Lozbo

Loocee, in that testing page i believe you must have the same trouble with the php includes that in the first place (on the normal or not-test page, which by the way is still having two head tags), i see some meta tags inside the body tags, and some link tags to the styles, both should be in the head section... And there are some styles that you import from blogger.com, I dont know why are you importing them right from it... I have not gone through all of your CSS but I believe that the trouble you say about your "underlined text" issue might be fixed by changing the place (to the head section, and leaving only one head element per page) of those meta tags and link tags, and removing the styles from blogger...

I believe that if the deffinition given for 8 to 12 seconds, one dot something is outsandingly good for the average speed time, I dont think it makes your website look bad, I dont even know why would you ask such thing...Anyway tables are necessary, but only for tabular data, like an ordered list of items with more than one field. But as of tables for design or layout, the main problem with them is that they are not as accessible (for the visually impaired mainly) as a pure xhtml / css driven layout, and besides you can totally upgrade your website design very quickly withouth touching the xhtml documents... And mbacarra, could you post a link to your site?

Alright, so older html doctypes do not find this incorrect?Anyway i think we all agree that we must switch as fast as our posibilities allow us to xhtml and start producing a better markup.

Nice starters tutorial, though you use obsolete html: Attribute values must be properly quoted, like type="text"... And all html tags must be closed: Like this: <link href="styleseeht.css" />

Yes, i support Tyssens argument, although i could point to GMail as a site that uses only a single key navigation feature... (its turned on by default, so you must notice it and turn it on to make it work, so it can not be as 'unexpected' as a site which offers no warning). As for a consistent and cross browser way to show a hint to users that they can navigate their site through the key board, I dont know if it exist, but would point to this ALA article that offers nice tips about accesskeys: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Sorry i havent picked this up, i have been a little bit busy and while i did post in other threads, i was waiting for the moment to have enough time to answer here.. hehe. jlhaslip Yes, i have learnt and enjoyed this thread a lot lets begin again... We cant have any info about IE7 but the one that beta testers generate, and until it comes out we wont have certainty of what will or will not work on it... but yes, you are right, i agree that it would be best if we didnt have to hack anything down, just write a css document for each different browser and forget about weird and crazy patches. I dont know what you actually meant with the 'preference' issue, But i disagree with this: I guess that this was what i mainly was arguing about, to pick as many methods as you can, and learn them all... so i was (yes, was, i have dropped this project for a while) trying to get the second method down, as i have already achieved the first one... so: As I can not know if IE7 will or not accept it(even when some venture and speculate), i would rather be prepared with most of the tools I can master or at least understand so it will be easier to answer to if I can't get it done with one way, and I'll be ready with the next... (this is my point, even if i am not sure, though it kinda makes sense to me, I better try both things and give the second method a chance...) I believe that would be the ultimate solution (at least, the one more pragmatic and closest to reality, because the real ultimate solution would be that each and every browsers displayed the stuff as it is meant to, as the w3c recommends, but i don't think it comes to pass anytime soon). When I started making web, I knew very little of CSS, but this technology had been around for a while... and as i started digging more and more into css, I never thought it would be so much trouble across browsers to get things done. I jumped kinda quickly from graphic based layouts in tables and fireworks-html to pure xhtml and css driven designs, but it was late for me already, all those things were already there and I didn't know them. I used to have an html class for every element I wanted to customize, i didnt use headings, nor lists, nor anything. Hell, I remember I didnt even have Firefox! But Im glad im begging to understand and to do the things right...

I dont think i understood but i believe that what you are trying to do is a 2 line web cam site, so a person who enters your site views you, as you see him. I dont think it can be easily achieved without some kind of validation from both users, or at least the 'second one' and i think it will only work with one user at a time (besides the 'main' user), and they might have to set their own web cam in order to make it work... I think it will be a little bit messy and hard to achieve...

I can also say that in my experience you are better off reading from the web, and thats what we all end up doing, jumping on from one tutorial to another, thats the way we learn... it can be a real pain in the azz but its worth it. I can point to a few tutorial web sites: http://www.w3schools.com/ (basics about xhtml, css, js and others) http://alistapart.com/ (advanced but really well explained tutorials about things you didnt even know you were looking for, hehe) http://www.pixel2life.com/ (lots and lots of tutorials, not all of them have the top quality but its because of the ammount of things it holds, eventually you find something worth) I hope they work for you, though you might just already know about those. By the way, i have also never bought any book about html or css, actually, by the time they come out, they are already obsolete, so you'll find out anyway the latest stuff online. I have also a lot of bookmarked tuts and stuff about xhtml, css, and general web design (among other personal, geek and crazy stuff) on delicious... you can browse it at: https://del.icio.us/ slash Lozbo

You need to specify the name of the target, try: "_main" or "main" which are names assignated by default, but you should know the name of your main frame, you must have assigned it a name in the frame set... Look at your frameset document and seek for the name of the frame that is used as your right frame.You can name it whatever you want (no special chars, and usual limitations), doesnt have to necessarily be "right" or "_right". Greetings:) Dont be sorry, we help whenever we can..

