IE8 daftness...
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Andy Hewitt on 8 Apr 2010 19:33 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > > Actually I would say that iWeb is a much worse web citizen than IE8, not > > > too much better than IE6! > > > > Yeah, that's likely, although I've checked the source code around the > > bit that's not working, and can see no logical reason why it doesn't > > work compared to the rest of the text. It only contains plain formatting > > commands. > > Didn't you say it was in a text box? There are no valid plain text > formatting commands in html in a text box. Or do you mean ordinary text? > > Whats the code look like? This is the code that now works. <div class="text-content style_External_759_976" style="padding: 0px; "> <div class="style_1"> <p style="padding-top: 0pt; " class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">9:30am: </span>Communion Service—<span class="style_2">Common Worship<br /></span></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">11:00am: </span>Modern Communion Service<span class="style_2"> & Sunday Club<br /></span></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">7:00pm </span>Word & Worship<span class="style_2"><br /></span></p> <p class="paragraph_style_2"><br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_3">Next Sunday<br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">9:30am: </span>Communion Service—<span class="style_2">Common Worship<br /></span></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">11:00am: </span>Modern Communion Service<span class="style_2"> & Sunday Club<br /></span></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1">Bring & Share Lunch<br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_2"><br /></p> #this bit was in italic <p class="paragraph_style_3">This Week<br /></p> #and here is where it stopped displaying. <p class="paragraph_style_4">Everybody welcome to:-<br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_4"><br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">Monday–Wednesday: </span>8:30–9:00 prayers in the Vicarage.<br /></p> <p class="paragraph_style_4"><br /></p> #and so on... > > I have got the pages to view OK if you switch IE into 'Compatibility' > > mode. > > Yes, compatibility puts it into IE7 mode, and IE7 doesn't have the > standards compliance of 8. OK, so doesn't that make the 'standard' rather, er, 'non-standard'? -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Woody on 8 Apr 2010 20:47 On 09/04/2010 00:33, Andy Hewitt wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Andy Hewitt<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > [..] >>>> Actually I would say that iWeb is a much worse web citizen than IE8, not >>>> too much better than IE6! >>> >>> Yeah, that's likely, although I've checked the source code around the >>> bit that's not working, and can see no logical reason why it doesn't >>> work compared to the rest of the text. It only contains plain formatting >>> commands. >> >> Didn't you say it was in a text box? There are no valid plain text >> formatting commands in html in a text box. Or do you mean ordinary text? >> >> Whats the code look like? > > This is the code that now works. > > <div class="text-content style_External_759_976" style="padding: 0px; > "> > <div class="style_1"> > <p style="padding-top: 0pt; " > class="paragraph_style_1"><span class="style_2">9:30am:</span>Communion > Service—<span class="style_2">Common Worship<br /></span></p> Does show that it was generated by some application, where it puts random breaks inside spans, especially where those spans all have those breaks so it could have been part of the class. > #this bit was in italic > > <p class="paragraph_style_3">This Week<br /></p> > > #and here is where it stopped displaying. > > <p class="paragraph_style_4">Everybody welcome to:-<br > /></p> Hard to say without seeing what was in the classes or what was there before. But if you want that in italic, why isn't paragraph_style_4 got italic in it? Doesn't make sense to have a style and then have another tag to put it in italic. >>> I have got the pages to view OK if you switch IE into 'Compatibility' >>> mode. >> >> Yes, compatibility puts it into IE7 mode, and IE7 doesn't have the >> standards compliance of 8. > > OK, so doesn't that make the 'standard' rather, er, 'non-standard'? No, 8 is standards compliant (more or less), and that is what trips a lot of people up, they are not writing standard compliant code because 'it always worked in old browsers'. One of the things that cost millions of hours of web designer time was that unlike all structured document processors before and since, the web browser accepted code that was wrong, and displayed it in some manner. Which means people could write rubbish and more importantly, mostly didn't know it was rubbish as the browser didn't say. Which meant browsers had to accept rubbish, and that rubbish was different on all other browsers. The sensible thing to have done would have been to fail with an error. The author would have fixed the code, and it would have worked on all browsers. -- Woody
