CSS issues please help (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Cascading Style Sheets



Message

IceCubed -> CSS issues please help (8/25/2003 16:05:42)

Hi,

Im very new to CSS and im having some problems.

I made a CSS for my website, i used dreamweaver for the website and simeple txt editor to make the actual style sheet.

I used the <link> to link the css style.

Everything was working fine in IE 6+ but when I started to test it with Netscape/mozilla then my problems with CSS started.

For example my background dosnt work inside the table, and a lot of styles just dosnt work. Ive tried a lot of things but it dosnt seem to fix it,

ANY HELP would be much apprecitated,

YOu can find the CSS file here > test.kraya.co.uk/styles/style.css

A page the CSS aplies to > http://test.kraya.co.uk/csstest/test.htm

CSS (incase you cant be botherd to download)

Thanks,

*******************************
/* body */
body
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #6D7380;
background : #F3F4F5;
}

input, textarea, select, radio, submit
{
color : #666666;
font: normal 9px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
background-color: #DAE0E4;
border-color: #000000;
border-style: solid;
border-width: 1px;

}

tr
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #6D7380;
}


/*list settings*/
ul
{
color: #608591;
}



/*SubHeadings*/
p.pNormalBoldItalicLeft
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
font-weight: bold;
font-style:italic;
color: #6D7380;
text-align: left;
}

.normalBoldItalicLeft
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
font-weight: bold;
font-style:italic;
color: #6D7380;
text-align: left;
}


/*link properties*/
a
{
text-decoration:none;
font-weight:bold;
}

a:link {color:#003366;}
a:visited {color:#003366;}
a:hover {color:#6699FF;}
a:active {color:#003366;}
/**/
a.menuTopLink
{
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 9px;
color:#003366;
}

a.linkSmallBold
{
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 9px;
color: #6D7380;
}

a.linkSmall
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 9px;
color: #6D7380;
text-align: center;
)



.tableHeading
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #000000;
background-color: #D0D7D8;
text-align: center;
}

.visitedLink
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 9px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #6699FF;
text-align: center;
}
.WHITE {background-color: #ffffff;}
.pageBg {"background-color: #F3F4F5"}

.subHeading
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 14px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #000000;
text-align: left;
}

.SmallText
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 9px;
color: #6D7380;
text-align: left;
}
.SmallTextBold
{
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 9px;
font-weight:bold;
color: #6D7380;
text-align: left;
}

.LightGrey
{
background-color: #EFEFEF;
}

.ProminentParagraph
{
background-color: #ffffff;
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight:bold;
color: #EC820D;
text-align: centre;
}

/* TABLE properties */
table.tableWhiteBg {background-color: #ffffff;}

/*headings*/
h.h1 {
font-family: verdana, "Book Antiqua", palatino, serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #000000;

}


/*MISC*/





*******************************



Boo -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/27/2003 3:04:27)

forget about netscape \mozilla

sssave yourself a lot of headache



Shirley -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/27/2003 8:37:40)

took a quick glance and see a
) where a } should be



Download a trial copy of topstyle and check it for errors and compatibility
http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/download/index.asp



gorilla -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/27/2003 12:58:53)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boo

forget about netscape \mozilla

sssave yourself a lot of headache


I have to completely disagree with that advice - which quite frankly I see as being very bad advice indeed. While Netscape has gone Mozilla is very much around. As is Opera. Unlike Internet explorer those browsers are very close to full W3C compliance. Some of our group are also testing the next versions of Internet Explorer and again Micorsoft are continuing their, admittedly very slow, move to compliance. (This is true also of the other UAs such as the search bots.)

Shirley's advice is good although personaslly I dislike the way in which Top Style alters file associations and got rid of it for that reason.

IMO your best course of action is to go here:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

and make use of the validator from w3c

The html validation service is located here:

http://validator.w3.org/

Carsten (With a "C" [;)]) Pedersen
Spokesgorilla
Copenhagen
Denmark
August 27th 2003



Boo -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/28/2003 4:03:21)

Mozilla is still around? where? ssshow me!

