsers and return to Dos

[que hippy music]

Quote: Originally posted by Busy
Coding correctly and displaying correctly aren't the same thing.
I've had a site done to XHTML Strict that wouldn't align properly using the DOC tag, removed url part as Suzanne mentioned above but then wouldn't validate.

The old catch 22

You have to remember that just because the source validates doesn't mean that it is doing what you want.

Why wouldn't your site layout as expected? Because you didn't know how to make it via standards. The blame is being shifted from the browser to the developer. In a standards-compliant browser, this is the way it is.

Your page *did* display correctly, but unfortunately your interpretation of "correctly" was wrong.

And Suzanne. Tables as presentational elements were never standards. It is something awful designers started doing on their own to get the most control over their layout at possible. No where in the HTML spec does it to say to use tables as anything else other than tools for presenting tabular data. It even says not to use tables for presentation in there a few times, simply because it wreaks havoc on accessibility.

Also, instead of saying there is nothing you can do it about it, perhaps you should look at this page on Netscape's own evangelism page:
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/img-table/

Quote: Thanks to Mozilla's thorough implementation of CSS2, the problem of inline images in table cells forcing open unwanted space has come to the attention of the CSS Working Group. There have been many proposals to fix the problem, but one of the most promsing approaches is the property line-box-contain, which has been proposed for inclusion in CSS3. Should this property be adopted, then any browser supporting it could emulate traditional "shrinkwrap" behavior without risking other layout upset with the following rule:

td {line-box-contain: font replaced;} /* proposed for CSS3 */

There are other possible fixes contained within the current CSS3 Working Drafts, such as line-height-policy. Obviously, the sooner a solution can be found and implemented, the happier authors everywhere will be.

from the link jkd gave, IMO it is saying there isn't a foolproof fix out there at the moment, the page does give some workarounds that sometimes work but since there are so many ways to out a table structure not all will work.

Quote: And Suzanne. Tables as presentational elements were never standards.

Sweety, you're doing that semantic thing again... The standards of yesteryear were not defined by any body, but rather by what we all were doing. It was the usage standard to which I was speaking.

Quote: It is something awful designers started doing on their own to get the most control over their layout at possible.

No, it's something that designers did that pushed the web to newer heights. The proprietary code from browser developers (including some that has since become part of the official recommendations and specifications of different levels of HTML and XHTML) and the use of tables and other "wrong" things pushed the development of CSS and XML.

Quote: No where in the HTML spec does it to say to use tables as anything else other than tools for presenting tabular data. It even says not to use tables for presentation in there a few times, simply because it wreaks havoc on accessibility.

Which is something that has been REVOKED for XHTML. Tables for presentational items are perfectly valid usage now. Even according to the specs. For accessibility, thought is needed, and summary and some consideration. But tables are most definitely valid in all senses of the word.

Quote: Also, instead of saying there is nothing you can do it about it, perhaps you should look at this page on Netscape's own evangelism page:
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/img-table/ [/B]

There is a lot you can do about it. I didn't say there was nothing you could do, just that it's a KNOWN ISSUE.

You can change how you code, you can follow the advice on that page (which I actually recommend to people, amusingly) and make alterations in your CSS, et cetera. You can abolish the use of presentational tables, you can change how the presentational tables are used (no need for seamless tiles?)...

I'm happy to discuss this with you, but please stick to the facts and don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say there was nothing you could do, I didn't say that it was a problem with Netscape, et cetera.

You'll make better points if you work to help people understand instead of trying to show me up.

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
Which is something that has been REVOKED for XHTML. Tables for presentational items are perfectly valid usage now. Even according to the specs. For accessibility, thought is needed, and summary and some consideration. But tables are most definitely valid in all senses of the word.

There is a big difference between valid and correct. "Valid" only means it validates against the supplied DTD or XML Scheme. "Correct" means you actually followed all the guidelines you should follow when writing your markup.

Using tables as presentational elements may be valid, but is an entirely incorrect practice.

