dbrimlow

[quote]I'd like to know where you pulled that from.  I didn't arbitrarily use anything.  I used it because it solved the exact problem I had.  Changing something to block or inline is bad in what way, because it acheives a different effect?[/quote] I never said changing something to block or inline is bad. I said arbitariliy using display:block is a "bad idea". And, yes, I apologize if I assumed you did your fix arbitrarily. But telling him to use display:block without knowing how it was in relation to its parent block/box appeared to me to be arbitrary. A "block" positioning in use for layout of non-block elements will cause its position to be controlled by its container block. And its position inheritence is different if you have it within a float, absolute or relative parent and any relative margins, paddings, height, width, borders and even within other block items like list items block quotes, etc. ... and they can all of have a different effect, in different browsers. Just saying use "display:block" without knowing the parent container block, margins, paddings, borders IS A BAD IDEA. "The margin box of a table, a block-level replaced element, or an element in the normal flow that establishes a new block formatting context (such as an element with 'overflow' other than 'visible') must not overlap any floats in the same block formatting context as the element itself. If necessary, implementations should clear the said element by placing it below any preceding floats, but may place it adjacent to such floats if there is sufficient space." SO. Again my point was, by all means use display:block ... but KNOW why, when and how it should be used. [quote]Also, I challenge your #3 "rule of CORRECT CSS coding" above: even with the differences posed in IE7, you shouldn't have to use conditional comments to get your layout to look right. If you've built your site well and your CSS is solidly working in IE6, FF, Opera, etc., it really doesn't take that much reworking to get it to display well in IE7, either.[/quote] True ... if you don't include IE 5.x for PC and Mac and 5.5. These REQUIRE proper hacks to make them behave. So, consider that I said if your layout looks perfect in every browser in the world except IE7. That would include IE 5.x and 5.5 and 5.x for mac - therefore, that also assumes there are hacks in place to make the old IEs work (and if some of you don't think you need hacks for css layouts in IE 5.x, 5.5 and 5.x for mac ... then you never saw your layout in those browsers without hacks ... it's frightening!) But, in IE 7 a number of CSS hacks that rely on IEwin's failure to support certain advanced selectors will be failing, because IE7 supports those selectors. And while this IS a good thing overall in the quest for IE standards, it will play havok with those css that already have the hacks there for IE 5.x, 5.5 and 5.x for mac.  So the simple solution is to write a seperate IE 7 css to replace those elements that the hacks tell IE to use and put an <!-- if IE 7 ...> cond-com link to it; because you cannot remove the hacks and expect it to work in 5.x and/or 5.5. When you have either a few or a few hundred pre-existing pages that work with hacks, you want to tell it to work with IE 7. I know it sounds more complicated than it should be, but many of us still get plenty of old IE versions showing up in our stats. And until they drop off to infrequent, many business webmasters still allow for them.

[quote author=jcombs_31 link=topic=123524.msg511270#msg511270 date=1169556051] I've had the bottom padding issue in firefox before.  From what I remember, add display:block to the image. [/quote] Arbitrarily using a block level item for layout correction is a VERY bad idea. jcombs_31 was very lucky that the layout most likely needed the block level item. Stay away from display:block unless you know how and where to use it. obsidian is 100% correct ... NEVER use a blank source tag <img src="" /> . This will totally mess with your layout - and will do it randomly without logical rhyme or reason; and will be virtually impossible to troubleshoot in your css. (I actually had this dynamically creating blank rows in an interactive database table insert!) Remember the rule of CORRECT css coding: 1. if it works in FF, Opera and/or Safari, but not in IE 6 or below ... the css and mark-up is 100% correct ... you need to add proper hacs to your css. 2. if it works in any, every and all IEs but NOT in FF, Opera and/or Safari ... there's a bug in your code or markup. Period. 3. if it works in every browser in the world, but not IE 7 ... the css and markup is perfect, the hacks work like a charm and you are a master ... you NOW need to make a seperate ie 7 only css AND put a conditional comment link to it in your head tag (welcome to what it was like during the browser wars ... gee, thanks again MS!).

#content simply cannot be: [code]height:auto; width:auto; overflow:auto;[/code] without a "visibility:" of either - "default, inherit, hidden or visible"; it will never display correctly in IE 5.x, 5.5 or 6. You also have "overflow:" options of :auto, hidden, visible or scroll. You should create a new css for just IE styles and use a conditional comment tag so it doesn't blow up in real browsers, yet works in IE's various versions. <!--[if IE ]> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/ieonly.css" media="screen"> <![endif]--> You can then use "overflow: scroll".

