18 replies [Last post]
windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

Can anyone please look at this site :

http://www.firedefendersystem.com/

If you are using up-to-date Firefox or IE, it should look perfectly normal. But under older versions of IE, those Tabs you see on the left go completely crazy when rolled over - some browsers stack them on top of each other in a row (which is actually a pretty cool effect) and some just stack 2 at a time.

I don't even have old IE, so I'm having a hard time figuring out what is up...

If you view the source, and search for "#butt" it will take you to the right part of the source, and you'll see a STYLE insert, followed by the button HTML.

Thank you for any help!

Deuce
Deuce's picture
Offline
Guru
Somewhere, USA
Last seen: 3 years 14 weeks ago
Somewhere, USA
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2005-11-20
Posts: 4424
Points: 1843

Doesn't surprise me that

Doesn't surprise me that your site doesnt work the way you want it to.
Validate your code.

it's not an option on this forum - it's not even required - it's a friggin command Smile

all » http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all

Google isn't a bunch of guys reading and grading web sites, it's more like a bunch of monkeys sniffing food and putting the good bananas at the top. -Triumph

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

Well.. I searched for the

Well.. I searched for the CSS Validator and found it, and Validated my code. Thanks (I guess) for hinting at validation - but all the errors were entirely irrelevant to the problem... and it isn't even really my code - I am working at an e-commerce firm, and we have 50+ sites all operate off the same HTML template. I have almost no control over the HTML at all.

I fixed all CSS errors.

Deuce
Deuce's picture
Offline
Guru
Somewhere, USA
Last seen: 3 years 14 weeks ago
Somewhere, USA
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2005-11-20
Posts: 4424
Points: 1843

CSS only works the way it

CSS only works the way it was meant to when using it on valid (x)html
If you cannot validate HTML then we have no way of telling how or why css is doing what it is doing.

It's like taking the engine out of your car then wondering why it won't work.

all » http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all

Google isn't a bunch of guys reading and grading web sites, it's more like a bunch of monkeys sniffing food and putting the good bananas at the top. -Triumph

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

windfall wrote:but all the

windfall wrote:
but all the errors were entirely irrelevant to the problem

How do you know that? Are you a seasoned CSS expert? To paraphrase the analogy above, that's like taking your engine out of the car, taking it to a mechanics, and saying "it doesn't work, but the fact that it has no engine is irrelevant".

We specialise in this. We tell you what's relevant and what isn't. Wink

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

I am fairly seasoned - and

I am fairly seasoned - and yes, the problems were irrelevant. There were errors concerning a font family declaration at a completely unrelated part of the document.

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

But still you must

But still you must understand why we bang on so much about getting it valid before asking a question, right?

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

Anyone even care to look at

Anyone even care to look at it.

There is 1 "error" still, has nothing to do with the CSS problem, and I can't get rid of the error, because I'm not in control of the PHP includes.

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

Your CSS may be 99%

Your CSS may be 99% error-free, but what about your HTML? You can't complain that it renders funny if your HTML isn't valid Wink

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

Haha man, you are killing

Haha man, you are killing me. My error is this :

42 Unrecognized link element or xml-stylesheet PI.

Do you think this has anything to do with some of my buttons having rollover problems. I don't. I have nothing to do with this stylesheet, nor do my buttons. Nor can I fix this error. I would if I could.

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

windfall wrote:Haha man, you

windfall wrote:
Haha man, you are killing me. My error is this :

42 Unrecognized link element or xml-stylesheet PI.

I think you mean errors. The validator is picking up 45 errors, most of which actually seem to be related to your menu.

Until you fix the 45 HTML errors then anything we try and suggest will be a complete guess which may or may not work.

