 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / October 2005Problem: Stylesheets don't always load on first try.
http://mysite.verizon.net/gdguarino/montauk.htm You can also click on the other pages of the site if the problem doesn't show itself on this page. I'm using two stylesheets for each page, one with the position and size information for each element and another for the color and background info. The position stylesheet is common to all pages. Sometimes only the "color" stylesheet loads, leaving the page a mess. Reloading the page fixes it. My suspicion is that it's just lousy hosting (Verizon, free with my account). Could it be something else? For instance, is my syntax right for calling up the two stylesheets? (probably not, although it does seem to work). Greg Guarino > http://mysite.verizon.net/gdguarino/montauk.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For instance, is my syntax right for calling up the two stylesheets? > (probably not, although it does seem to work). I see no such problem here. Mozilla v1.7.12. What browser are you using? Have you tried another browser? Is it through a proxy? Did you flush the cache? Remove the "<!-- -->" delimiters. They are unnecessary. Browsers that find those necessary ignore @import anyway. And they may be confusing your browser. Normally the contents are quoted, url("photobasic.css"), to minimize quirks with the OS. Just the quoted filename is normally all that is needed. You really should have a doctype for your pages. It encourages a uniform experience across browsers. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">  Signaturejmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email) >> http://mysite.verizon.net/gdguarino/montauk.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see no such problem here. Mozilla v1.7.12. > What browser are you using? Firefox 1.4 >Have you tried another browser? Not today, but I think it happened in IE as well. >Is it >through a proxy? I'm not sure I know what that is. I've got Verizon DSL at home and at work >Did you flush the cache? I just did now and I can't make the problem occur now, but I suspect that it may only happen after I've changed the pages. > Remove the "<!-- -->" delimiters. They are unnecessary. Browsers that >find those necessary ignore @import anyway. And they may be confusing your >browser. Done. Thanks > Normally the contents are quoted, url("photobasic.css"), to minimize >quirks with the OS. Just the quoted filename is normally all that is needed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> Also done. Thanks again. This is just a photo gallery site I'm putting together in my spare time. I also use it to experiment a bit with web design concepts as I learn them. In other words, it's nothing crucial. I'm still curious to know if this problem shows up on anyone else's computer. Greg Guarino > > You really should have a doctype for your pages. It encourages a > >uniform experience across browsers. > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> > > Also done. Thanks again. Now submit your URL to <http://validator.w3.org/> to validate your HTML and your CSS URL to <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/> to validate your CSS. All kinds of problems can be discovered by submitting the page to these two sites. > This is just a photo gallery site I'm putting together in my spare > time. I also use it to experiment a bit with web design concepts as I > learn them. Those validators will help you in your experiments. > In other words, it's nothing crucial. I'm still curious to > know if this problem shows up on anyone else's computer. There may be other problems to worry about once the page validates. Different browsers display the pages somewhat differently. A lot depends on how much that stresses _you_ out. leo Signature<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/> > Remove the "<!-- -->" delimiters. They are unnecessary. Browsers > that find those necessary ignore @import anyway. The pseudo comments are generally useless alright, but HTML may not necessarily be processed by browsers exclusively. > And they may be confusing your browser. I have about 40 (I think). Which ones of yours get confused (admittedly, I'm not at all taking those into account who cannot resolve virtual hosts without a proxy)? > Normally the contents are quoted, url("photobasic.css"), IIRC there are 5 ways to do that, syntactically; where does it say which one is 'normal'? > to minimize quirks with the OS. I know differences within browsers, but the OS? Which one (I only have 3 [well, 5, but not conveniently], so I'm always curious)? > You really should have a doctype for your pages. What is 'a doctype' (I assume 'document type declaration' and rephrase: 'why')? > It encourages a > uniform experience across browsers. Only in broken software. And all of a sudden, I recall Nielsen's categorical imperative 'users don't scroll'. | In standards-compliant mode, compatibility with other