First, PHP tags in DW are red. Forms are orange, functions are blue, variables are black and conditionals are green. You can change the colors in the preferences, but my advice is to leave them alone. It works. >>Also when you go to create a new file make sure you select PHP Script and not HTML script. If you use HTML people wont recognise PHP.<< Actually, not true. When you click create new, and select either "basic" html or "dynamic" php, it will create the same starting page. (I always use the xhtml tranitional DType): [code]<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Untitled Document</title> </head> <body> </body> </html>[/code] The only difference is when you go to save it, it defaults to either "untitled-1.html" or "untitled-1.php" BUT, you can save any existing html page to .php and start adding php code. So long as you SAVE the file as .php, it doesn't matter.

I'll trade you re-writing your code to be cross-browser perfect and w3c compliant for replacing the tweed on my Blues DeVille 4x10s.

Nice floating technique. The iestyle.css has null values for widths and heights. Where did you come up with this? For the IE try overflow:auto and visibility:visible.

Anything goes when you don't use proper DOCTYPE and valid html.

TM, do you never have to show equal sized boxes side by side? For most of my real estate site work, I need to have a list of available apartments. This list shows a small photo, a description, price and agent name and contact info. Since the data is entered by our listings dept. I can't control how much description, amenities, etc to include. So if I use floated divs, unless I fix the heights, the boxes will have inconsistant heights when dynamically generated from the DB. There was an intrepid attempt to force equal height boxes by Roger Johansson [url=http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/equal_height_ii/]http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/equal_height_ii/[/url] but it only works in real browsers and not any IE flavor. This is where I am occasionally forced to use a table. I have two real estate sites where I was able to control content size and/or make the height of all boxes the size of what I know to be the largest amount of data (http://www.regisresidential.com/drentallist.php?comment=new) and for those that may have more description, I just put a "more" link to the item detail page. But it is still not an easy solution. How do you handle dynamic equal height boxes (if you need to)? Dave

[quote author=ToonMariner link=topic=121090.msg498380#msg498380 date=1168118369] Apologies mate - I didn't read anything after 'If you are using tables, then'...... I do apologize its just tables anger me a great deal - unless you are using them for TABulating data of course;) [/quote] What angers me is still having to often use tables for layout in the first place. In the real world, Microsoft simply does not allow us to code properly. And so long as a large percentage of users still use IE 5.5 (and now IE 7.0), I am FORCED to compromise all integrity and occasionally use tables for business websites. And (speak of the devil) now with the BS they pulled with IE 7.0 (fixing the bugs that permitted the work around "hacks" without fixing the reason the hacks were necessary), MS has proven to be the snakes they are. They want the world to use IE, period. And they will do anything they can to force coders to compromise. So we have three choices - use tables for quick, easy and guaranteed layout positioning, continue using web standards CSS (with the hacks) and potentially have your web pages now blow up in IE 7; learn their annoying, proprietary conditional expressions to force proper layout and conformity with web standards (while bloating your page weight with more code). I feel and share your pain TM. But try as we might, attempting to force MS to get with the program is futile for business websites. The only way for coders to unite and force MS to give in, is if we all make entertainment and personal websites using 100% w3c web standards code. But with the garbage put out by most web editors and online web generating sites like "myspace" etc., it's a tall order. Look at most of the posts here ... they are either: "My site works fine in IE" or "My site doesn't look right in FF". Look at 99% of the sites created in the "website critique" forum. No doctypes, massive markup styling, dreadfull html tagging, broken table nesting, missing <html> tags, etc. And nearly all of them will work in IE but no where else. Look at most of the large commercial grade websites ... most are still quirks mode crap code (even the new ones!) Do you think the coders who were paid reall big buck to create them don't know standards? No, their clients want to reach the widest possible audience. And unfortunately that audience using various flavors of IE. It's going to be a long drawn out battle until we are out of the dark ages of website creation - it will take MS finally knuckling under. Meanwhile, we need to get a paycheck. (sorry for the rant, LOL).

Looking at your web page source code, the problems are indeed many. The whole structure is wrong. You are actually putting the text where it is showing. The page is falling apart because it does not have an <html> tag, the table tags are not correct. A better way to fix it is to open it in your browser, view source and copy and paste the html code that php produced. You will be able to see from there where it is all screwy. Once you fix the html, go back to php and revise the php commands by putting the proper html tags to echo where they belong. like this: [code]function print_header($title='Alderaan Base') { print(" <!-- add the html tag --!>  <html>                 <head> <title>$title</title> <link rel='stylesheet' href='/include/alderaanbase.css'> </head>[/code] It isn't the css ... it's the markup structure. Remember, php produces the html output you tell it to, so always start with a properly crafted html page so you will know what and where to tell php to create.

