Stylesheets - cross graphic gets shifted down on some firefox browsers

Author

cross graphic gets shifted down on some firefox browsers

dontwantspam@invalid.inv

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

Hello everyone,
I'm working on this css site redesign
http://www.maranathamalta.com/4given/testingmain.php

I've tested on my machine running XP using Firefox 2.0.0.4, IE6 and IE7.
It looks right on those browsers.
However on some other machines running XP, MacOS and Linux, using firefox 2 and
firefox 1.5, the cross graphic gets shifted down. On another Linux machine with
firefox 2, the graphic looks right..
I'm trying to determine what's causing this..
can anyone please help..

Jonathan N. Little

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

dontwantspam@invalid.inv wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I'm working on this css site redesign
> http://www.maranathamalta.com/4given/testingmain.php
>
> I've tested on my machine running XP using Firefox 2.0.0.4, IE6 and IE7.
> It looks right on those browsers.
> However on some other machines running XP, MacOS and Linux, using firefox 2 and
> firefox 1.5, the cross graphic gets shifted down. On another Linux machine with
> firefox 2, the graphic looks right..
> I'm trying to determine what's causing this..
> can anyone please help..
>

Just a quick look revealed a couple of things, you didn't validate did you?

h2
{

position:absolute;
top: 510px;
/*left: 19%;breaks movement*/
margin-left:-20px;
float:left;
z-index:40;
background: transparent url(/4given/i/centrephoto.jpg) no-repeat top left;
width:106; <--106 what?
height:101; <--101 what?
}

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dontwantspam@invalid.inv

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

thanks, I had validated it earlier.. though not my latest changes as the w3c css
validator is offline..

I fixed the problem - it was my use of em rather than px's... em's shift the
graphics if you change font size.. that was the difference, font size..
Thanks anyway.

In article <94edd$46a0b8cc$40cba7c5$30233@NAXS.COM>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>
>
>Just a quick look revealed a couple of things, you didn't validate did you?
>
>h2
>{
>
>position:absolute;
>top: 510px;
>/*left: 19%;breaks movement*/
>margin-left:-20px;
>float:left;
>z-index:40;
>background: transparent url(/4given/i/centrephoto.jpg) no-repeat top left;
>width:106; <--106 what?
>height:101; <--101 what?
>}
>

Bergamot

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

dontwantspam@invalid.inv wrote:
> http://www.maranathamalta.com/4given/testingmain.php
>
> I've tested on my machine running XP using Firefox 2.0.0.4, IE6 and IE7.
> It looks right on those browsers.

Maybe for you it does. Positioning looks not so clean with my settings,
in any browser. I think you don't fully understand how positioning
methods are supposed to work.
http://brainjar.com/css/positioning/

> However on some other machines running XP, MacOS and Linux, using firefox 2 and
> firefox 1.5, the cross graphic gets shifted down.

Your lack of a proper DOCTYPE triggers quirks mode in browsers. Don't
expect any consistency unless you invoke standards mode. Use HTML 4.01
Strict for best compatibility.
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html

And validate your code to eliminate syntax errors as possible causes of
rendering issues:
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

--
Berg

dontwantspam@invalid.inv

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

In article <5gbtq0F3dtapgU1@mid.individual.net>, Bergamot says...

>Your lack of a proper DOCTYPE triggers quirks mode in browsers. Don't
>expect any consistency unless you invoke standards mode. Use HTML 4.01
>Strict for best compatibility.
>http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html

You are mistaken.
I'm using the (X)HTML5 recommended DOCTYPE actually which triggers standards
mode.
I need to point out to you that I'm not writing HTML 4.01..

>
>And validate your code to eliminate syntax errors as possible causes of
>rendering issues:
>http://validator.w3.org/
>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
>
I didn't have syntax errors, only a couple of logical errors as per my other
post..

Jonathan N. Little

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

dontwantspam@invalid.inv wrote:
> thanks, I had validated it earlier.. though not my latest changes as the w3c css
> validator is offline..
>
> I fixed the problem - it was my use of em rather than px's... em's shift the
> graphics if you change font size.. that was the difference, font size..
> Thanks anyway.

Hopefully those who are in of being *4 GIVEN* are not also visually
impaired! Eh?

[topleft.png] [topcentre1.png]
*

*

[topright.png]
*

*

[centrephoto.jpg]
*

*

[bottomleft.png] [bottomright.png] [bottomcentre.jpg] [maranatha.png]

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Bergamot

2007-07-20, 6:17 pm

dontwantspam@invalid.inv wrote:
>
> I'm using the (X)HTML5 recommended DOCTYPE

Recommended by who? XHTML is pretty useless, you know. HTML5 isn't
really anything to get excited about, either. That's a discussion for a
different newsgroup, of course.

> I need to point out to you that I'm not writing HTML 4.01..

I would point out to you that your trendy (X)HTML5 page is still broken,
but it seems you have already removed it.

--
Berg