versions of | Internet Explorer is not guaranteed. When standards-compliant mode is | switched on, the rendering behavior of documents might differ in | future versions of Internet Explorer. You should not use this mode for | content that is fixed in nature, such as content that is stored on a | CD. <msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp> >>And they may be confusing your browser. > > I have about 40 (I think). Which ones of yours get confused 40 browsers? Impressive! None, all one of them had no problem. It was conjecture since the OP did not mention which browser he has. >> Normally the contents are quoted, url("photobasic.css"), > > IIRC there are 5 ways to do that, syntactically; where does it say which > one is 'normal'? 5 ways to quote? >>to minimize quirks with the OS. > > I know differences within browsers, but the OS? Which one (I only have > 3 [well, 5, but not conveniently], so I'm always curious)? Right. Quoting gets the string to the OS unchanged. I was vaguely recalling a different problem/solution. >> You really should have a doctype for your pages. > > What is 'a doctype' (I assume 'document type declaration' and rephrase: > 'why')? Now you are just being silly. Signaturejmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email) > 40 browsers? Impressive! Not really. Take NN4; the JS engine differs between subversions and even equal versions on different OSs, so serious retro DHTML development would require some 9-12 NN4 versions alone. ;-) >>> Normally the contents are quoted, url("photobasic.css"), >> IIRC there are 5 ways to do that, syntactically; where does it say >> which one is 'normal'? >> > 5 ways to quote? Bad wording on my account; 5 ways to @import. >> What is 'a doctype' (I assume 'document type declaration' and >> rephrase: 'why')? >> > Now you are just being silly. I'm a very silly person alright, but 'a doctype' is a very silly colloquial expression ('document type declaration'?, acronym for 'document type'?, the 'doctype' keyword in a markup declaration?). As of deliberate abuse of a markup declaration as a processing instruction, I'm not silly at all but just a grumpy old man (especially for IE6, there are pragmatic reasons to avoid 'standards compliance' mode as well). >>>What is 'a doctype' (I assume 'document type declaration' and >>>rephrase: 'why')? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > colloquial expression ('document type declaration'?, acronym for > 'document type'?, the 'doctype' keyword in a markup declaration?). So was I. Maybe pedantic would have been better. Nevertheless, "Doctype" is easier than "Specifying a document type declaration using the DOCTYPE keyword and syntax." Signaturejmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email) > The pseudo comments [in STYLE elements] are generally useless > alright, but HTML may not necessarily be processed by browsers > exclusively. If a user agent (including search engine bots) written after HTML 3.2 was published (where STYLE was first 'officially' defined) couldn't handle STYLE elements (or SCRIPT, for that matter) correctly, wouldn't it be broken? Even if it has no intention of using the contents of these elements, it should recognise them and then ignore them. [snip] > | In standards-compliant mode, compatibility with other > | versions of Internet Explorer is not guaranteed. Obviously standards-compliant CSS isn't compatible with earlier versions because they're broken (or is that feature-rich? ;). > | When standards-compliant mode is switched on, the rendering > | behavior of documents might differ in | future versions of > | Internet Explorer. Indeed. However, evidence would suggest that those changes would mean that IE will be better at rendering documents correctly, which I hardly think is a bad thing (as long as bugs are /fixed/, not introduced). [snip] Mike SignatureMichael Winter Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail. > If a user agent (including search engine bots) written after HTML 3.2 > was published (where STYLE was first 'officially' defined) couldn't > handle STYLE elements (or SCRIPT, for that matter) correctly, wouldn't > it be broken? Sure; that knowledge doesn't really help, however, if you are stuck with the offending party for one reason or another. > Indeed. However, evidence would suggest that those changes would mean > that IE will be better at rendering documents correctly, which I > hardly think is a bad thing (as long as bugs are /fixed/, not > introduced). IE 6 did as a matter of fact introduce new, exclusive bugs in its 'standards compliance' mode, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Signaturehexadecimal EBB decimal 3771 octal 7273 binary 111010111011 >> If a user agent [...] couldn't handle STYLE elements [...] >> correctly, wouldn't it be broken? > > Sure; that knowledge doesn't really help, however, if you are stuck > with the offending party for one reason or another. If there was absolutely no way around it (the software