From: Andy Hewitt on 9 Apr 2010 04:56 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > On 09/04/2010 00:33, Andy Hewitt wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > #this bit was in italic > > > > <p class="paragraph_style_3">This Week<br /></p> > > > > #and here is where it stopped displaying. > > > > <p class="paragraph_style_4">Everybody welcome to:-<br > > /></p> > > Hard to say without seeing what was in the classes or what was there > before. But if you want that in italic, why isn't paragraph_style_4 got > italic in it? Doesn't make sense to have a style and then have another > tag to put it in italic. It may not have been that the 'paragraph' was in italic, only the block of text. It was initially copied and pasted from TextEdit - which I use to clean up the text a bit before it goes into iWeb. This is the blog page if you're interested in having a look. <http://stmartinandstjohn.org/StMartin/PewSheet/PewSheet.html> FWIW, it also had the same effect with underline text too, but bold text works OK. > >>> I have got the pages to view OK if you switch IE into 'Compatibility' > >>> mode. > >> > >> Yes, compatibility puts it into IE7 mode, and IE7 doesn't have the > >> standards compliance of 8. > > > > OK, so doesn't that make the 'standard' rather, er, 'non-standard'? > > No, 8 is standards compliant (more or less), and that is what trips a > lot of people up, they are not writing standard compliant code because > 'it always worked in old browsers'. > > One of the things that cost millions of hours of web designer time was > that unlike all structured document processors before and since, the web > browser accepted code that was wrong, and displayed it in some manner. > Which means people could write rubbish and more importantly, mostly > didn't know it was rubbish as the browser didn't say. Which meant > browsers had to accept rubbish, and that rubbish was different on all > other browsers. > > The sensible thing to have done would have been to fail with an error. > The author would have fixed the code, and it would have worked on all > browsers. Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic, I know that so many people write poor HTML code, myself included I guess as I use iWeb. I don't know about 'old browsers', I test the site in all 'current' browsers. I appreciate what you say though, it should have been done better to maintain the standards. However, wasn't it MS that tried to break the standards in the first place? It kind of makes IE8 a lesson in irony! FWIW, isn't it going to be a bit of peeing into the wind to try and reverse this now? For one, many personal sites are now created with easy creation tools, such as iWeb, and more often than not use poor standards to enable fancy stuff to be used by those that can't do HTML code. This includes myself, I can work out some of the code if needed, but for me using iWeb just means I can create a site easily and quickly, which otherwise wouldn't exist at all. Actually, I've been looking at swapping over to RapidWeaver (recently purchased in the MacHeist bundle), but I can't quite get some of it to work as I wanted (i.e. emulating features I use in iWeb), and it seems to suffer with more things that don't work properly than iWeb does. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Woody on 9 Apr 2010 05:21 On 09/04/2010 09:56, Andy Hewitt wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 09/04/2010 00:33, Andy Hewitt wrote: >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > [..] >>> #this bit was in italic >>> >>> <p class="paragraph_style_3">This Week<br /></p> >>> >>> #and here is where it stopped displaying. >>> >>> <p class="paragraph_style_4">Everybody welcome to:-<br >>> /></p> >> >> Hard to say without seeing what was in the classes or what was there >> before. But if you want that in italic, why isn't paragraph_style_4 got >> italic in it? Doesn't make sense to have a style and then have another >> tag to put it in italic. > > It may not have been that the 'paragraph' was in italic, only the block > of text. It was initially copied and pasted from TextEdit - which I use > to clean up the text a bit before it goes into iWeb. > > This is the blog page if you're interested in having a look. > > <http://stmartinandstjohn.org/StMartin/PewSheet/PewSheet.html> Yes, there is quite a bit in there that is very browser hack specific (indeed, the header says to emulate IE7, which is why IE8 works better in IE7 hacks mode). > FWIW, it also had the same effect with underline text too, but bold text > works OK. As an immediate observation, that may not help you that much it does scream out for some kind of database driven thing, as its a group of events. You know, if you wanted something else to do / learn! >> The sensible thing to have done would have been to fail with an error. >> The author would have fixed the code, and it would have worked on all >> browsers. > > Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic, I know that so many people write > poor HTML code, myself included I guess as I use iWeb. I don't know > about 'old browsers', I test the site in all 'current' browsers. apart from IE8?! > I appreciate what you say though, it should have been done better to > maintain the standards. However, wasn't it MS that tried to break the > standards in the first place? It kind of makes IE8 a lesson in irony! Well, no, really it was one big pissing competition. Clearly my description of what should have happened is based