You don't indicate you've done so, so you may wish to validate your html against w3c ( html validator ) standards. There's also a .css validator, if you're using stylesheets.
But there are many other questions here: what vers. each browser? how is site hosted (windows, linux, ???? Did you use proper upload mode to prevent *n*x vs. DOS line-ending issues? address of site? description of where (in what page) discrepancies occur?
Point is, you have details that the Monastery does not. We can best help you -- even if no more than offering the likes of my first paragraph -- if we have sufficient info to offer decent help.
And with all that said, why don't you register a name, and join the madness? | [reply] |
Many people have "Tabus" ... i'm creating an adult website. I don't have problem with that. But how i know for many people is a sin!!! If i had a Sex Shop ... no problem... but in Internet?! Is a sin. I already use w3c and some problems appears :)... Thanks for the help. I'm register for some time ago..
| [reply] |
Pescador:
I think I understand relevance of ... "I already use w3c and some problems appears" so I can offer a comment on that:
Mozilla and IE (at least pending the next vers of IE) and <insert almost any other browser name here> STILL don't use the same Document Object Model (DOM)
AND probably even more relevant to your variant renderings question, support CSS differently.
These are a few among many ways to deal with this:
- acquire an exhaustive understanding the cross browser quirks
- accept (for a base testbed) some version of some browser, validate the html and css, and then tweak code for other target browsers until you can live with the results across the board
- code a 'browser check' into each page, and create a mechanism to output code suited to each browser based on the check.
While the first might be admirable, in some fashion or another, it might require commiting 100% of your time and thus would fail as a goals-oriented approach. However, a less-than-exhaustive understanding can save you a lot of trouble.
So too can the second, though it can also spiral into "never-finished-hell"
And three is fine, presuming the restrictions on your work don't do battle with browser-checking (for ex: the site of one of my clients has to conform to rules that interpret US and w3c Accessibility Standards as banning javascript and is also restricted by host-imposed limits on alternate approaches) and so long as you can deal with browser quirks by using .css -- ie, without creating redundant pages for each browser.
And if the rest of your post means you're working on a project of which you fear the Monks will disapprove -- sobeit, but the editorial content isn't the issue; it's the code. Feel free to compress, redact, <snip> anything not relevant to the question at hand.
ww, ex-schodckwm
| [reply] |