Tyssen

This may not fix the problem, but you've got a lot of characters missing the ; - e.g.   should be  ;

Your URL doesn't work.

People who THINK they know about standards won't take me seriously because they are too stubborn to understand how standards actually work.  People who ACTUALLY know about standards will agree that the WC3 "standard" is just a pipe dream.

Are you now or have you ever been a professional web designer or work/ed in any other web development related field?

And don't get me started on how stupid the WC3 "standard" is.

Why not get started? No-one who actually knows anything about these things is gonna take your opinion seriously anyway.

You mean to tell me that you have never came accross a javascript page that simply won't work in FireFox?

That's right. And just because a page doesn't work doesn't mean it's the browser's fault. You can't base your assertion on the fact that a few sites you've visited don't work properly. It's more than likely due to developer error.

anyway its not any big problem its just an little exploit and microsoft will soon deliver an patch to fic that problem.

 

Microsoft have a very poor record when it comes to releasing patches to fix faults in their software - soon doesn't ever come into it.

Firefox doen't understand all JS calls that IE does.

Where are you getting this from? Both IE6 & FF support DOM Level 1.

The reason Firefox (everyone says) is more secure is simply because it is a far inferior browser, (that means worse then IE) it doesn't understand advanced JS calls, Several HTML exploits and AciveX one of the biggest security flaws in IE, and because IE is by all accounts more powerful there is more code to find holes in thus resulting in not only a less stable experience, but also a less secure one.

Firefox is more secure cos it's inferior? Firefox doesn't understand JS calls? And IE is more powerful?

I'm not aware of a way to do it without using spans. All the CSS-driven forms I've seen have done it that way. If you want to see a souped-up CSS tableless form, check out this.

I use php to take care of that. By showing one layout for Mozilla users and one layout for IE users. That way i wont have to worry much about if something looks bad in a certain browser or not.

Doesn't that create twice as much work for you when you could really just get it to work right in both?
When designing websites, especially when using CSS, it's a good idea to get your site looking right in Firefox (which adheres more closely to the standards thatn IE) and then use various techniques/hacks to get it working right in IE. There are certain CSS selectors you can use to target certain rules at IE which other modern browsers ignore.

In my opinion , no one is missing the point . PHP's purpose isn't to output data on a page , it's purpose is to execute basically anything server side eg. sql query's , you don't see these querys get executed but you can output the results but all im saying is that its true purpose is not to display on a page , that's html's job

206864[/snapback]

So you're disagreeing with me while at the same time reiterating my point.......riiiiiiiight.

There's also a plug-in you can get for Photoshop which lets you save your own .ico files.

I must add that one can use PHP to create programs just as he would use any other programing language.

Yes and in that case, there's even less point comparing PHP & HTML cos then they're doing entirely different things.

You're gonna bar Opera users from your site just cos a javascript counter doesn't work properly?

I think everyone's missing the point that the end result of PHP is that it actually outputs HTML to the web browser, the same with nearly all scripting languages designed for web delivery. So, in other words, you can't have PHP without HTML (well you could, but the user wouldn't see anything).

When internally referencing other files within a script (such as via PHP's include() or require() functions), you should always prefix it with $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] so as to ensure the correct file is being accessed.

Which is what I just said. It should be pointed out, however, that using $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] is not a reliable method when running PHP on IIS.

You've gone one step further there Lozbo in that you're talking about list menus with dropdown list menus. Of course you can create a list menu without it having an attached dropdown.

As for the javascript for IE thing, there is an alternative: whatever:hover which does for :hover in IE what all other modern browsers do by default.

On Apache servers you can append your path to $_SERVER['docroot'] which equals public_html/folder1/file1 etc for whatever box you're hosted on.

I'm missing out on women in underwear? Maybe I should uninstall Adblock.

If you want a good site with tutorials on how to create horizontal and vertical menus using lists, check out Listamatic.

Filenames definitely are taken into consideration by search engine spiders. That's why a lot of sites use mod rewrite to change database entries into more meaningful file names.

The ampersands shouldn't have any effect on the rest of your layout.

Seems like you've got a bit of a case of divitis going on there (too many divs). Also, it's usually recommended that you use style names that describe the nature of the content (not the appearance cos you might want that to change at some point), rather than non-descriptive terms like style13, style22.

but for the other I was thinking more like an individual ID for each div that will have a different image, but i wanted to avoid that.

The only way you'll be able to target different background images for each <li> will be to give each an ID.
The question you need to ask yourself though is: are the images just decoration or are they actual content?
If they're decoration and don't actually say anything about the content of the page, use background images, but if they're a graphic representation of places that you can go, I'd recommend putting them in your HTML as images, because they are content.

So I think you may have misunderstood what this organization does.

No, I think it's you who's misunderstood. If the validator finds errors, they're errors, not compliance issues. Just cos your site might display how you think it should doesn't mean that your code doesn't have errors, especially if you're using a loose doctype (or even if you have one at all).