does any1 know why my site isn't bein displayed in mozilla right? but in IE it works perfectly??? hmm is it poor coding skills? i used dreamweaver and other programs...

ok my URL for my site obvioiusly has a bad word so i can't put it here lol

Ummm...that doesn't help, does it? :)

-Jason

Without looking at the site...its hard to make a comment but if you code is not standard by that i mean if its something that dreamweaver is adding which is not part of the standard html/dhtml/css or scripting not recognized by the browser but is more fine tuned work with IE becuase it used by a huge crowd....then you would have to manually edit the code.....Look at your target audience and make a decision.....

Good Luck
:wavey:

Mozilla doesnt support iframes, if you used those, that would be one reason...

Yes it does, Andyzor.

Originally posted by Informity
Yes it does, Andyzor. They don't adhere to standards, though. An overflow element in a div with an include would be more appropriate.

What part of Mozilla's IFrames support is faulty? AFAIK, it follows the common box-model approach, which we all know gets botched up by IE, and is presented flawlessly in Mozilla. I guess if you went back to the Moz build used in NS4, you'd find no IFrame support, but that was seven years ago!

Regardless of standards support, IFrames are a bad idea for many other reasons, and yes, you are correct, scrolling divs are a much better choice.

95% of the time, if IE is displaying a site "right" and every other browser is wrong, it's a case of the code being wrong, not the other browsers. But considering the tool of choice is Dreamweaver, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

How about you give us a hint on the URL, sort of like online charades? First word, four letters, rhymes with yuck, etc. :)

Paul H

But considering the tool of choice is Dreamweaver, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

Only if he didn't hand code it ;)

I suggest using http://validator.w3.org and correcting every mistake / error. once your code is perfect (to standard), it will display correctly :)

I suggest using http://validator.w3.org and correcting every mistake / error. once your code is perfect (to standard), it will display correctly
Oh man, if only this were the case...

It's possible to develop within standards guidelines and have a consistent result. It's also possible to develop within standards and get some pretty botched sites. Like anything having to do with computers, there are usually 15 ways to accomplish the same thing, and 14 of them are inferior to one. So once you validate (which is a very good step), get to doing browser tests! :)

Paul H

FOR SOME WEIRD REASON NOW IT WORKS ON BOTH BROWSWERS HMMMMMMMM

the_pm, yes, but some people don't have every browser etc. and don't wish to spend out on BrowserCam.

I feel for you prodj. For me personally, the worst part of a project is getting it to work on multiple browsers.

Originally posted by pmoduk2
I suggest using http://validator.w3.org and correcting every mistake / error. once your code is perfect (to standard), it will display correctly :)

Oh man.. anyone who's done any kind of CSS-based development knows this is definitely not the case. Perfectly valid code displays very differently in different browsers.

I did some validation on some of the biggest sites on the net, google, microsoft etc. and they had more errors than my sites :p

the_pm, yes, but some people don't have every browser etc. and don't wish to spend out on BrowserCam.

A gentleman by the name of Dan Vine put together a site that does free screenshots of Safari, IE6, IE5.5, IE5, IE4, FireFox and Opera 7.23. That makes a good portion of testing pretty easy right there. http://www.danvine.com/icapture - http://www.danvine.com/iecapture

Then, I download K-meleon, Moz., NS4 (just for kicks) and sometimes later versions of NS, though Moz will generally cover these. You can get all of these from their original sources, or go to http://browsers.evolt.org/ and download browsers to your heart's content.

It really takes very little time to do cross-browser testing, perhaps 3-5 minutes, and once you get the hang of those little quirks, you'll find testing becomes nothing more than a formality anyway.

I did some validation on some of the biggest sites on the net, google, microsoft etc. and they had more errors than my sites

That's not too uncommon. Does Microsoft surprise you in the least? :)