In the target attribute goes the name of the frame you want the link to open in, or if you want it in a new window ("_blank").I would recommend you to drop the frames and switch to pure xhtml and css design, you could try a few web sites and this forum to get started.There are several issues in working with frames that most people will rather advise you to avoid, but you just may need the things as fast as possible or may not have enough time to spend on learning this technologies right now.The main advantage of using frames is that you only make one page (say: the menu) and use it only once, and whenever it needs updating, you just need to update one file, and not every document of your site that had the menu (and this wouldnt be also that much trouble in some cases, if you know how to use a "seek and replace" function from whatever editor you are using). But you can take advantage of server side includes, which bassically work the same way, the only problem is that your web server must support the language you are writting your stuff in... (like jsp, asp or php).If you'd like additional information about this 'server side includes' you can post your question (i think a mod would advice you to make a new thread, or even better: search the forum for older threads where this topic has been already addressed)... Good luck and good codin'

I believe that accesskeys works differently through browsers, for example, in order to activate the link with the given accesskey you have to press:in firefox: alt + "key"in internet explorer: alt + "key" and next "enter" to go to the linkin opera: still dont know...

Yes, i understand everything you say, I already know that... My question in the first place was, how to achieve the frame like layout without those hacks... I think i didnt write it but that was what i meant... sorry... It was talking about CSS hacks... I dont know how to explain it but i would point out to the first article... According to this so cited article, the second way is not actually a 'hack', but a CSS feature. I'm not a css hack designer, i just use what i found here and there, I could not explain it as those designers would, but i get the point... I have not trouble with those concepts, but id like try this thing as it is proposed, as i have also achieved already a valid strict xhtml and css frame-like layout. I think that is what is all about, leave the css good for future versioning prevention, so when new things come out, your current css will still work, and will need only to fix the newer stuff (and if everything goes well, browsers get more and more attached to standards, there wont be a need to fix anything)... I am not quite sure if this is the best way to go, but made sense to me right now, and as i say, as i have ALREADY done the other way, i want to give this a try... Thanks

jlhaslip, thanx for the article, Ill give it a try, but I want to avoid hacks, the above article talks about NOT using hacks, but instead use CORRECT CSS and find workarounds that are VALID CSS, and that will not expire as new BAs come out, to target and fix specific browser issues (which obviously could become a harder work).And Inspiron, by hacks (in the world of CSS) we mean workarounds that take advantage of browser agent errors, the way they read the CSS and this way we can for example, write a css rule that only Internet Explorer will read, and leave intact the good browsers...Its not meant to make the site look weird, but to fix it, i have already achieved that but i now want to use the 'new' methodology...Thanx anyway =D

According to this article we should stop hacking our css in a given way, so that future versions of browser agents will always display our sites correctly. Its mainly about IE, older and newer versions. And, it bassically shows how to 'hack down' the holly hack (A IE only css hack) so that it becomes standard according to the above article, so that our css will work in past versions of IE and the feared IE7. So i started coding a 'lesser' site (its not a big project, yet i want to start doing the things right) and did what i thought was correct but have broken my head off and can't get it no more, so i decided to drop by and post my question here... All i want is a 'fake-frame' layout, that looks like if it had a top header frame, and the main content scroll down behind the header, like this site i did, with some help of course, from a couple of websites and some tyssens advice i think (i always end up using tyssens advice =P thanks!). The above site is pure xhtml strict (except on two form pages, which i switched to transitional for some troubles reggarding the way php manages POST variables sent from the xhtml form), and the styles are built down the 'old philosophy', with hacks for IE like the holly hack and others. Im not planning to re-code this one (at least not right now), but what i had achieved here i can not with the newer site im doing, which basically does the same, but without the main menu, and the footer (which i just may add to the layout, just to see it working). I have now a mess of my css, i made and unmade all of it trying to get it right, unsuccesfully, and I just got tired of it. The principles are to fix (position:fixed) the header position for good browsers, and set it 'absolute' for IE, and then get IE (and only IE) with a 19px margin right on the body to emulate the space of the vertical scroll (setting in the div#content the scroll property to auto), and leave all good browsers manage the scroll automatically from the body. I first saw this on a css driven wordpress template, called 'fake frame theme' or something, and I learnt everything I now know from it (regarding this kind of layout, that is), but as I said above, I'd like to try to stick to this ideology on the way we 'hack' css.... Thanks in advance...

