 |
 | 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 / November 2007Viewing in Different Browsers
Greetings everyone. I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that looks good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox. Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible? All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript solutions or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! > Greetings everyone. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting it wrong. Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode. Test in Firefox first. Next validate at http://validator.w3.org Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have to hand. Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.  SignatureRichard. > > Greetings everyone. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate. There are two issues. There's the html first. Does it make sense without the least bit of added style? Will it allow a visitor to get by and read your content, see your pics ok, get to your links? Never mind the no frills look (it is quite a breathtaking relief from some of the contortions some sites manage with their styling. Make sure yours looks useful when it is naked.) Next, time to style the html beyond what is barebones provided by the browser itself. You will save yourself a lot of trouble if you do not insist on results being identical across browsers. Different browsers have different default settings for how they render things. The more you want the same, the more trouble you have to go to, from supplying css to override the different defaults to learning to either design for where the differences are not so noticeable to the extreme of knowing each bug and variation and taking steps to provide some browsers with different style instructions to others via a variety of techniques. Signaturedorayme >> Greetings everyone. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate. Thanks for the advice. I checked the validator and it found that I had 38 errors in the home page alone. I don't think my site would show in most browsers with 38 errors. So I'm going to fix these first. Thanks. > Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! * Begin by making valid code that looks good in FF _first_. This will usually look good in IE too, without further effort. * If it does need work to fix it in IE, then make sure you don't break validity and correct display in FF. Re-check afterwards. * Whenever you post questions to this newsgroup, include a URL. It helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment more than a couple of lines long. >> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment >more than a couple of lines long. Thanks for the advice. Validating it in FF seems to be the most common answer I'm getting. Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online. But, I'll work to get that done as well. Thanks. > Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online. You need to fix that. Sometimes weird behaviour related to HTTP headers (usually crazy HTTP headers) doesn't show up until you see the pages on a web server, not jut through the filesystem. It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few quid for a network cable and a hub. > It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running > Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC > will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few > quid for a network cable and a hub. If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under VirtualPC will suffice. sherm-- SignatureWV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > > It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running > > Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under > VirtualPC will suffice. That takes memory though. I've an endless supply of old PCs that are fit for nothing else than being a low-load non-production web server, but I always find it hard to squeeze extra memory onto old motherboards that require some weird format you can't find any more and are running out of spare slots. >> > It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running >> > Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > motherboards that require some weird format you can't find any more > and are running out of spare slots. Certainly - I've done that too. I'm not disagreeing with that approach, just pointing out that other options exist too. Horses for courses, and all that. :-) sherm-- SignatureWV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home > > If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under > VirtualPC will suffice. If space and/or funds are limited, the free space provided by your ISP or any number of free hosting services out there will suffice for a quick test page. Running a server at home is a must for other testing, though. SignatureBerg > It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running > Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC > will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few > quid for a network cable and a hub. I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system. http://swiftys.org.uk/ — I already had the swiftys.org.uk domain for my "real" website, so I just pointed swiftys.org.uk at my desktop here at home. The only drawback so far is that the Windows filesystem is case-insensitive, so it leads me into sloppy ways not tolerated by apache under Linux or AIX. SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk > I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system. Apache works pretty well under Windows these days, which certainly wasn't the case not too long ago. However your hosting is still likely to be Unix-based, so a bit of hands on knowledge gained at home with no pressure is always going to come in handy. For that matter, you still need shell access on a Windows box, so install Cygwin (a Unix-like Bash-derived command-line shell that runs under Windows, runs on the Windows filesystem, but makes it look broadly like a Unix environment). This is a capable command-line shell in the way that the Windows command prompt is still anything but! (How do they ever get any work done at Redmond?) You'll also pick up enough entry-level Unix command line experience to get by for most simple tasks on your host. >> I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >entry-level Unix command line experience to get by for most simple >tasks on your host. Hey... Thanks guys for the advice on establishing a basic host on my PC. You are right, if I plan to have my site work it would only make sense to setup some inexpensive hosting program. But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much? > >> I manage quite well with Apache under my Windows system. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs > of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much? Gosh, 2.5 + Gb! I have a server run on a windows 2000 box, Apache and the thing has less than 500MB of Ram. I don't think RAM is something a home server on your working machine gobbles up for most things you are likely to be wanting. Signaturedorayme > But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs > of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much? That's plenty to start running virtual machines in it. My Windows desktop has 2GB in it and I use about 1.3GB tops. One of the main memory hogs is TortoiseSVN (the version-control client). Only if I fire up SQL Server on my desktop machine too do I statrt to use 1.9GB or so. > But, how much memory would I need for that? Right now I only have 2.58 Gigs > of RAM. Do I need to upgrade and if so how much? It depends on how much work your apache has to do, but if that is just supporting a test site for your own use that is not much. My apache is currently using less than 17Mb — it's very efficient. SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk |
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.