/    Sign up×
Community /Pin to ProfileBookmark

Site shows up perfectly in Firefox & Opera but not in IE

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
Sep 21.2005

I have been working on this design for a while now and
everything is going by perfectly. I uploaded the sites
and using FireFox they all show up correctly.

But my problem lies in that the site in IE looks horrible.

Here is a link to the site. Mind you that everything works
except for the “Home” link as its pointing to “index.html” and
not “index2.html”. I did this purposely.

[url]http://www.romanpc.com/index2.html[/url]
[url]http://www.romanpc.com/aboutus.html[/url]
[url]http://www.romanpc.com/services.html[/url]
[url]http://www.romanpc.com/requestservice.html[/url]
[url]http://www.romanpc.com/custompcs.html[/url]

I made sure they were all W3C validated as well. And that
yielded no results. Could it be the CSS style that im using?
Here is the CSS style [url]http://www.romanpc.com/screenstyle.css[/url]

Can someone please help me? Im a bit of a newbie.

NOTE: Im using WinXP SP2, with all the updates from Windows Update applied. IE version 6.0.2900.2180

to post a comment
CSS

16 Comments(s) ↴

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CharlesSep 21.2005 — Perhaps because you are using XHTML. XHTML isn't really compatable with HTML and two things that you are doing - using the XML declaration in the prolog and not using the empty element shorthand - are particulary incompatable. As there's no good reason to be using XHTML try switching to HTML.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@ZarelSep 22.2005 — But my problem lies in that the site in IE looks horrible. [/QUOTE]
Eh? I don't see anything wrong with it. What's wrong?

Edit: Nevermind, I see the problem.

You're using table width="100%". Unlike what Charles says, this has nothing to do with XHTML, since IE supports as much XHTML as HTML.

Just get rid of the width="100%" thing, and use the CSS style="width:100%;" instead. That should fix your problem.

Perhaps because you are using XHTML. XHTML isn't really compatable with HTML and two things that you are doing - using the XML declaration in the prolog and not using the empty element shorthand - are particulary incompatable. As there's no good reason to be using XHTML try switching to HTML.[/QUOTE]
What the...?

XHTML is more compatible with HTML than HTML 4 is to HTML 4.01. XHTML is a lot better programming practice, too. XHTML also simplifies the HTML parsing, which makes it a lot faster on stuff like cell phones and PDAs.

Using the empty element shorthand doesn't cause any incompatibilities. What are you talking about?

And using an XML declaration shouldn't mess anything up, either.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@LepardauthorSep 22.2005 — Eh? I don't see anything wrong with it. What's wrong?

Edit: Nevermind, I see the problem.

You're using table width="100%". Unlike what Charles says, this has nothing to do with XHTML, since IE supports as much XHTML as HTML.

Just get rid of the width="100%" thing, and use the CSS style="width:100%;" instead. That should fix your problem.
[/QUOTE]

Actually it took me a couple of hours but i got it. All i did was add style="width:auto" to the table.

Now what im having a bit of trouble is that the tables are not formatted how the whole page is. Basically the tables are not formatted properly. They show up correctly though.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@LepardauthorSep 22.2005 — OK I GOT IT!!!!!

I just had to add

table { font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

font-size:93%; color:#666666;

}

to the CSS file.

IM DONE!!!!

Who will buy the drinks? ?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@drhowarddrfineSep 22.2005 — And using an XML declaration shouldn't mess anything up, either.[/QUOTE] Using the xml declaration puts IE into quirks mode and really screws things up.

XHTML is probably served as text/html so Charles is correct.

Since xhtml is served as html for browsers in most cases, I doubt cell phones and PDAs understand xhtml.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@LJKSep 22.2005 — Hi -

Just had to say:

Lepard -

If your first post's Subject were printed on a T-shirt,

I'd actually wear it...

;-)
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CharlesSep 22.2005 — Using the xml declaration puts IE into quirks mode and really screws things up.

XHTML is probably served as text/html so Charles is correct.

Since xhtml is served as html for browsers in most cases, I doubt cell phones and PDAs understand xhtml.[/QUOTE]Actually, MSIE handles XHTML perfectly it's just that XHTML isn't for web sites. Change the file extension from ".html" to ".xml" and you'll see it working perfectly.

And on that page http://www.romanpc.com/index2.html you will find:<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></meta>Perfectly valid XHTML and completely invalid HTML and it's going to cause problems on some browser or another.

Stick to HTML for web sites.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@ZarelSep 22.2005 — Actually, MSIE handles XHTML perfectly it's just that XHTML isn't for web sites. Change the file extension from ".html" to ".xml" and you'll see it working perfectly.

And on that page http://www.romanpc.com/index2.html you will find:<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></meta>Perfectly valid XHTML and completely invalid HTML and it's going to cause problems on some browser or another.

Stick to HTML for web sites.[/QUOTE]
Just change it to this:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
Perfectly valid XHTML and HTML valid enough to be displayed correctly on any browser. Or anything but a true SGML parser that doesn't know how to parse XHTML, but those don't exist anymore.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@felgallSep 22.2005 — Since HTML 4.01 is deprecated it makes more sense to code with XHTML 1.0 transitional which is interpreted identically with HTML 4 on older browsers and is also supported by newer devices that don't understand HTML.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CharlesSep 23.2005 — Since HTML 4.01 is deprecated[/quote]???? Are you out of your freaking mind??? There is absolutely nothing depricated about HTML 4.01 and it remains the gold standard. it makes more sense to code with XHTML 1.0 transitional which is interpreted identically with HTML 4 on older browsers and is also supported by newer devices that don't understand HTML.[/QUOTE]You really are out of your freaking mind. Take a look at Appendix C to the XHTML 1.0 specification. XHTML is [i]not compatable with HTML[/i]. And the transitional DTDs are not compatable with non-graphical browsers. It follows from this that XHTML 1.0 transitional is the [i]least[/i] universal option and HTML 4.01 Strict is the most.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@JPnycSep 23.2005 — Hey, calm down folks
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@ZarelSep 23.2005 — ???? Are you out of your freaking mind??? There is absolutely nothing depricated about HTML 4.01 and it remains the gold standard. You really are out of your freaking mind. Take a look at Appendix C to the XHTML 1.0 specification. XHTML is [i]not compatable with HTML[/i]. And the transitional DTDs are not compatable with non-graphical browsers. It follows from this that XHTML 1.0 transitional is the [i]least[/i] universal option and HTML 4.01 Strict is the most.[/QUOTE]
Actually, XHTML 1.0 Basic is the most universal. HTML 3.1 is the least, with ugly beasts like the <font> tag.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CharlesSep 23.2005 — Actually, XHTML 1.0 Basic is the most universal. HTML 3.1 is the least, with ugly beasts like the <font> tag.[/QUOTE]Actually, there is no HTML 3.1. The XHTML Basic is modularized and thus hardly universal. And being XHTML [i][b]IT IS INCOMPATABLE WITH HTML[/b][/i]. It says so right in the specification.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@chrisrock79Sep 23.2005 — Hi -

Just had to say:

Lepard -

If your first post's Subject were printed on a T-shirt,

I'd actually wear it...

;-)[/QUOTE]

I'll take two.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@chrisrock79Sep 23.2005 — This XHTML vs HTML seems to be going on everywhere. Declare whatever you want, but nest your tags properly, close your tags, use alt statements, use lowercase for your tags and quote your attributes.

From W3:

XHTML pages can be read by all XML enabled devices AND while waiting for the rest of the world to upgrade to XML supported browsers, XHTML gives you the opportunity to write "well-formed" documents now, that work in all browsers and that are backward browser compatible !![/QUOTE]

The point in using XHTML now, is to ensure you are writing well-formed documents. I don't get where there is any room for argument.

Chris
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CharlesSep 23.2005 — But in order to make XHTML compatable with HTML you [i]have to alter it according to Appendix C to the 1.0 spec.[/i]. The square peg fits in the round hole if you follow the instructions for whittling. Lepard, the original enquirer did not. The pages were perfectly valid and proper XHTML but they violated the rules of HTML.
×

Success!

Help @Lepard spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This
Sign in
Forgot password?
Sign in with TwitchSign in with GithubCreate Account
about: ({
version: 0.1.9 — BETA 6.17,
whats_new: community page,
up_next: more Davinci•003 tasks,
coming_soon: events calendar,
social: @webDeveloperHQ
});

legal: ({
terms: of use,
privacy: policy
});
changelog: (
version: 0.1.9,
notes: added community page

version: 0.1.8,
notes: added Davinci•003

version: 0.1.7,
notes: upvote answers to bounties

version: 0.1.6,
notes: article editor refresh
)...
recent_tips: (
tipper: @nearjob,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,

tipper: @meenaratha,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,

tipper: @meenaratha,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,
)...