#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    PHP or css or dhtml? i dont know


    ok, im having a problem with my website and netscape 4. It contains a stylesheet (external file), php, and i guess dhtml, but its somesort of javascript for a background watermark type thing. A stylesheet is governing: margins, font, link colors, and horizontal rules. then i have a dhtml? script:
    <STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    BODY { background:white url(bg22.jpg) 150px 200px fixed no-repeat }
    -->
    </STYLE>
    then I have a header include()d at the top, content included in the middle and a footer included at bottom. Header and footer render, but middle content does not. If you look at the page source from ns4, all the html is there, it just doesnt show up. whats the deal?

    it works great with ie and ns6.

    i dont think its php, but it could be css/dhtml. is there a way to do the same thing (the dhtml script) with php?

    thanks
    matt
  2. #2
  3. Resident DJ
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    283
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: PHP or css or dhtml? i dont know


    Originally posted by kingink

    <STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    BODY { background:white url(bg22.jpg) 150px 200px fixed no-repeat; }
    -->
    </STYLE>
    the background CSS property won't work in NS4.x

    also all the NS4.x browsers were very buggy and alot of things didn't work.


    Check all your HTML. even something small such as
    <a name="linkhere"> with out the </a> after it can cause a page not to show up.

    Copy and paste the code and run it through an HTML validator like in Homesite or something make sure all your <tr>'s and <td>'s and <table>'s are closed as well as any other tag that could raise havok.

    More than likely it's a problem with the HTML - happens sometimes - you might think you have everything closed up, but you miss something or it's missplaced in the wrong order
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    haha i had <table><table> instead of <table></table> jeez how dumb. but the background watermark thing shows up just ugly.

    thanks alot man, i feel like a moron.
    Last edited by kingink; October 19th, 2001 at 11:37 AM.
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Dev
    Devshed Beginner (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    1,436
    Rep Power
    41
    Don't worry so much about Netscape 4.x.. almost no one uses it anymore. I used to worry about Netscape 4.x but now I don't see the point.. and I wonder why everyone is so concerned about an old virtually obseleted browser. If you don't believe me check some web logs.
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Indeed, he is very right. Netscape forces you to code HTML properly. w3c.org's html validation service may point out your errors to you. These errors, may/will be preventing Netscape from rendering your page. In the future, you should post a link to (either) the actual page, or a static copy of the source. That way we (those who know html ;p) can check of the work.

    To he who says "Netscape is buggy", I would that you can code HTML on your own. I suppose that you don't understand what 'standards compliance' is. MS has laughed in the face of standards, and made it's own standards. It is because of this that we are experiencing a flood of users who DO NOT KNOW html calling Netscape "buggy" and making pages "strictly for IE". It is these who will never cut it in the industry, and will be stuck making their purple on black homepages.

    Good day.
  10. #6
  11. No Profile Picture
    Dev
    Devshed Beginner (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    1,436
    Rep Power
    41
    Netscape IS buggy. It crashes constantly on my Windows box. SO i tried it on Linux. Netscape crashes even more often on Linux. What a joke.

    And who cares if MS made up it's own standards. What good is a "standard" if it is not in use? Let me tell you what a standard sounds like to me - something that most people conform to. If a feature is added to IE, and 95% or more of web users use it, I call that a standard. Doesn't matter if some magical entity called the W3C likes it or not.

    It is these who will never cut it in the industry, and will be stuck making their purple on black homepages.
    Have you checked the statistics lately? Do you know how few people are using Netscape? Writing a page strictly for IE is not a bad move at all. Personally I like to make sure they work in all browsers but the way IE dominates the web these days you wouldn't hurt that much to focus on IE (and it's standards aren't That off. Maybe some positioning would be off or some CSS wouldn't work but chances are the web page would at least Work in other browsers).
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Intermediate (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    1,516
    Rep Power
    15
    Netscape is crap. Fine. Nobody uses Netscape anymore... Well, most universities and schools have unix systems, (especially the CS departments), and there Netscape is pretty standard. (One funny thing, even my CS department uses Netscape, even though Opera is available and Norwegian and bloody good!)

    Anyway, just make sure the information is available in Netscape, don't spend to much time making it look like the rest, just make it usable.

    As for standards. Standards are good because they promote competition, and generally make life easier. I'll agree that if IE implements something, and it's good, then maybe it should become standardized, but from that to saying that because 95% use IE any feature added to IE is good is pretty crazy. What if 95% IE users find the feature pointless, crappy, ****ty, completely absurd? Following your logic it should become a standard. I don't think so.

    And another thing. There are people in this world who are not fortunate to have perfect vision, or are missing their arms or whatnot. Should these people be excluded from the web just because of their handicap?

    I don't think so.

    And designing *for* thingy X just doesn't make sense anyway. In the future, the web will be accessed through so many gadgets and units that no matter how well your page is optimized to IE, it's gonna suck for all those users -- and sure, your stats will still say that 95% of your users are IE users, and that's not strange since nobody using anything else can ****ing access your site.

    Yeah, and how are all these toys and tools and gadgets gonna be able to work together unless we have some standards? Unless we throw out all those incompetent people (I am not addressing anyone in person!) who believe webdesign is all about doing fancy stuff in Photoshop, and slap text out on the web in a 8 pixel font cause it looks good and who cares if nobody can bloody read it or use, it looks good damnit!

    It's supposed to be an information highway, not just a place for wankers who care more for surface than substance. And if information is going to be accessible in any sensible way, it has to be structured, and the language of information must be global and standarized, and that's we need W3C, cause they do a hell of a good job in creating these standards. The problem is that so many "webdesigners" today can't see past their .favicon ("like, cool dude"), and understand that the standards made by W3C are for people who take information seriously and not for wankers. The standards of W3C all still very far from widespread, and very few people understand their importance. But eventually, everyone working with the internet who wants to survive is gonna have to understand and implement them.

    And don't forget that the W3C is a cooperation of many huge companies, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

    And again, I'm not referring to anyone in person, this is just a rant.

    //End rant

    (I think it's time to calm down with a beer now, it's Friday after all )
    --
    Regards
    André Nęss

    Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Novice (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    669
    Rep Power
    15
    Andre, this is totally off the topic, but...

    (I think it's time to calm down with a beer now, it's Friday after all )
    Will you come to the West Coast(US) and finish my workday for me so I can start drinking?
  16. #9
  17. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Intermediate (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    1,516
    Rep Power
    15
    Hehe Well, I would gladly finish many of your workdays if you paid my trip to the U.S., I've never been there, but I would love to go
    --
    Regards
    André Nęss

    Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun
  18. #10
  19. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Novice (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    669
    Rep Power
    15
    Not on my salary, I guess I will have to spend your airfare at the pub.
  20. #11
  21. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Here's what I would do:


    Here's your modern code:

    <STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    BODY { background:white url(bg22.jpg) 150px 200px fixed no-repeat }
    -->
    </STYLE>


    Here's the antiquated solution:

    <STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    BODY {
    background-color: white;
    background-image: url(bg22.jpg);
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-position: 150px 200px;
    background-attachment: fixed;
    }
    -->
    </STYLE>

    Only background-position and background-attachment are compatible with IE 4 and NS 6.

    Fix for background-position: work some white around top and left of your image.
    Fix for background-attachment: it's defaulted as fixed.

    My reference: http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_background.asp

    Have a nice week-end...

    "It's not a bug, it's a feature..."
    Who said that? ...

    Elvis

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo