.Map :: MoHAA Mapping

Reading about so many firefox fans here, I thought maybe someone can explain to me:
Why is Firefox not accepting cellspacing="5" in a webpage's table definition I did?
I didn't find anything wrong in the html-code, but maybe anybody else?!
Here's the link if this was of any help:
http://www.ps-studio.de/. Problem is to be found in the sub pages, where there ought to be some space between the blue line and the text block

Try this validator for html
http://validator.w3.org/ (found errors in your pages)
and this one for css
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Well, the error causing Firefox to misbehave wasn't shown there (many others though, u're right, but I never succeeded in making a page showing no error, maybe because I use Frontpage )
But I found out, that Frontpage (again ) inserted style="border-collapse: collapse" into the table definition which does collide with the cellspacing thing. Dunno why it did insert it nor why it's working in IE but doesn't in Firefox. Bloody MS crap
Thanks m8 nevertheless

Bloody MS crap

i'd say it's blood Firefox crap if it's working in an MS product but not in FF

lizardkid wrote:i'd say it's blood Firefox crap if it's working in an MS product but not in FF

Well, I'm a MS user (OS, Office apps and webdesign) myself and I'm surely no Gates hater.
The fact that FF can't recognize that definiton and others (which are said to be no correct html code but are used all over the web) makes me share ur opinion. But just partially. Frontpage inserting that style thing by itself, giving not a single hit in it's help about it and doing some other rather strange things web coding, this is rather annoying too. E.g. I'm pretty sure, I cannot make a website that will give no error in the validator Deutsche Dogge named. I mean, if I would just write a page in the "normal view" without manual coding, this ought to be html conform, shouldn't it?:roll:
So, both crap (like rather any software u take)

As you told wacko, the problem is Frontpage. It makes code to be compatible with MS products, not compatible with W3C coding standards.

Using dreamweaver is already much better but to be 100% sure the code is ok, i always verify tags myself, never trusted editors on that. W3C recommends to stop using <font> tags, and some other tags, and use CSS instead to specify styles, it also has the advantage to produce smaller files (less tags in them), but editors are not implementing this 100% yet.

Want to be sure? drop frontpage, unless you know how to clean the FP code, and use an application that implements the coding standards established.

There is another cool editor, html-kit, freeware with nice features, plugins SDK and a lot of community-coded plugins. You can customize a lot of stuff on this app. I stopped using it because at work they used DW and i got used to it, but html-kit is worth a try if there is no "standards" established where you need to code pages.
http://www.chami.com/html-kit/

Mmm. Will take a close look at html-kit the next days. Thanks for the link, m8

lizardkid wrote:i'd say it's blood Firefox crap if it's working in an MS product but not in FF

I'm speechless...

Anyway, it certainly is M$ crap. It is M$ who always adapted the standards to fit their own needs. It was M$ whose software has always been more error-tolerant.

The Gecko engine Firefox is based on sticks closely to the W3C HTML standards. It won't forgive you any mistakes you make in the code.

Rookie One.pl {sfx} wrote: It was M$ whose software has always been more error-tolerant.
...
The Gecko engine Firefox ... won't forgive you any mistakes you make in the code.

This imho is a big pro for the microsoft products and big con for FF. Not sure why u're saying it's "M$ crap" then.

How can you consider altering a widely supported standard to make it fully supported only by a narrow group of software a pro?

Code should live up to all the standards, otherwise it's just not valid. That's the idea.

Test your code against the validators at http://www.w3.org/ and fix the errors found and it should work in any browser. I'm saying SHOULD as it is HELL to get code to work in all browsers anyway. And browsers not conforming to the standards are not helping ( and neither is market leading browsers extending/changing the standards ).

Using CSS together with HTML/XHTML/XML is the bomb, because the MarkupLanguages were never intended for design, they were intended for structure. And CSS separates out the looks from the text data.

I recently made an update to a rather big site ( http://www.arvikafestivalen.se/ ) and the change from this:
...to this:
...was made by changing a single CSS file. The alternative if the site had used HTML to dictate looks would be to update the design of over 100 page templates. If that is not cool enough: it looks very similar in all browsers.

If that is not a good reason to follow w3.org's recommendations, then you are not a site designer, and I'm a monkeys uncle.
( The site is XHTML 1.0 Transitional b.t.w.)

This imho is a big pro for the microsoft products and big con for FF. Not sure why u're saying it's "M$ crap" then.

exactly, i think you're either not expressing yourself correctly or we have a big misunderstanding here...

Rookie One.pl {sfx} wrote:How can you consider altering a widely supported standard to make it fully supported only by a narrow group of software a pro? Code should live up to all the standards, otherwise it's just not valid. That's the idea.

Sorry, I understood u like MS is supporting both "its interpretation of html" and the W3C recommended standards. Altering these standards and NOT accepting the W3C conform code of course is bad.
IE from this point of view seems to be rather okay. Frontpage though I can't persuade to produce "good" code, so this probably is the ms crap u were talking of.
So, it's rather the html (or whatever) editors' fault that those W3C recommendations are not followed in so many websites. And from this point of view, I prefer a browser which is "more error-tolerant" and which understands as much (even non-w3c-conform) code as possible. FF saying "Hey, I don't have to understand this, it's just ms's crappy html!" isn't much help with billions of "incorrect" websites out there

Does this make things a bit clearer?

I can't agree more with Bjarne to have a good structure and no styles hard-coded.

As for having "understanding error-forgiving" browser, it only makes more people code the bad way if they learn by themselves and/or use crappy code as reference.

W3C is the way to go and all documentations are available so, no excuses possibles.

Deutsche Dogge wrote:I can't agree more with Bjarne to have a good structure and no styles hard-coded.

Me too. That's why I use CSS on my own webby.

Deutsche Dogge wrote: As for having "understanding error-forgiving" browser, it only makes more people code the bad way if they learn by themselves and/or use crappy code as reference.

W3C is the way to go and all documentations are available so, no excuses possibles.

Dogge, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.