And please lose the holier-than-thou, sarcastic attitude. We give up our time to help here, the least you could do is be gracious about it Wink

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

Actually for some strange

Actually for some strange reason you seem to think I'm STILL referring to your CSS, regardless of the fact that my earlier reply clearly stated:

thepineapplehead wrote:
Your CSS may be 99% error-free, but what about your HTML? You can't complain that it renders funny if your HTML isn't valid Wink

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

1. Look at the

1. Look at the Validation.

2. There are *not* 45 HTML errors. There are 44 CSS **Warnings**. Maybe that is the *strange reason* that I think you are referring to my CSS, and not my HTML? Maybe also because I've mentioned numerous times that I cannot control the HTML of the document? It is PHP driven by the programmers, and it is not my job?

So now we have both written numerous posts on both of our ends, and not once has anyone even looked at the code. You've posted a dozen posts arguing about the relevance of my validation errors.

Every single one of the 45 "HTML errors" (they are CSS Warnings) are a Warning about the background color and content color being the same. None of these 44 color problems have anything to do with what I care about. None of them. I promise.

So now you can write a response about my attitude or continue to argue about my validation... neither of which I care about. Or you could delete my account, something I couldn't figure out how to do a few moments ago.

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 6 years 1 week ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

windfall wrote:2. There are

windfall wrote:
2. There are *not* 45 HTML errors.

I'm sorry but you're wrong, your HTML is full of errors and yes I've looked at your code. Fix them up or you won't be getting any further help here.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 7 years 13 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

I don't have any PCs running

I don't have any PCs running old versions of IE so I'm afraid I can't help you much. Nonetheless I might have tried to spot what is wrong but I would be wasting my time for the same reasons as given by Deuce and TPH.
Follow this link to see what they are talking about... validate

Instead of getting angry at the members of this forum who are actually trying to help you (believe it or not), maybe you should be getting angry with the people within your organisation who allow such poorly written HTML to be passed to you for styling.

With code like that you are on to a hiding to nothing. Someone here might well be able to solve your particular problem without worrying about the validation errors, but why should they? As has been suggested above using different analogies, looking for a problem like yours in valid code is like looking for a toothless gear in a gearbox of a hundred cogs; but looking for the same problem among invalid code is like looking for a toothless gear in an overflowing scrap heap of old metal.

Personally, I'd rather try and help you fix the decease not the symptom. Don't just accept what they throw at you - have the balls to tell them why their code is going to waste countless hours of your time in the future.

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 44 weeks 10 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

windfall wrote:1. Look at

windfall wrote:
1. Look at the Validation.

2. There are *not* 45 HTML errors.

No? Then how do you explain this?

Validating your CSS is pointless until you have valid html. CSS rules are defined only for valid html. If you don't provide a browser that it has no standard way to render any particular element or CSS rule.

The folks who told you this above are right, and you are wrong. Unless and until you learn to write valid html, styling with CSS is a road to nowhere.

You might as well try to build a house without a foundation.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

windfall
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2007-01-16
Posts: 12
Points: 0

Sorry, this is what I was

Sorry, this is what I was using (after someone mentioned Validation in the first response in this thread, I searched and used this) : http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 44 weeks 10 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

windfall wrote:Sorry, this

windfall wrote:
Sorry, this is what I was using (after someone mentioned Validation in the first response in this thread, I searched and used this) : http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Well, that's the standard CSS validator, and it tests CSS for standards compliance. But CSS means nothing without a foundation of valid html, and for that the standard is the W3C validator, easily accessible with firefox using it's Web Developer extension.

Maybe 30% of the problems people post here are solved simply by getting the html valid. We can't guarantee that fixing your html will fix your problem, but we can guarantee that without valid html you don't have a proper basis for solving any problem. That's why we ask for it in the sticky messages at the top of each forum, which are put there for the benefit of new posters but which, pretty well uniformly, they never read anyway.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 31 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

thepineapplehead wrote:Your

thepineapplehead wrote:
Your CSS may be 99% error-free, but what about your HTML? You can't complain that it renders funny if your HTML isn't valid Wink

Psssst . . . . the underlined bit is a link. It takes you to the W3C HTML validator page. I'm glad you read my response carefully and followed the link Laughing out loud

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies