Suckerfish CSS drop-down menu problem (major IE inconsistency!)

Neo Geshel wrote:

Els wrote:
Neo Geshel wrote:

As I said, I do my homework.

In that case, what are you doing here?!
If you know everything better than anyone here, what's the
point in coming in to ask a question?
Anything you can ask here, and that's really *anything*,
could just as well be found somewhere on the net, it must
be somewhere with the rest of your homework.

I might be an XHTML *guru*, but I am only a CSS *expert*.

Hey, me too (the CSS part, not XHTML) ;-)

I
am not a CSS *genius* or a CSS *guru*. Hence my appeal to
help when apparently identical CSS works in one page but
not in another. I didn't find when I required on the net,
so I was hoping a CSS *genius* or *guru* could take a quick
look at my CSS, and in a potential "a-ha!" moment, be able
to point out where I went wrong.

Then make a simple page, which reflects the CSS problem
without being obstructed by stuff like difficult XHTML and/or
scripts.

Not much to ask for, is it? So far everyone has bitched
about my XHTML. No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

Maybe 'cause CSS can't work correctly with bad XHTML?
(not saying your XHTML is bad per se, I don't know that)

So, as I have said, since everyone keeps focusing on the
XHTML, I can say that I've done my homework. Because with
XHTML, I have.

I won't comment on that myself, as my XHTML knowledge doesn't
go beyond HTML too much. That's not what I can say of quite a
few regulars here though.
But: I do know, that alt.html is not about CSS.
CSS is over at the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
group.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

In article <3VBIc.142$od7.137@pd7tw3no>, Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org>
wrote:

So far everyone has bitched about my XHTML.
No-one has tried to take a stab at the CSS.

Maybe because you would be better off asking that in a dedicated group
like comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets; a group that many of
here frequent.

--
Kris
<kristiaan (AT) xs4all (DOT) netherlands> (nl)

Toby Inkster wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

Toby Inkster wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:


What you see is the XHTML-compliant method of introducing inline style
sheets. The <!CDATA[ ... ]]> is required by XHTML rules

Big hairy bollocks it is.

Oh, really?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/diffs.html#h-4.8
As I said, I do my homework.


If you had done your homework you would have noticed that Chapter 4 of the
XHTML 1 spec isn't normative. (And you would know what "normative" meant.)

I repeat:
style type="text/css"
body {
background: #ccc;
color: #000;
}
/style

is valid XHTML and will give you far fewer problems than that cargo-cult
nonsense you posted.

So I take it you also don't bother to terminate empty elements, you
don't bother to quote element attributes, and you don't bother to create
well-formed documents because they are also "not normative".

Why even bother with XHTML then? To create well-formed and **correct**
XHTML documents is to follow **all** of the rules, not just the rules
that are convenient for you to follow.

If you avoid the use of CDATA because it's ugly and inconvenient, what's
stopping you from using
<img src="image.jpg">
and
<p>this is <em>a paragraph.</p></em>
Neither of these are prohibited, if you choose to ignore everything that
isn't "normative".

I don't know about you, but I try not to pick and choose those rules I
decide I want to follow today. If I decide to follow them, I do my best
to follow **all** of them.

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Neo Geshel wrote:

Greetings!

When I use the Suckerfish drop-down menu in my new site
(http://publishing.kabis.net/), it only works in non-IE browsers.

If you look at the following page:
http://publishing.kabis.net/menu.html
in both IE as well as Mozilla, both browsers work flawlessly.

However, if you look at:
http://publishing.kabis.net/index.aspx
in both browsers, only a non-IE browser works properly. Internet
Explorer doesn't work with the drop-down menu at all. Strange thing is,
both pages use identical CSS.

That's right. Identical CSS.

So why does one page work and another doesn't?

FYI, I am using ASP.NET to dynamically bring in a random
background-image of the H1 and a random banner below the menu.

TIA!
...Geshel

I found the solution to the problem. Turns out that I had another
element inside the DIV that the UL menu was in, and that element had a
display: none; which was causing my problems. Once I used another way of
hiding the element from visual browsers (while keeping it available for
TTS readers), I was back on track.