on user requirements, there is no competitive advantage in your browser displaying exactly what someone elses browser displays. No, netscape really started adding things to the standard, IE joined in later. To this day many web browsers (including IE) claim initially to be netscape as otherwise certain pages wouldn't work. > FWIW, isn't it going to be a bit of peeing into the wind to try and > reverse this now? For one, many personal sites are now created with easy > creation tools, such as iWeb, and more often than not use poor standards > to enable fancy stuff to be used by those that can't do HTML code. No. IE8 has the advantage that however much IE domination has slipped over the years, they are still the leading browser. You made that code, it stopped displaying on IE8, you went back to fix it. > This includes myself, I can work out some of the code if needed, but for > me using iWeb just means I can create a site easily and quickly, which > otherwise wouldn't exist at all. > > Actually, I've been looking at swapping over to RapidWeaver (recently > purchased in the MacHeist bundle), but I can't quite get some of it to > work as I wanted (i.e. emulating features I use in iWeb), and it seems > to suffer with more things that don't work properly than iWeb does. I quite like rapid weaver for what it does, once you get used to its way of working. Having said that I have never used it for a full site. -- Woody
From: Andy Hewitt on 9 Apr 2010 06:21
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > On 09/04/2010 09:56, Andy Hewitt wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > <http://stmartinandstjohn.org/StMartin/PewSheet/PewSheet.html> > > Yes, there is quite a bit in there that is very browser hack specific > (indeed, the header says to emulate IE7, which is why IE8 works better > in IE7 hacks mode). Yeah, I spotted that before. I know it can be edited, but that does mean exporting the site to a folder, editing the header, and the FTP'ing the whole site up each time I change it. Not ideal. > > FWIW, it also had the same effect with underline text too, but bold text > > works OK. > > As an immediate observation, that may not help you that much it does > scream out for some kind of database driven thing, as its a group of > events. You know, if you wanted something else to do / learn! Yeah, I used the blog feature as it seemed the nearest I could get, and get it done quickly without much effort. > >> The sensible thing to have done would have been to fail with an error. > >> The author would have fixed the code, and it would have worked on all > >> browsers. > > > > Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic, I know that so many people write > > poor HTML code, myself included I guess as I use iWeb. I don't know > > about 'old browsers', I test the site in all 'current' browsers. > > apart from IE8?! Well, yes, I do check it in IE8, but sometimes it's a quick browse to see if it works, obviously I didn't go far enough. It's also a faff to do, as I either have to fire up VirtualBox, or another PC, just to check if one page is fixed. > > I appreciate what you say though, it should have been done better to > > maintain the standards. However, wasn't it MS that tried to break the > > standards in the first place? It kind of makes IE8 a lesson in irony! > > Well, no, really it was one big pissing competition. Clearly my > description of what should have happened is based on user requirements, > there is no competitive advantage in your browser displaying exactly > what someone elses browser displays. No, netscape really started adding > things to the standard, IE joined in later. To this day many web > browsers (including IE) claim initially to be netscape as otherwise > certain pages wouldn't work. <groan> > > FWIW, isn't it going to be a bit of peeing into the wind to try and > > reverse this now? For one, many personal sites are now created with easy > > creation tools, such as iWeb, and more often than not use poor standards > > to enable fancy stuff to be used by those that can't do HTML code. > > No. IE8 has the advantage that however much IE domination has slipped > over the years, they are still the leading browser. You made that code, > it stopped displaying on IE8, you went back to fix it. Yeah, just like I had to! > > This includes myself, I can work out some of the code if needed, but for > > me using iWeb just means I can create a site easily and quickly, which > > otherwise wouldn't exist at all. > > > > Actually, I've been looking at swapping over to RapidWeaver (recently > > purchased in the MacHeist bundle), but I can't quite get some of it to > > work as I wanted (i.e. emulating features I use in iWeb), and it seems > > to suffer with more things that don't work properly than iWeb does. > > I quite like rapid weaver for what it does, once you get used to its way > of working. Having said that I have never used it for a full site. It seems OK, it's not WYSIWYG for editing, and many links don't work until it's been published, but I suspect it may produce slightly better code than iWeb. In the meantime, it's still easier for me to work around the odd glitch using iWeb. As you can see, the site has got quite large, and a migration is going to be a mammoth task. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |