• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Please Critique

D

Dagatech

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2001
Messages
1,170
http://www.ud-dems.com/

Just got around to actually finishing the page. Its valid XHTML 1.1, as well as CSS 2 i think. Most of the text is still filler, just there to take up space.

The header image is being done by a friend, so the flag thingie is just there as a placeholder. I have no idea what color scheme the final header is gonna be.

please, any criticisms/comments would be appreciated. Thanks!!
 
the layout is *i think* messed up. the upcoming events(main content) is showing up way too far down. like below all the little ads on the left.
 
hmm, i tested in Mozilla, IE 5.5, and Opera. Figures that the one browser i don't have is the one that screws up.

alright, i'll deal with it in the morning. i really need sleep now.
 
it does something similar to that screenshot in firebird.

maybe you could add some more red to the rest of the page to help it tie in with the top banner.
 
okay, this is seriously strange. I just downloaded MyIE 2, and Firebird, and both of them render it correctly on my computer! I'll check with IE 6 on someones comp, but why would different computers render it differently using the same browser????

i'm really confused by this, it works fine for me in every browser except IE 6!
 
Originally posted by jizzypop
it does something similar to that screenshot in firebird.

maybe you could add some more red to the rest of the page to help it tie in with the top banner.
Click to expand...
that banner is just a placeholder, a friend is creating an actual banner. Once i have that and see what the colors are like, then I will make any adjustments to the page.
 
Originally posted by Dagatech
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.ud-dems.com

w3 says that it's valid.....

edit -- oh, reading the links i see what you mean...

okay maybe i'll change the doctype

edit2 -- i just changed the doctype to application/xhtml+xml, and it still says that the page is valid. so should i still change the doctype?
Click to expand...

You have to send the document as application/xhtml+xml - that has nothing to do with the doctype (and a meta tag wont work). You have to actively know what the UA is asking for.

If you can't find that information out then you need to use HTML 4.01 Strict.
 
yea i did change it to html 4 strict. decided it was easier than trying to find out lots of stuff i dont really care about :) thanks for the info tho
 
huh, well its getting better, now the 'upcoming events' is a little higher up but still way to far down, and the banner is left aligned now.
 
Originally posted by doh
No it isn't.
Click to expand...
XHTML does not need to be sent as application/xhtml+xml to be valid.

XHTML (esp. 1.1) should be sent as application/xhtml+xml but it doesn't need to be sent as such. It can be sent as text/html without consequence.

Ian Hixie's XHTML-Mime-type rant is idealistic (which isn't a bad thing) but it holds little or no real-world merit. XHTML can be viewed as HTML, XML, or XHTML. That's the whole point of XHTML. You cannot, therefore, truthfully say that it is invalid to send it as any one of the three. You may, however, truthfully say that it's preferred by its creators that you don't send it as HTML or XML.

I ask you, doh, for the sake of accuracy, to please either be entirely truthful when presenting this "argument." What you say is very misleading and it does harm not only to your argument but to the opinion of XHTML in general. Your own opinions aside, it is irresponsible to be telling such half-truths.
 
can anyone understand why the same browser would render it differently??? I've tested using Mozilla, IE 5.5, MyIE 2, Opera, and Firebird. It looks perfect in all of those except Opera, and its only a little screwed up in Opera. but if it renders wrong for others in Firebird and MyIE 2, then i don't kno whats going on.

bromide, what resolution are you running at? I'm at 1280x960. resolution shouldn't make a difference tho, so i'm seriously confused.
 
Originally posted by MalusCaelestis
It can be sent as text/html without consequence.
Click to expand...

Not when my UA specifically asks for application/xhtml+xml.

You need a good reason to send XHTML as text/html - laziness is not a valid reason. The UA doesn't request (or support) it, however, is a valid reason.

I was purposefully curt with my reply: XHTML SHOULD be sent as application/xhtml+xml unless there is a good reason to send it as something else. I linked the mime-type specifications so the original poster can see the error of his ways and suggested he use HTML 4.01 Strict (as Ian Hixie does) if he can't change his webserver's behavior.
 
Originally posted by doh
Not when my UA specifically asks for application/xhtml+xml.

You need a good reason to send XHTML as text/html - laziness is not a valid reason. The UA doesn't request (or support) it, however, is a valid reason.

I was purposefully curt with my reply: XHTML SHOULD be sent as application/xhtml+xml unless there is a good reason to send it as something else. I linked the mime-type specifications so the original poster can see the error of his ways and suggested he use HTML 4.01 Strict (as Ian Hixie does) if he can't change his webserver's behavior.
Click to expand...
.....yea im not even going to pretend to understand that :) i've just made the page html 4 strict, since there wasn't a real reason i had it as xhtml. people on here had been saying some time ago that it was such a small jump that you might as well do it, but its not really important.

meanwhile, can anyone tell me why IE 6 is such a royal pain in the ass to code for??? :mad:
 
i am at 1152x864

well, it looks like it keeps slowly moving upward...but it is still kinda screwy looking.
 
okay, i THINK i fixed it. I mean, it still looks kinda screwy, but two people have looked at it with IE 6 and say it is the correct height and stuff.

now if i can just figure out why the borders are such a pain.

anyone know what the problem is? my style sheet is http://www.ud-dems.com/style.css , if anyone can figure out whats wrong i would really appreciate it.
 
Originally posted by doh
Not when my UA specifically asks for application/xhtml+xml.
Click to expand...
What is the real-world consequence of sending XHTML as text/html to Opera? And by that I don't mean "it's not what my browser prefers." I mean how it affects the experience of the user who doesn't care about MIME-types. Although I haven't used Opera in quite some time, I believe there is no difference in the end result as far as the user is concerned.

You need a good reason to send XHTML as text/html - laziness is not a valid reason. The UA doesn't request (or support) it, however, is a valid reason.
Click to expand...
I agree that laziness isn't a good reason. But most people that use XHTML don't know about the application/xhtml+xml MIME-type (it's hardly publicized by any place you might actually learn XHTML). Add to that the fact that one can't expect every user of XHTML to have a Web server with .htaccess mojo enabled and you have the reason why the situation is the way it is.

But I'm sure you already know all this. Which is why you should take a different approach: instead of telling them to do something different (like use HTML), tell them how they can still use XHTML and do what is preferred.

Originally posted by Dagatech
can anyone understand why the same browser would render it differently??? I've tested using Mozilla, IE 5.5, MyIE 2, Opera, and Firebird. It looks perfect in all of those except Opera, and its only a little screwed up in Opera. but if it renders wrong for others in Firebird and MyIE 2, then i don't kno whats going on.
Click to expand...
Might I suggest that, in the future, you begin by designing your site in Mozilla/Firebird first? Its rendering engine is currently the most standards-adherent out there. After it looks good in that browser, you can go back and add tweaks and hacks to make it work in the less-adherent browsers. This way you're starting out with correct behavior, which should help in the long run.
 
Originally posted by MalusCaelestis
Might I suggest that, in the future, you begin by designing your site in Mozilla/Firebird first? Its rendering engine is currently the most standards-adherent out there. After it looks good in that browser, you can go back and add tweaks and hacks to make it work in the less-adherent browsers. This way you're starting out with correct behavior, which should help in the long run.
Click to expand...
I did :) mozilla has always been my primary browser for this site, i've always made sure that it works in there and IE 5.5 both as thats what I have on my computer. the problem is that i don't have IE 6 on this computer, so testing in that is difficult. but i've been sure to keep the site working in the other two. My question was, why would two different computers, both using IE 6, render the page differently? because they are the same browser....I guess it was kinda confusing. Oh well, it seems to be working pretty well now.
 
