My CSS is validated, but still not showing up correctly in browsers

Well, for one, this site does not validate like you say. Second, you should buy a book on CSS if you havent done so already. The way this site is constructed needs help. For example: why is your mathead one big image? And why do you have so many Divisions? You can get it done with just four. Bottom line, its messy. I would start over.

In other words it isn't validated.

Well then, since you know more than we, why are you asking us for help?

Thanks guys for the help on solving my problems.

As I've said before it doesn't matter if a site validates or not. It doesn't necessarily mean its going to work because it validates, quite often it doesn't. And as for Flash not validating who the f--k gives a toss.

If you can't be positive and help then don't post at all.

And as I think I have said before osgood it DOES matter if a site validates but you are correct it doesn't necessarily mean that code renders the way you want, validation serves a certain purpose, to inform when malformed markup exists and for this reason it's damned important.

Malformed mark-up IS NOT always the cause of a page to render incorrectly.

I particularly responded to this because of the aspect of Flash not validating, who cares, as the OP said, thats not relevant.

IF and its a big IF in this case only the Flash is causing a page to not validate why be so bloody negative. And you cares IF the the masthead is one big image or not.

Two totally negative posts which helps absolutely no-one, especially the OP.

It appears that the OP has ironed out some of the problems, no thanks to the information gained in this forum. Now thats a good recommendation isnt it. Is no wonder its about as slow as a tortoise in here with replies like the ones we've seen. Not exactly gaining much popularity.

That's true, and I don't believe I've ever claimed differently. Nor did I say anything of the kind in my message so far as I can see.

This does not follow. I don't know if fixing the flash element and making it valid would fix the page,and I didn't say it would. I do know that if you don't feed a browser valid html then the browser isn't obligated to act in any particular way while, if you do, the browsers that claim to follow the standards should display in the standard way and you have a basis for complaint if they don't. And I do know that it's possible to insert a flash element while keeping the html valid.

What's negative about pointing out a fact? If the page doesn't validate it doesn't validate. This one doesn't. That's hardly a hanging offence and I don't see how pointing out the simple fact is offensive. When did the truth become offensive outside of the Republican party?

I also find it a little offensive when someone asking for help and therefore presumably expecting some expertise also and at the same time refuses certain advice in advance. Possibly I was a little sharper than need be, but then I am certainly no saint.

You openly admitted to not knowing anything about Flash (infact I detected an attitude of total dislike for it) so perhaps you're advice, or lack of it, was based purely on personal opinion rather than being helpful.

Sure, if you don't like Flash then thats your right to not like it, just don't comment, particularly if it concerns a page not validating because of it.

Problem is you just seem to dismiss anything and everything that you find 'offensive'.

Of course theres ways of writing Flash to the page to keep the document valid. Is it worth the extra effort, well since you know nothing about Flash and it seem little about validation, I'll let you into a secret, NO.

And your authority for this opinion is? I prefer the opinion of the people who are in chage of designing html as expressed here.

Experience. You won't learn much if you just follow the sheep. What frontline experience does the W3C have? They don't design real world sites.

Good grief. Seriously?

Sure I'm serious. What experience do the W3C have of budgets, time constraints, expectations from clients, the real world?

They are just a bunch of tech geeks who have different agendas to those that work on the frontline of actually producing something to make a profit.

I don't know if this is worthy of a response, but creating valid code is not the equivalent of brain surgery. In fact, anyone who claims to be a web designer, should have little trouble creating valid code. In fact, you'd WANT to create valid code as that will help you determine issues when problem solving cross browser compatibility for instance. Just like if you develop for Drupal, there is a certain level of php coding standards. The same goes for the general web. One quick google of embed flash valid, returns many valid ways of inserting flash into an html document. And guess what...they are all EASY!

I've personally been designing a page, can't figure out why it's not rendering properly, then after running it through the validator realize i missed a character, or misdeclared something. Anyone who can't create valid code, or don't think valid code is important, is not a true designer. Ultimately, in the end, us web designers are merely programmers of a rather simple language at its root with a clearly laid out set of rules. The same goes for programmers of C#, Perl, etc..

Your response is correct. Fixing invalid code isn't exactly a hard job. Why someone wouldn't fix broken code is a mystery.

Please, give us all a break. Ad hominem attacks against people you've never met is a logical fallacy.