The CSS and XHTML were both perfect. However, it seems that the
Suckerfish drop-down menu in IE doesn't like neighbors that makes use of
display: none;

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

brucie wrote:

in post: <news:QirIc.77217$WB5.36619@pd7tw2no
Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> said:


I am trying to automatically enable cleartype smoothing for everyone


you can just fuck off thank you very much. i'm truly amazed. how dare
you try to or think you have the right to fuck around with peoples
computers.

fuck!

not to mention cleartype has a huge system overhead and can make text
unreadable so its really hard to turn off again if you cant read the
text.

fuck again!

There's nothing wrong with cleartype, and it has very little overhead...
but I have to admit it scares me when people try lil hacks like this.
Another reason avoid IE, and to have ActiveX turned off when I use it
for testing!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

brucie wrote:

in post: <news:2lidp9Fcg46gU4 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de
SpaceGirl <NOspaceSPAMgirl (AT) subhuman (DOT) net> said:


There's nothing wrong with cleartype,


with your setup


and it has very little overhead...


with your setup

Yes... even on our oldest machines. I dont much care if others cant see
that stuff, they should upgrade.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

brucie wrote:

sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.

*raised eyebrow*

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

brucie wrote:

in post: <news:2livd4Fbhh0kU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de
SpaceGirl <NOspaceSPAMgirl (AT) subhuman (DOT) net> said:



There's nothing wrong with cleartype,



with your setup



and it has very little overhead...



with your setup


Yes... even on our oldest machines. I dont much care if others cant see
that stuff, they should upgrade.


sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.

Sure it has. It's called a Pentium-III processor. Speeds range from
450MHz clear up to 1.02GHz. Any machine with a minimum of a P-III (or
equivalent processor), 256Mb of RAM and a 6Gb hard drive will be able to
handle both XP and ClearType without any problems whatsoever and without
any noticeable impact on performance (at least not without sophisticated
performance benchmarking software).

Unless you are using a BGR style monitor (and SP1 introduced cleartype
support for BGR) or something less than a SVGA monitor (which hasn't
been sold as a serious PC monitor since the early 90's), a problem with
cleartype indicates a problem with the hardware which requires repair or
replacement.

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

brucie wrote:

in post: <news:2lj45vFd51ktU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de
SpaceGirl <NOspaceSPAMgirl (AT) subhuman (DOT) net> said:


sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.


*raised eyebrow*


you look really sexy when you do that.

if you read the other posts in the thread you will see one that
describes the problems my setup has with cleartype. MS know of the issue
and seemingly like every problem discovered in the last 100 years they
say it will be fixed in longhorn.

Well it's fine on my dual display machines - I guess I dont need
anything more than that, and I suspect most other people wont hit your
glitch too


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

Toby Inkster wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

So I take it you also don't bother to terminate empty elements, you
don't bother to quote element attributes, and you don't bother to create
well-formed documents because they are also "not normative".


Terminating empty elements and quoting attributes are both requirements of
normative passages of the XHTML spec.

As I said, please look up what "normative" means.

I know exactly what normative means. Question is: do you? (see bottom)

Why even bother with XHTML then? To create well-formed and **correct**
XHTML documents is to follow **all** of the rules, not just the rules
that are convenient for you to follow.


No -- you only have to follow the normative rules.


If you avoid the use of CDATA because it's ugly and inconvenient, what's
stopping you from using
img src="image.jpg"
and
p>this is <em>a paragraph.</p></em
Neither of these are prohibited,


Both are.


I don't know about you, but I try not to pick and choose those rules I
decide I want to follow today. If I decide to follow them, I do my best
to follow **all** of them.


So do I. But that's my point -- chapter 4 doesn't have any rules -- only
a few suggestions.

Exactly my point. And if you take the time to look, the termination of
empty elements and proper nesting and a whole host of other things are
in chapter 4. And therefore - according to your definition - they are
all "suggestions".

Take a close look at chapter 4:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs
And you'll see that proper nesting (ch 4.1), termination of open
elements (ch 4.3) and quoted attribute values (ch 4.4) sit beside the
use of CDATA (ch 4.8) inside script and style tags. If 4.8 is only a
"suggestion", please tell me what it is that you see in that document
that makes 4.1 to 4.7 and 4.9 to 4.12 different in nature than 4.8.
After all, they all sit in the same section; the one right after the
"normative" section, and marked "this section is informative"

How many times do I have to hit you over the head with the facts before
you take your head out of the sand??

....Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************