Browser check needed please!

Mark Tranchant wrote:

Don't know.. I have no clue about that "filter plugin
thingy". Maybe the <img> is covering the background?

Described here:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/ Turns out to
be IE5.5+ only. Not the end of the world if older browsers
are crayon-less.

One more thing I can think of why it doesn't work in IE5.5:
You state the CSS for IE5 as /css/ie
Maybe IE doesn't take that for a CSS file for some reason?
Would it perhaps work if you gave it the .css extension?

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

Mark Tranchant wrote:

Els wrote:

But you'll still have to make some change in the code for
all the other Gecko's, as per this printscreen from
Firebird: http://locusmeus.com/temp/step-by-step.jpg
That's what it looked like in Firefox 0.8 too.

Oh, right! I understand the problem now. My inability to
reliably remember which is left and which is right confused
me.

I'll try and remember that next time ;-)

I thought the problem behaviour was as Firefox 0.9.2
shows but with the scrollbar not available - that is, the
*right* hand side of the page inaccessible.

Does it work now?

Yep :-)

Also, could you see if the crayons are back on IE5.5
please?

They're still not there, unfortunately...

Muchas gracias,

De nada :-)
(if that's Spanish)

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

Els wrote:

One more thing I can think of why it doesn't work in IE5.5:
You state the CSS for IE5 as /css/ie
Maybe IE doesn't take that for a CSS file for some reason?
Would it perhaps work if you gave it the .css extension?

No - you are loading it OK:

xx-xxx-xxx-xxx-bbxl.xdsl.tiscali.nl - - [21/Jul/2004:13:58:26 +0100]
"GET /css/ie HTTP/1.1" 200 133 "http://step-by-step.org.uk/"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1; Wish; Feedreader)"

Experience on other sites shows this works, and you are also
successfully loading the main stylesheet, layout.css, also referenced
without extension.

--
Mark.

Mark Tranchant wrote:

Els wrote:

One more thing I can think of why it doesn't work in
IE5.5: You state the CSS for IE5 as /css/ie
Maybe IE doesn't take that for a CSS file for some reason?
Would it perhaps work if you gave it the .css extension?

No - you are loading it OK:

xx-xxx-xxx-xxx-bbxl.xdsl.tiscali.nl - -
[21/Jul/2004:13:58:26 +0100] "GET /css/ie HTTP/1.1" 200 133
"http://step-by-step.org.uk/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;
MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1; Wish; Feedreader)"

The fact it was loaded doesn't have to mean it's loaded as MIME
type text/css I think?

Experience on other sites shows this works, and you are
also successfully loading the main stylesheet, layout.css,
also referenced without extension.

You just changed that :-)
So, alas, that wasn't the problem :-(

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

In message <Z6rLc.4681$Fc7.867711 (AT) stones (DOT) force9.net>, Mark Tranchant
<mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> writes

A new project:

http://step-by-step.org.uk/

[snip]

3) Any suggestions or comments?

Thanks!

"....... Welcome to the step-by-step preschool website. You are using a
browser without CSS support, so this site will appear plain but fully
accessible. ......"

Or a browser that *does* support CSS, but is using an alternative
stylesheet ;-)

regards.



--
Jake

jake wrote:

"....... Welcome to the step-by-step preschool website. You
are using a browser without CSS support, so this site will
appear plain but fully accessible. ......"

Or a browser that *does* support CSS, but is using an
alternative stylesheet ;-)

I'm having a deja vu...

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Matti Caspi - Lost in Faith

Brian wrote:

Els wrote:

You state the CSS for IE5 as /css/ie Maybe IE doesn't take
that for a CSS file for some reason? Would it perhaps work
if you gave it the .css extension?

Doubtful. MSIE/Win only uses a file extension where other
methods (content sniffing and MIME type, for two) have
failed. A "file extension" on a url is sort of meaningless
on the client end.

Thanks, I thought that the extension might be part of the
sniffing IE does. So, not. :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Soft Cell - Tainted Love

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Els wrote:

Brian wrote:

Doubtful. MSIE/Win only uses a file extension where other
methods (content sniffing and MIME type, for two) have
failed. A "file extension" on a url is sort of meaningless
on the client end.

Thanks, I thought that the extension might be part of the
sniffing IE does.

Potentially, it could be. As Brian rightly said - for the MIME types
which are on their "moniker" hit-list:

MSIE/Win only uses a file extension where other methods (content
sniffing and MIME type, for two) have failed.

If you really want the gruesome details, search out MS's actual
writeup on this. :-}

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Els wrote:

Brian wrote:

Doubtful. MSIE/Win only uses a file extension where
other methods (content sniffing and MIME type, for two)
have failed. A "file extension" on a url is sort of
meaningless on the client end.

Thanks, I thought that the extension might be part of the
sniffing IE does.

Potentially, it could be. As Brian rightly said - for the
MIME types which are on their "moniker" hit-list:

MSIE/Win only uses a file extension where other methods
(content sniffing and MIME type, for two) have failed.

That's what I meant, it isn't part of the sniffing. Only if
that fails, and then the MIME type fails, the third option is
the file extension. No sniffing. Just reading ;-)

If you really want the gruesome details, search out MS's
actual writeup on this. :-}

Ermm... no thanks.
I try to limit reading gruesome details to a minimum. ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB 40 - Kingston Town

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:59:19 +0100, Mark Tranchant
<mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

A new project:

http://step-by-step.org.uk/

Don't worry about the links yet, the content hasn't been written. I'm
just interested in the introduction screen, which is my first attempt at
an absolutely-positioned layout.

You already got plenty of feedback about the rendering of the CSS, so
I won't bother with that...

I just wanted to make a big deal of the fact that, when I hit the
"ignore author-specified styles" toggle in my browser, it became a
perfectly-sensible, orderly and simple page which worked nicely with
my user-stylesheet. No artifacts of the design cluttering the screen,
and no bizarre interactions with my stylesheet.

Nice one

I browse with document styles disabled quite a lot, because I have my
user stylesheet set up to be pretty and readable. It's rare I see a
site which doesn't have some kind of leftover presentational junk when
I do so, unless I've made a special effort to filter it.

-Claire

(Labelling the crayons with the caption "CRAYONS" seems like a strange
thing to do. Are there really crayons like that, and shouldn't it
really say "CRAYON" instead? )