Print

Print


E f+AOk-sto Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>:
> Moreover, I tried once to make a simple page in XHTML1.0+-CSS to check how
> it worked. Although I made it exactly as indicated by some tutorial site,
> and although it was successfully validated at the site of W3C, it never
> showed up correctly, neither on IE nor on Opera (it just completely
> ignored the CSS). After this, I thought that it wasn't worth it. If it
> cannot be made simple enough that my small attempt, completely following
> the correct rules, would work out correctly, then it is flawed. It's of
> course just a personal opinion, but it is backed by personal experience.

I have learned just recently that Opera (and apparently also Mozilla, and
maybe IE) use a "quirks mode" to display CSS 'broken' (i.e., broken in the
way that people composing it on browsers with broken CSS expected it to
look), and that the !doctype tag is necessary in your document to signal
that you expect it to display properly.

You can use this bookmarklet:
        javascript:alert(document.compatMode)
in Opera to show whether the page shown is in quirks mode or not.

I havnt tested how compatibility modes work, nor do I know whether you
tried it, but it's possible that this may have contributed to your
problem.  [Although I spose on rereading this now that 'completely
ignoring' the CSS may be a sign of a different kind of problem...]


        *Muke!
--
http://frath.net/                  E jer savne zarj+AOk- mas ne
http://kohath.livejournal.com/     Se imn+AOk- koone'f metha
http://kohath.deviantart.com/      Brissve m+AOk- kol+AOk- ad+AOI-.