|
|
In our project we are facing problems of
wrapping text in panels and all.With
There is no problem with Internet Explorer.
But with MOZILLA text is not Wrapped.
jophin
|
|
|
|
|
Um... shucks, what sort of an answer is even possible here, considering there was no actual question...
ah!
"there, there"
---- I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
|
|
|
|
|
Type "Mozilla wrap" into google and you'd gets loads...
I found this:- it gets my 5! 
"I have a great fix for Firefox, Opera, and any other Mozilla-based browsers that can't render forms properly:
Use INTERNET EXPLORER! That's the browser that comes as part of the Microsoft Windows Operating System. You see, when you develop an operatibg system, you (not some geek in Geneva) get to set the standards. Internet Explorer is designed to be FORGIVABLE of many coding errors that would drive Mozilla browsers up a wall. You see, the standards aren't set by W3C, but rather they are set by Microsoft. If you can't live with this then invent your own operating system an d market it.
Sometimes I think that many of you geeks are masochists at heart, because you seem to keep coming back for more everytime you get burned by a Mozilla browser. Again, W3C doesn't set any rules that Microsoft is bound to respect, because the Windows operating System is owned by Microsoft, not W3C, so Bill and Steve just chuckle and proceed to do things as they wish. In the meantime the geeks spend much of their time hunting for fixes and patches so that somehow their Mozilla (Godzilla?) browser can be made to work with a Gateszilla system.
Hang it up, already! Did you not learn anything from the Netscape Navigator experience? Say no to crapware!"
(found on http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/2002/03/17/mozilla_textarea_wraps.html[^])
|
|
|
|
|
You see, the standards aren't set by W3C, but rather they are set by Microsoft.
Complete rubbish. Microsoft is a member of W3C.
---
single minded; short sighted; long gone;
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but his implication is that Microsoft, being as big as they are, can ignore the W3C or not, as they Will. In other words, that they are a member of it for political reasons rather then anything else. After all, why else isn't IE 100% W3C compliant?
|
|
|
|
|
What can you do to make your web applcation look the same on different computers with different displays
|
|
|
|
|
Ship identical displays to all users? 
Seriously though, if the displays are different enough, there's not a lot you can do about it. Your best bet is probably to aim for usability on various sizes, resolutions, and color depths... while accepting that the way some things look may need to change in order to allow for it.
Guidelines? How bout:
- Don't use fixed widths for content areas.
- Don't blindly force multiple columns - allow the page to reflow if there isn't room for (say) content and nav bar side-by-side.
- Use images of modest size.
- Test your site with stylesheets disabled, in smaller windows, in larger windows, in different browsers...
---- I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
Is it possible to set Functional key such as F1,F2,F3,etc as shortcut key to a button using javascript? If yes give me a explanation with example code.and also F1 seems to be a help but it should be worked as per our requirement,the help should be ignored..Any sugesstion Plz..
Regards
Kanna
|
|
|
|
|
hi
i have tried the following code but its not working,
1>
<br />
Response.Write "<Th align=""center""><FONT FACE=""ARIAL"" SIZE=""1"" color=""#800000"">" & formatnumber( rs1.Fields(i),0)& "</FONT></Th>"<br />
its giving me the following error
Error Type:
Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A000D)
Type mismatch: 'formatnumber'
/allpage.asp, line 126
2>i also used format instead of format ,still no result
here i am displaying the numbers from ms access database
any idea?
|
|
|
|
|
1) Can you confirm the following:- What is the data-type of the columns in the resultset. I would expect this sort of error if you are trying to format strings or null values.
- What happens if you use
FormatNumber(CCur(rs1.Fields(i),0)? - That you don't have any variables or functions in your own code that are called "FormatNumber".
- That you have
<%@ Language=VBScript %> at the top of your page to ensure that your code is being processed as VbScript rather than as JavaScript.
2) You say that you "used format instead of format". Can you clarify what you were smoking when you keyed that ?
Regards
Andy
If you want to thank me for my help, please vote my message by clicking one of numbers beside "Rate this message".
|
|
|
|
|
hi boss
sorry for disturbing you..for my silly mistakes
let me reply your question:
1>i check with my database,and eventually there was null value
2>when i put some value ,there was no utility of using ccur
3>i dont have variables or functions in my code that called "FormatNumber".
4>hey but there is
<%@ Language=VBScript %> at top of my page
:->
thanks a lots for the help.![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
have a nice weekend
|
|
|
|
|
(I thought I'd spare the soapbox.. besides, this is particulary a web development rant...)
I hate CSS
I really, really, hate CSS....
Wasted a whole effing day farting around trying to get my CSS layout to behave across all browsers - it was fine in IE but not FF - margins around images weren't right... tried all possible combinationsa of border, margin and padding settings, and "hacks" for the different browsers.... finally discovered that by simply changing the first line of my page from
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
(my VS2003 default)
to
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
it works fine!
But even so, I've got a stylesheet a mile long to do something which, were it not for the style fascist police threatening me with everlasting exile for using tables to layout my page, I could have done in half an hour on day one with barely 20 lines of HTML.
I don't object to standards per se, and the idea behind separating style from content obviously makes sense... but the implementation, the way CSS has developed, is just plain godawful. It's a mess. I hate it.
grr
fred
|
|
|
|
|
for me, I love CSS
Thanks and Regards,
Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net)
If you want to thank me for my help, please vote my message by clicking one of numbers beside "Rate this message". Why vote? Plz Read it here. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, i gotta tell ya, CSS is great. I write the code to spew out bare-bones HTML, check that the content is correct, tweak the generator for speed / flexibility / whatever, and then spend the rest of the day hanging styles off of it all 'till it looks pretty.