I won't bother to reply to your last comment discrediting me either, it really isn't relevant at all to this thread. Feel free to pm me if you have any concerns.

I don't get it. If we have the W3C to tell us what is valid then who is anyone to say what is a correct or incorrect practice. I think that without people challenging what has been labled as "correct" the industry has been able to evolve.
-dk

*sigh* I give up. I obviously cannot convince anyone at these forums why web standards are a *good* thing, along with accessibity, though it should be self-evident for anyone willing to admit that maybe they were wrong at least once in their past about how they made their websites.

Take a look around w3.org sometime, perhaps you'll learn something about where the future of the World Wide Web is heading.

Dude, I'm a standards advocate. I also code to xhtml 1.0 strict and use css positioning and usability and accessibility are my primary concerns.

My only issue with you is that you're arguing the wrong thing -- we don't need to tell people how wrong they are and how bad they are, we need to educate them about a better way of doing things. Being negative and blaming isn't going to do that. Explaining how to achieve the results is.

Perhaps if you actually try to help instead of trying to prove how much you know, it would be more effective, mm?

Quote: Using tables as presentational elements may be valid, but is an entirely incorrect practice.

That's not true. It was revised from saying tables shouldn't be used for presentational display at all, to saying that they were "correct" for presentational display. Certainly it's not ideal in most situations, but it is for some, and there is nothing inaccessible about them if they are done correctly.

I wasn't trying to discredit you, I was attempting to prevent YOU from discrediting ME by arguing against things I didn't say.

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
My only issue with you is that you're arguing the wrong thing -- we don't need to tell people how wrong they are and how bad they are, we need to educate them about a better way of doing things. Being negative and blaming isn't going to do that. Explaining how to achieve the results is.

Perhaps if you actually try to help instead of trying to prove how much you know, it would be more effective, mm?

If I actually tried to help? I have well over 8 thousand posts combined from other forums. If we assume I was only helpful half the time (though it is a lot closer to 95%, if not higher), I've still helped on more occasions than you have even posted.

I don't see why you continue on discrediting my character. I have yet to say anything negative about you, although you continuing on this tangent completely unrelated to the thread has certainly presented me with a negative opinion of you, and these forums (as a moderator, you should represent the forums).

This is getting way off topic.
We know the W3C standards are recommended guidelines
We know there are a lot of ways to do different things, no real right and wrong.
We know there are a few version of everything floating around at the moment (HTML,XHTML, CSS1, CSS2 ...), so is hard to keep track of whats what.

The thing you have to remember is that W3C isn't a web god, they just make up the recommend standards that can be followed, but never have been fully followed since the start. thats why we have so many tags that arent universal.
They are human and do mess up, like us all, example
is a 100% valid XHTML tag, but it's not the correct tag as we all know from experience that using the width and height is a must or the page jumps around on loading and can slow down load time.

I do follow the standards, my HTML how to site only shows what is universal, my sites follow XHTML trans as minimum

Quote: Originally posted by jkd
If I actually tried to help? I have well over [b]8 thousand posts combined from other forums. If we assume I was only helpful half the time (though it is a lot closer to 95%, if not higher), I've still helped on more occasions than you have even posted.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you about who's posted more on how many forums! Good grief! I've stated clearly, and repeatedly, that my issue is that you keep arguing against things I'm not saying.

Quote: I don't see why you continue on discrediting my character. I have yet to say anything negative about you, although you continuing on this tangent completely unrelated to the thread has certainly presented me with a negative opinion of you, and these forums (as a moderator, you should represent the forums).

I am NOT discrediting your character, you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself. I'm sorry you've decided to take this personally. Whether you have helped people elsewhere is irrelevant. The stance you are taking (absolutist, that people have to admit that they were "wrong" when they were following current usage standards, et cetera) is not helpful HERE.

Please do not bring in everything and the kitchen sink to this! If you want to debate standards and coding practices, by all means, let's continue. Otherwise, as long as you don't accuse me of saying things I haven't said, you can just argue with yourself about my character.

youch! This thread calls for virtual beers all around!
-dk