Is your html written by server side code? This might be one problem, other could be (depending on your content) the configuration of the server itself, does the programming require something that the server (apache, or php or whatever) needs to have additional settings?Do you have a link to the site on the web?If you are going to use IE at least have your code in valid xhtml (if you have not done so already), that will be the first step.

Hehe I agree with both of you. I dont think its valid (Im talking about me here) to sit back and not care for details, but when you it gets overwhelming amounts of time and just cant get it done... I think its pointless to go further, considering that you've already learnt a lot trying to achieve that...Anyway, I dont think I have came to a site or a tutorial that can help you additionally to what has already been said here, but if I do, I'll post it here (I'm working with a couple of sites that require a form, so Im taking a close look to this cross browser xhtml forms-formatting stuff)...Good day (at least in my world =P )

Yes, that is one thing i dislike of hotscripts, you go and seek for certain things (i usually dont take enough time to look too deeply) that you need fast, and you find lots of stuff that is not open source... I mean I know i have to take the time to understand the code or to find a free script, but, when you are in a hurry or when it is not worth it and you need something fast, you can get seriously annoyed by these facts... I used to go to php dot net the first place to search for scripts, but thanx for those sites, this site (php.net) is sometimes too technical for newbies...

Nice article Tyssen, some one took a lot of time to test this... I come to the conclusion that you dont HAVE to format it exactly the same for everybrowser, It would take too much time to fix little differences and if in the end is still usable, why should we worry that much? adly300 There is a css code to change it, it would be like this: select {background: white url(select-bg.gif) top left no-repeat;} And for good browsers you can add a :hover pseudoattribute to the rule, and even a :focus...

Thanx Tyssen its a nice tip ill google it... And kvkv thanx for that link, ill give it a try, i havent tested it yet but the main page displays this as a feature:Multiple fs, string, and binary attachments (those from database, string, etc)Im not sure if it is what i need, do you know something about it? I dont want to upload files to a database but to send them right through the form... thanks a lot!

I dont think I understood everything, could you post a link to the website? From my point of view you have the answer yourself, Im not an advanced js programmer but i think that if you set those 'onkeydown' events for different keys, you can tell js to set the focus to the div you want, I think it would be something like this:setfocus(document.myform.yerDiv)

Hi, I've had this trouble for a time now, I use dreamweaver to develop the sites I work with, and dw always writes the code for me (not that I don't know anything about xhtml, in fact i consider myself and advanced user of xhtml, but I know that its faster to use dreamweaver to code than write it down from scratch, and I can still fix the little issues that dw generates into the code).But the fact is that I work with websites that need the content in spanish, so I use html entities to declare special characters such ? ? ? ? ? or ?, all of which always behave well with a charset=iso-8859-1. The problem is when it comes to the Title attribute, because it doesnt seem to allow entities, but Im not sure if it is still showing correctly in other countries... Does some one know something about this?

How is that? cleaning any input? You mean from the html form itself? Could you teach us how to do so? Thanx a lot Tyssen, but Im not sure if this is a tip for sending secure mail through php or actually about the thread's topic... I mean no offense...

Hi dog eater, I find myself in the same problem as you. I tried looking a little bit in google and php dot net but Im also an amateur... I have a working php sendmail script, which I adapted from different stuff I found here and there, I didnt write the whole thing but I made the final mix... I know (guess you already know this too) how to send mail, the most basic line to achieve so is this:mail($admin_mail, $subject, $content, $headers)Where admin mail is the mail you want the message to be sent, and the headers are additional information which is optional. Subject and Content I think that are obvious. But the command to attach a file is what is missing, and I dont know either how to do it...Hope someone could help us both.. thanks in advance Ill keep browsing the web for it but would apreciate a lot yer help...

There was a while when I was worried about javascript, that most users would have it off. But I started to rely more on it because some times its the only way to do things. I know you just said that "don't recommend relying on JS todo THOSE things", But I would like to make my point here, from this perspective, that there are things that can't ve done any other way, and that there is not THAT much people having js turned out, I would recommend every body to trust javascript in everything you need. I have these stats from google analytics, since the 19th of november until yesterday, 382,418 visits have come to a site i mantain, and only .95 % of the visits have javascript disabled. Besides i think that at least half of those .95 % (well that's just what i think) actually KNOW that they have turned it off, and that they might not see every aspect of some sites, so they could turn it on sometimes to check out what they missed... And as for the rest of them, I think depending on the site, it is a percentage which we can afford to 'lose'... Notice from jlhaslip: edit as per report