Originally posted by Dagatech
the problem is that i don't have IE 6 on this computer, so testing in that is difficult.
Click to expand...


ummm.... yeah.... you can download that for free.....
 
some of your widths and heights says "000px" where some say "000" I would make them all state px see if that helps out. Some browsers dont like pixel or percent not being specified. and could cause the overflow your getting on some browsers. On a side note the layout is kinda "everyone has this" looking. and i wouldnt advertise its valid code because most people dont care and the ones that do will check validation anyways.
 
Originally posted by berky
ummm.... yeah.... you can download that for free.....
Click to expand...
i know :rolleyes: when i tried to install it last time, it royally screwed up my computer and i don't want to try again. plus, ie 5.5 works fine considering that i rarely use it. I'm a mozilla fan :cool:
 
Originally posted by Ruckus
some of your widths and heights says "000px" where some say "000" I would make them all state px see if that helps out. Some browsers dont like pixel or percent not being specified. and could cause the overflow your getting on some browsers. On a side note the layout is kinda "everyone has this" looking. and i wouldnt advertise its valid code because most people dont care and the ones that do will check validation anyways.
Click to expand...
...where did you see that? i just checked the css, only found it in one place.

i know that the site has a very commonplace look. The point is to be extremely minimal, so that everyone can get to what they need very quickly. this isn't meant to be a flashy, cool site. just plain, simple, and fast, while looking reasonably professional.

i'm advertising the valid stuff because i hope to encourage those who ARE professional web designers to do the same. i mean, if i can code a site that validates then everyone else should be able to as well.
 
Just checked your page in Opera 7.5pr1 and Firebird 0.7.

It looks the same in both.

As for the xhtml 1.1 deal, it is not recommended to serve it as text/html, but you can do it anyways. Of course if you code correctly, there's only one reason not to serve it as application/xhtml+xml and that's IE (and possilbly konqueror). (remember w3c only recommends you use application/xhtml+xml for xhtml)

Opera handles XHTML 1.1 very well and in a lot of cases better than Gecko, but that all depends on the situation.

It also depends on what version of Opera you are using. Opera 7.5pr1 fixed some rendering bugs in 7.23, but 7.5pr1 has a few regresion bugs.

With all that said, using HTML 4.01 as text/html is perfect because just about every browser will be happy.

On a side note, I have a XHTML 1.1 page that I serve as both text/html and applicatoin/xhtml+xml and they both look the same. They code is the same between the 2 versions exept for the xhtml+xml version has an xml declaration and grabs the style sheet with an xml style sheet declaration instead of a link tag.

There was really no reason to server it as xthml+xml, but I did anyways.
 
i'm assuming then that it looked correct in both of those browsers??

yea i knew that there wasn't any real reason to make it a xhtml file, i had sorta thought that since it was so easy to make it one i might as well. but the browser rendering issues are better with html4, so thats how it stays!
 
Originally posted by MalusCaelestis
What is the real-world consequence of sending XHTML as text/html to Opera?
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Opera's programmers programmed fault tolerance for inept webmasters who send XHTML content as text/html. In most cases Opera will guess what the author meant and render it properly.

XHTML documents are not HTML - they are XHTML, and they have a different mime-type associated with them.
 
Other than being a Democrat website ;) :D jk.. to each his own...

I did notice an issue when resizing the window in IE6; it did not re-render properly.

ud-dems.jpg


Al Gore hall?
 
Originally posted by doh
*sigh*

Opera's programmers programmed fault tolerance for inept webmasters who send XHTML content as text/html. In most cases Opera will guess what the author meant and render it properly.
Click to expand...
But am I mistaken in assuming that Opera doesn't render HTML any different from equivalent XHTML, even if it's sent as application/xhtml+xml? Because if there is no difference in how the documents are rendered (ignoring the process and just focusing on the end result) there's not much of a real-world impact.

I'm not saying that everyone should forget about application/xhtml+xml. I'm just saying maybe you should cut those who don't know about it or can't use it a little slack because it really doesn't make much of a difference except in the minds of the few of us who actually care about these things.

