StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It has fucked up support for the position:fixed CSS propert. It doesn't ignore it like it's supposed to if it does not understand it, it fucks up the formatting.
You have to use a stupid workaround or javascript. Damn if the workaround works, it isn't so hard to make the standard property work , is it? Another example of M$ ignoring standards. (Actually it's not a standard, it's a "recommendation", but anything from the W3C should have the force of a standard. It doesn't matter anyways, since M$ have broken real standards before anyways.

The box model is not implemented correctly, so I can't just say bottom:x amount of pixels and be done with it, so a page works the same at all resolutions.

DOM2 implementation is shitty, so you have to use non-standard IE-only code, then use a detection script. (I don't know javascript yet though, so DOM support does not matter for now).

Opera 6 sucks too. Never used Opera 7

Dammit MS might as well take advantage of the MPL's lax restrictions and incorporate Gecko into the browser.

IE 7 better be standards compliant or I will be pissed. Fat chance though. They'll probably ignore that and focus on "integrating" it with .NET


Is there a way to disable browser capability in Konqueror?

Hrm...I don't recall having any issues with that in IE6 before...you are declaring the DOCTYPE at the head of the document, right?

phongn wrote:Hrm...I don't recall having any issues with that in IE6 before...you are declaring the DOCTYPE at the head of the document, right?

Yes, validates perfectly with the W3C validator.

Strange...

Demo:
http://www.geocities.com/jhnphm/test.zip

Note: Button does not validate page correctly off the hard drive, have to upload it. Geocities put's incompliant code at the end of the page, so I zipped it. There is some extraneous stylesheet info (I basically stripped out everything from the page I made for my sister), but that shouldn't do anything.

Display it in both IE and Mozilla. It's supposed to produce a frame-like effect without using frames.

It's a pretty well known problem, but M$ has decided to ignore it. It's supported in Mac IE, but not Windows IE.
Google Search

Internet Explorer on Windows isn't fully CSS1 compliant; it is compliant with the CSS1 Core spec. Notice how it utterly fails to render CSS Edge's pages correctly.

Position:fixed is a CSS2 property, I think.

Damn, just noticed I accidently deleted the html tag. Still validates though.



Dammit, IE doesn't support background-attachment:fixed either?


does work with background: fixed. However the same image cannot be divided among different elements.

Pu-239 wrote:Position:fixed is a CSS2 property, I think.

I don't know, but the page I linked you to only uses CSS2 for roll-over effects. The main show-off trick is using the background-attachment: fixed property.

It doesn't even fully support CSS1..., and only part of CSS2

There is no such thing as CSS1 core, I just read the TR. You are confusing CSS1 w/ CSS2 [edit]nevermind, there is, been skimming too fast[/edit]

This shit browser must die.

JIHAD!!!!!!

Another gripe is no :hover on arbitrary elements like Moz and Opera, though the standard (or recommendation) specificially says:

W3C TR wrote:CSS doesn't define which elements may be in the above states, or how the states are entered and left. Scripting may change whether elements react to user events or not, and different devices and UAs may have different ways of pointing to, or activating elements.

so IE isn't required to support this to comply.

We do know that MS knows how to comply- example the Mac version, they choose not to so they can break standards. [edit]Talking about the position:fixed property[/edit]

CSS2 includes everything under CSS1, and there are no "core" or "advanced" features, so IE should support it anyways. Sure, MS could make the excuse that it's only a "recommendation", but it should be considered a standard until some standards body like ISO makes it one. (these people don't do much, there is not much difference between ISO HTML and W3C HTML 4.01 Strict).

Pu-239 wrote:

It doesn't even fully support CSS1..., and only part of CSS2

There is no such thing as CSS1 core, I just read the TR. You are confusing CSS1 w/ CSS2 [edit]nevermind, there is, been skimming too fast[/edit]

I was gonna say ... considering that Eric Meyer, one of the foremost experts on CSS, said there was ...

This shit browser must die.

JIHAD!!!!!!

Indeed. If Microsoft would quit with their proprietary extension bullshit and just follow the spec, we wouldn't have to worry about this "only works in Internet Explorer" shit. My programming teacher royally pissed me off by writing the course site so that it required Internet Explorer (a JavaScript would complain that you weren't using a piece of shit browser and then close the window), even though the site was usable with Safari or Chimera. Hell, even Internet Explorer 5 on Mac didn't do it entirely correctly.

And what was he doing with the site that absolutely demanded Microsoft's proprietary classes?

Rollover effects for the buttons and fixed-position elements. That's right, he couldn't take the 5 minutes to download a rollover JavaScript for the exact same roll-over effect, nor could he be bothered to learn a trivial aspect of CSS. After all, it's not like anyone uses anything other than Internet Explorer.

We do know that MS knows how to comply- example the Mac version, they choose not to so they can break standards.

The Mac Business Unit is unconcerned with world domination, since they don't write for Winblows.

Get Mozilla.
Mozilla is good.
Mozilla loves you.

I already use Mozilla. It's the other morons who don't that make it annoying to build web pages.

Oh you mean IE-compatible code. Yeah it fucks up all other browsers... and it's not a bug in the browsers, it's bad bad standard use.

Tell me about it. It's either Microsoft's DHTML or no DHTML ...