Web standards can help a company meet budgets, limit time on a project, meet expectations all in the real world. Sometimes immediately and sometimes in the long run.

Have you seen the W3C member list? Are you seriously going to try and tell us that none of the companies on that list have any experience with budgets, deadlines or clients?

Of if you want to look at individuals, take a look at the CSS Working Group and the HTML Working Group - plenty of people on both those lists who have experience of 'budgets, time constraints, expectations from clients, the real world' and not all of them are just reps of the browser makers.

Who is on the W3C members list is NOT applicable.

Anyway the first one I pick out from the list randomly and do a validation test, what do you know, it fails:

http://www.agiledelta.com/

So I guess the W3C is very happy at having their logo associated with a site that doesn't validate. Its weird isn't it, don't ya think?

I tried others at random too that don't validate, so its not a great advert that you provide is it. Sorry to be so negative but you should check stuff before you post.

What the heck does that tell you? You guys are ALL hot air (well actually you personally do provide some good answers on this and other forums)and when someone like me, who has unbiased opinions comes along and give another side of the story and reveals the lies (not all lies of course) you get all *beep*ty, well the moderator does anyway because hes blocked me from posting anymore comments under my other name, osgood.

Again what does that tell you about the people who run this forum. They are blinkered, only want people to agree with them and are short sighted. What will anyone learn in an environment like that.

Ok I admit that sometimes I can get a little out of hand but a lot of my points are logical, so why I should be stopped from free speech is beyond me to be honest.

Of course valid code isn't hard to write. But do you really need to go the extra mile if a Flash file is causing the page to be invalid, not really, as it does no harm. IF you want to validate it then by all means go ahead and collect some merit marks and waste a little more production time.

The bottom line is total validation is strictly not necessary.

Plus, certain unhelpful people in this forum keep saying 'validate your page' to people who clearly have no idea how to write html or css, so what use is that to them? It would be more positive to advise them to take some lessons in html and css surely. Only then will the validator mean anything. Without prior knowledge of html/css its practically useless advice.

Well theres no need to block me from posting just because I have a differing opinion surely?

You should be blocking those that respond negatively and unhelpfully, like Seedhouse.

I didn't look at the code but assumed right away that the OP was using the tag. Is it valid? No. BUt it still has better browser support than object (I still to this day cannot get more than 3 browsers to show the second child (alternative content) to objects like the specs say they MUST) and while I've seen some nasty code in there, I've not seen the tag actually causing rendering problems.

Looked ok in IE7, I assume it was a Javascript problem? I'm so highly allergic to Javascript for stuff like this... grrrr... *deep breath* but that's the dream beaver doing its thing, I know.

IE6 is the only one who looks whacked and I'd say it's the floats riding up to alongside the lower part of the banner. Remove about half of those divs and it may be easier to reign IE6 in. No reason not to have one whole banner floated left (or better yet, a bg image on the header and an image-replacement name on the left) and the nav as a single unit floated right with a top margin pushing it down. With all these extra divs it's hard for me to see what IE6 is seeing. Make the right link1,2,3 nav a single unit floated right (forget the images for now) and with IE6, go from there.

Re validation I thought the whole point was to prevent us here from having to validate everyone's pages to find out if an actual code error was the problem, one that the OP could've had the validator tell them what the problem is and had them fix it by themselves. If the only thing not validating has nothing to do the the problem (no alt tags on images, using proprietary tags, destroying lovely html with stupid retarded overrated bloated floated sugar-coated jabba-da-javascript where it Should Not Be) then I think the OP has fulfilled the basic ideas behind the Validate Your Page Before Posting thread. I'll still tell people it sucks, but that's extra.

Osgood please consider this a further warning, having been blocked and registered as a new user please tread carefully, do not continue with this argumentative nature; this thread is done with unless the OP has anything further to add, no more discussions of this nature, help people by all means but respect forum members and avoid the reasons that had you blocked previously.

So its ok for others to debate (I wouldn't necessarily call it argue) but because I have differing opinions, which don't seem to fit in, thats a good reason to stop people posting.

I'm all for helping people as can be seen in recent posts by providing positive solutions for their problems.

I was blocked for creating another thread to answer a post by Trumpet who blocked me from answering in the correct thread. The issue was down to your own making, not mine. Anyway Tony has already contacted me and I have responded. I chance continue, where I see fit, to provide the WHOLE picture, not just a bit of it.

This thread is now closed!