XHTML documents are not HTML - they are XHTML, and they have a different mime-type associated with them.
Click to expand...
This is true. But XHTML was meant to be used as HTML, XML, or XHTML. It is not wrong to treat it as any of those, even if it is preferred that it be treated as XHTML.

XHTML was not built to be just HTML or just XML. It was built to be both. To wit, from the XHTML 1.0 spec:
XHTML documents can be written to operate as well or better than they did before in existing HTML�_4-conforming user agents as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user agents.
Click to expand...
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#xhtml

Further, you might want to read the document you linked to earlier:
The 'text/html' media type [RFC2854] is primarily for HTML, not for XHTML. In general, this media type is NOT suitable for XHTML. However, as [RFC2854] says, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.
Click to expand...
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#text-html

To summarize: It's not evil to send XHTML documents as text/html, but try to use application/xhtml+xml when you can.
 
Originally posted by jen4950
Other than being a Democrat website ;) :D jk.. to each his own...

I did notice an issue when resizing the window in IE6; it did not re-render properly.

Al Gore hall?
Click to expand...
thats really weird about the resizing. um...anyone know what to do about that?

and no, not Al Gore Hall. some random family named Gore who donated a lot of money, i think its part of the Dupont family(this entire campus is built with Dupont money)
 
Originally posted by MalusCaelestis
To summarize: It's not evil to send XHTML documents as text/html, but try to use application/xhtml+xml when you can.
Click to expand...

That's my point.

My UA was sending a request for application/xhtml+xml - ignorance (of how to configure the website or ignorance of my UA's request and what it means) is not a defence.

For most people its better to use HTML 4.01 Strict.
 
FYI

Opera uses it's xml parser to render if the page is served as application/xhtml+xml.

If it's served as text/html, opera does not.

You have to consider that because the rules for rendering are different.

If you have an xhtml page, you normally would want opera to be using it's xml parser on the page because it's xml based, but because IE and some other browsers will have a fit, it's not always a good idea.

Opera has a few problems with the xml parser and javascript support that are being worked on. Most of the support is there, but a few functions are not entirely supported yet when inside script containers. I believe full support is supported for mouse events. (except for calls to functions inside script containers that contain not-yet-working functions).

Opera handles xhtml as text/html fine, but not in the same way as it does with it's xml parser.

If xhtml is served as text/html and you want opera to treat it the best that it can, just make sure that you have a proper doctype and character set that invokes standards mode and have compliant code. .Just keep in mind, not every compliant method works the same in all browsers. Compliancy is important, but there's more to it.

Gecko has a few problems with DOM and xhtml served as applicatoin/xhtml+xml also.

So you have to consider that too.

If a lot more people started coding with xhtml and served it as application/xhtml+xml, that might get MS's butt in gear because IE doesn't support it.

Because of the way browsers treat xhtml served as application/xhtml+xml , XHTML becomes super strict, which is a good thing. Documents must be well-formed or the xml parser will throw an error or ignore part of the code. Basically getting closer to the "If it's not perfect, don't render it" mindset.

It's all for the good IMHO.

For opera, it's kind of like this.

xhtml as text/html = HTML 5.0
xhtml as application/xhtml+xml = XML with support for perfectly well-formed HTML 5.0

That's how I look at it in general. (not saying that's how it is EXACTLY, but that's how I look at it) :)
 
Originally posted by Dagatech
thats really weird about the resizing. um...anyone know what to do about that?
Click to expand...


I took a BRIEF look at your code and I think I have it.

Look at your style sheet. In the sheet, you've redifined body to have a CENTER attribute for everything that appears within it.

Howevever, on all of your other definitions, you specify specific positioning for the elements (the content body, the pre-amble header, etc.).

So, since that very top header does not have a sheet to override it, it falls into the BODY definition.

Try setting a style for it that gives specific positioning, or being more lax about the others.

Just my $.02 and after a very brief look....
 
If you are attempting to center the entire page, may I suggest in the body: margin: 0 auto; or whatever spacing you need above and below: 1% auto.

Khem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top