It's so much better than the mouldering piles of HTML i was putting together eight years ago that... well, it just ain't even funny.
But, uh, yeah - about your problem. You made one big mistake - and it wasn't the doctype thing: you didn't make it work in FF first and then add hacks for IE. Trust me, it's much easier to add the hacks for IE to make it act somewhat proper (there are many, many good sites dedicated to collecting and disseminating such hacks) than it is to find hacks to make FF act improper. The hack you did use just threw it into "quirks" mode, which - trust me - will come back to bite you...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- C hris L osinger, Online Poker Players?
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: The hack you did use just threw it into "quirks" mode, which - trust me - will come back to bite you...
Oh... What that a hack then? Is it somehow less valid than the doctype definition VS put in? How and why will it come back to haunt me?
I do understand the argument for CSS - I just wish it could have been made a little more intuitive, and (more importantly) actually work consistently...
|
|
|
|
|
Fred_Smith wrote: I do understand the argument for CSS - I just wish it could have been made a little more intuitive, and (more importantly) actually work consistently...
The browsers aren't consistent! CSS is a standard and the makers of the browsers come close to the standard. However, each browser is not consistant in formatting HTML elements on a page and this also creates problems with CSS. CSS actually exposes a browser's non-standard behavior.
"We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give." --Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Fred_Smith wrote: Is it somehow less valid than the doctype definition VS put in? How and why will it come back to haunt me?
The one you're using now will trigger "Quirks mode" - essentially a rendering mode where browsers (including IE) try to match the rendering of older versions of IE... It's working for you now, because you wrote to IE... but if you're looking for consistency, you'll find yourself badly disappointed: as poor as most browsers are at implementing the CSS standard, they're generally a bit worse when trying to match the (*ahem*) organic standard that is classic IE rendering... So next time you find a discrepancy between IE and FF, or IE and Opera, or IE and Safari, you'll have no choice but to delve into the realm of browser-specific hacks - and, as those ironically ironic kids are fond of saying, "here there be dragons". 
---- I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
|
|
|
|
|
well.. no doubt.... perhaps you can explain why the below is only consistemt with the "quirks mode" doctype then.. and suggest what I should do to achieve my aim with the "proper" doctype set - which is to have a 17px space between the image and the boxes below (which should also have a 17px between them, and (incidently) a 17px "inner-padding" where some text will be)
Simple task, eh?
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<HEAD>
<title></title>
<style>
#rightcolumn {
color: #333;
border-style: none;
border-width: 0;
background: #ffffff;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
padding: 17px 0 17px 17px;
width: 154px;
float: left;
}
#rightcolumn img {
margin : 0 0 17px 0;
padding: 0;
}
.rhOrange {
width : 120px;
background-color : #dd8833;
padding: 17px 17px 17px 17px;
margin : 0 0 17px 0;
border-style:none;
.rhSky {
width : 120px;
background-color : #ccddee;
padding: 17px 17px 17px 17px;
margin : 0 0 17px 0;
border-style:none;
border-width ;
}
</style>
</HEAD>
<body>
<div id="rightcolumn">
<img src="image.gif" width="154" height="172" border="0" alt="">
<div class="rhOrange">
abc
</div><div class="rhSky">
xyz
</div>
</div>
</body>
</HTML>
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh.
Ok, so, i was wrong.
The doctype you're using now doesn't put either browser into quirks mode, so... that's good. Ignore my dire warnings.
The effect you saw from changing it has to do with something else... Apparently, <img> elements are considered, strictly-speaking, to be inline elements, and thus FF will reserve a bit of space below them unecessarily... The second doctype you used triggers - in FF - an "almost-strict" mode that doesn't do this little bit of madness for images.
So, yeah. I understand your frustration now.
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- C hris L osinger, Online Poker Players?
|
|
|
|
|
PAH! Do I feel vindicated or what?
A pox on CSS! A pox on Firefox!
(Sorry - and btw, thanks!)
I want to start a new self-help group for all who are suffering under this torture in the name of standards and uniformity. Think I'll call it:
"Fighting Under CSS or Friendly Fire" - known as FUCSS OFF for short...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I have - more than one. But if you read the above posts, I think you'll accept that this particular issue wasn't *entirely* my fault... it's not that I can't use CSS - just that it's so much more cumbersome to use, and "clumsy", than it ought to be...
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Fred_Smith wrote: I think you'll accept that this particular issue wasn't *entirely* my fault... it's not that I can't use CSS - just that it's so much more cumbersome to use, and "clumsy", than it ought to be...
The reason that it is cumbersome is because not all browsers are implemented the same. That is a browser implementation problem. Even table implementation is not totally consistent between all browsers.
Getting browsers to behave is like trying to herd cats, they all have their own agenda.
I don't agree that CSS implementation is "clumsy" (your words). It is a different paradigm that must be learned, but when you do finally figure out how to implement it properly you will have a very versatile tool to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
HTML:
<font face="abc,def" size="X" color="#cccccc">hello world</font>
CSS:
Hello world
Now, I want to know how this is styled - perhaps to change it.
In HTML it's there in your face.
In CSS, I have to look back up through the document hierarchy to find out the parent element the text is in, and very possibly the parent of that too, and it's parent.. (depending on how the CSS is written) - I must then find out the CSS file linked to... then find that file... then find the references to the element(s) I noted earlier, and finally I can work out (not "see" but "work out") the style! Then I have to work out what steps are needed to alter it as I require, without some knock-on effect buggering up some style elsewhere....
That isn't clumsy?
Look, I *know* the reasons for all this, and do appreciate them... I just can't help feeling there ought to be a better way...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