isn't maintained any more, for instance), then using linked style sheets would seem to be a better solution. >> [...] (as long as bugs are /fixed/, not introduced). > > IE 6 did as a matter of fact introduce new, exclusive bugs in its > 'standards compliance' mode, so I wouldn't hold my breath. That was optimism, not realism. :) I wouldn't expect any non-trivial software to be released without /some/ bugs (even just one). All end users, myself included, would love for software to be free of bugs. I'm also sure that many Web developers would love for IE to implement relevant standards[1] correctly (and bug-free), before arsing around with proprietary features. Neither's likely to happen. Mike SignatureMichael Winter Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail. > And all of a sudden, I recall Nielsen's categorical imperative 'users > don't scroll'. >> In standards-compliant mode, compatibility with other versions of >> Internet Explorer is not guaranteed. When standards-compliant mode is >> switched on, the rendering behavior of documents might differ in >> future versions of Internet Explorer. You should not use this mode for >> content that is fixed in nature, such as content that is stored on a >> CD. > <msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp> Ho hum, and are we surprised that Microsoft would advocate against doing something properly, because it might bugger up in their software? I'm not. Though, of course, just about every single release of IE has behaved differently, I don't expect future ones to be any better, and not complying with standards is only going to make things worse (for you and them), in the future. Based on past behaviour, I don't see any reason why deliberately using crap HTML is going to give you more consistent results than using HTML nicely. I'd say that their, "You should not use this mode for ..." comment is outright bad advice. SignatureIf you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to. This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself. > Based on past behaviour, I don't see any reason why deliberately using > crap HTML is going to give you more consistent results than using HTML > nicely. > > I'd say that their, "You should not use this mode for ..." comment is > outright bad advice. I'd say that doctype sniffing and the quality of the document instance set have nothing to do with eachother in the first place. (and I actually think it's good advice, since IE6' opt-in mechanism for 'standards' just introduces an additional layer of headache with no benefit at all in return, not even the certainty that it will actually apply at the other end of the wire) Signaturehexadecimal EBB decimal 3771 octal 7273 binary 111010111011 Tim: >> Based on past behaviour, I don't see any reason why deliberately using >> crap HTML is going to give you more consistent results than using HTML >> nicely. >> >> I'd say that their, "You should not use this mode for ..." comment is >> outright bad advice. Eric B. Bednarz: > I'd say that doctype sniffing and the quality of the document instance set > have nothing to do with eachother in the first place. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > benefit at all in return, not even the certainty that it will actually > apply at the other end of the wire) I strongly disagree. Telling someone to use HTML 4 transitional, which should have been stamped out years ago, instead of using strict, *IS* bad advice. Why not go as far back and say use HTML 3? There's a lot of things wrong with the old ways of doing things, and we should be discouraging people from carrying on with the crap. I seriously doubt we'll ever see MSIE do things right. Feeding it poor stuff in the hope that you'll get the effect you want by exploiting the bugs in a way you hope they'll react is bad advice. SignatureIf you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to. This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself. > Eric B. Bednarz: > >> I'd say that doctype sniffing and the quality of the document instance set >> have nothing to do with eachother in the first place. [...] > I strongly disagree. Telling someone to use HTML 4 transitional, which > should have been stamped out years ago, instead of using strict, *IS* bad > advice. I don't see any notion of 'HTML 4 transitional' in the text I cited. You can just drop the document type declaration cruft altogether to initiate quirks-mode. We are talking about *rendering modes* here, not document types. Every UA that actually has such a featureswitch depending on a totally pointless -- in this matter -- markup declaration is clue-disabled bozoware, and when dealing with the latter it is good practice to always operate on the lowest common denominator available. (The only 'standard' that Mozilla, Opera, Safari et al really support is the one established by Mosaic.) Signaturehexadecimal EBB decimal 3771 octal 7273 binary 111010111011 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.