Opera, not even close and costsss $$$

You guys go ahead and develop for those browsers, I'll be out grabbing new clientssss



Gil -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/28/2003 8:19:14)

quote:

I'll be out grabbing new clientssss


Is that like clients? [:)]

Thank you - redoing sites that failed to provide accessability for more than one UA or to meet section 508 standards is a good business.



gorilla -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/28/2003 13:10:22)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boo

Mozilla is still around? where? ssshow me!

Opera, not even close and costsss $$$

You guys go ahead and develop for those browsers, I'll be out grabbing new clientssss


I'd really do something about that sticky "s" on your keyboard if I were you [;)]



Boo what you've said above is flat out wrong. Opera does not cost if you're prepared to live with a small banner. If you're not prepared to live with a small banner it costs considerably less than US$50. That cost is claimable against tax as a business expense.

Moreover Opera developed the browser of choice used by the one rapidly growing sector in the market - mobile telephone browser software.

Go check and show yourself [:)]

It's not a question of developing for a particular browser or other UA. It's a question of developing to w3c standards, and often in the USA, to s508 as well.

Doing it right by writing properly formed valid code, and paying some attention to accessability and usabililty are how to succeed. One of our group recently surveyed slightly over 2500 web "designers and developers" in a number of countries, among them just over 500 in the USA.

The USA results were stark.

Of USA respondents 450 did not code as a matter of course either to w3c standards or to s508. Every single one of that group strongly agreed with this statement:

quote:

"Business is bad and getting worse."


The 55 who had troubled themselves to do it right in the first place strongly disagreed. moreover 43 of them had recently increased their fees, all 55 had a waiting list, of which 39 had a waiting list longer than two years. All had recently signed contracts with their clients for ongoing site maintenance and redesign over a three year period.

The results are even more pronounced in Scandinavia - the region with the highest level of IT usage and literacy in Europe, and indeed, as a percentage of population, the world.

The thing that never ceases to amaze those of us in the gorilla group who work with web development is that it is actually easier to code to standards rather than to one particular UA.

It is not as if it is difficult to do so - remembering among a few other things to close tags is simple enough. The s508 requirements are hardly onerous, and the same is true of WCAG come to that. Doing so brings a lot of benefits, including as a lovely side-effect for commercial clients better SE results, and as an equally lovely side effect for you greatly reduced time spent on coding and a sharp drop in debugging time.

Based on the evidence I suspect that 55 web professionals in the USA will be delighted to read your posting. - You'll be just one less former competitor to worry about.

For anyone reading this hereafter: The days are rapidly going when writing to one browser and ignoring basic standards of good coding and good design are rapidly vanishing. If they are not already gone. Those who adapt will prosper, those who don't won't even survive. This is to be welcomed - it means more business for those who care enough about their work to do it properly to start off with, and want to reap the benefits thereof.


Carsten (With a "C" [;)]) Pedersen
Spokesgorilla
Copenhagen
Denmark
August 29th 2003



IceCubed -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/29/2003 6:14:35)

quote:

) where a } should be


That worked like a dream, now the site works fine in mozilla and netscape.

As far as 'Boo's' comments go , Mozillla and netscape are browsers that are far more 'standards compliant' than InternetExplorer. Obviously being standards complient helps browser compatibility(and goes to make you sound much more smarter than you are), ie. Build a site for IE and you can be guaranteed it wont work for any other browsers, build a site that works well with mozilla, then the website can pretty much be viewd in all browsers,

its a shame we have to work round Microsofts sloppy work [:@], just my $.02

thanks again for your help guys, that was a major headace solved, [:)][:)][:)] also I tried downloading the validator but I couldnt find the file to download in w3C unfortunately W3C has not evolved much in the area of a good human computer interface, so that even dumb people like me can find the validator. example "if you are stupid click here to download the file *directly*"[&o]

Sorry for the delay in replying I was hoping I would get email for replies to post. [:(]

--
"its amazing how a company that spends 4 billion on an operating system can cause you so much headache"



gorilla -> RE: CSS issues please help (8/31/2003 9:25:23)

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

click the link that says:

quote:

Download the validator


Carsten



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125