LOL!!! Oh, man, Fenway's response nearly made me spit-take my coffee! Before Iszanto's my sides hurt, but after reading Iszanto's, though, I couldn't see for the tears in my eyes. I think I can perhaps clear up something. It looks to me as if krimax is trying to post a graphic in a BB forum. "html" tags in a BB  need to be "enabled". krimax, see if your forum allows "img" And, Iszanto is correct - although he didn't realize he should have used "code" "/code" for his post - A break and horizontal rule tag are the only two "empty" tags; which would confuse a newbie anyway. Man, I really needed this thread today :}

Actually, SOMETHING processes the form and submits the data (variables). Even using a straight sendmail cgi determines the format sent. Unless you are using some scarey FrontPage extension thing.

I don't get the duplicate function tags. Unless there is a condition for one or the other are they both going to add headers and footers?

You showed the php/html code NOT the stylesheet. The stylesheet is "alderaanbase.css". Also, if that is the entire page, you are leaving out the <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC etc...> AND/or at least the <html> tags. Replace <body bgcolor=black text=black marginheight=0 marginwidth=0>  with <body> and put the style tags in the body section of your stylesheet. Stay away from any styling in your body markup. They should be handled by the css.

No, that's the whole code. I'm using gedit, then in a konsole monitor to run it. I also tried calling it in a crontab.

!@$#%& I'm getting an error that I simply cannot figure out. Here is the bash ... the syntax seems right to me (according to all the resource help files I read): Using SuSe 10.1, the shell script checks that the PSV file has content (greater than zero - hence "-s") then loads the sql text command into MySQL. The syntax seems correct, but I get an error that there is an unrecognized "token" before "fi". The file is named pipefilechk.sh and it is in the /bin/ folder. I try to call it in command line with "exec pipefilechk.sh". I also have it in a crontab, but it is not working either way. ******************* #!/bin/bash if [ -s /usr/local/src/blist.psv ] then /usr/bin/mysql -u someuser -p somepassword < /usr/local/src/blist.sql fi ******************** When I just type the "then" command directly into command line, it works; so we know this isn't causing the error. The fact that it says there is an unrecognized "token". Anyone know BASH enough to see why it is failing?

[quote author=fenway link=topic=89634.msg493817#msg493817 date=1167511421] Looks fine to me.... that must have been a long to-do list if it took 9 months. [/quote] LOL, yeah built and set-up our intranet server (SuSe 10.1), revised 60% of a 2,000 page website from tables and markup style to css, built three interactive websites with custom management forms, and have been trying to see what needs to be done to convert hundreds of pages made with php 3 & 4.0.3 to php 5 (all the security functions and non-backwards compatibility) as well as learn new security standards for the latest Free BSD, Apache and MySQL before upgrading our web server. Oh, and I spent WAYYY too much time trying fighting to make a floating (flexible) CSS layout work in IE 5.x and 5.5 only to find that it was blowing up in 800 x 600 res in most platforms anyway. I figurerd I may as well pick some of the easier stuff from the list, now. This year burnt me out.

I finally got to revisitiing this on my "list of things to do". It looks to me like wickning1's initial idea of using "bash" is the solution. Anyone familiar with bash syntax? Would this work: (I would have cron run this as "pipefilechk.sh") [code]#!/bin/bash if [-s /usr/home/master/usr/home/somefolder/somedatadump.psv] then /usr/home/master/usr/local/bin/mysql -u uname -p pword < /usr/home/master/command/command.sql[/code]

I am using php 4.0.3 on my old host server. I want to use the "mb_detect_encoding" function in a script, but of course it didn't come out until 4.0.6. Is there any way that I can create a function that does the same thing (and then use that function in my code wherever it uses mb_detect_encoding)? Until I get my new server, I need to find work arounds. Thanks, Dave

It isn't easy, but it can be done. The only problem is that you have to use a fixed width/height layout. It is rough when using a "liquid/flexible" layout. Here are two examples I use for displaying a search results (should be fine in all browsers incl. IE 5x for mac and win, IE 5.5, IE 6.0) although my assistant removed the <html> tags, I just noticed, on quite a few of the pages ... I have a lot of copy pastes to do!!! : http://manhattanlofts.com/sales/ The next one is a work in progress that is giving me fits, the main site is liquid, the search results are fixed (different style sheet) and the product page is liquid (click the photo for the product page): http://www.regisresidential.com/apartments.html (do a search): It really is not very stable unless you get it just right.

[quote]Search have to know that in any industry there are people that specialize in developing sites for that industry, so there will be lots of sites on the same IPs or the same IP blocks.[/quote] True. And like I said, they don't really enforce the same IP rule as spam anymore. BUT, if you have two websites, with 2 different domain names, that point to the same root, BUT are the same industry ... THAT may not get by the relaxed rule. [b]Each domain should have it's own root, seperate and apart from any other website root ... that's how vhosts work and why they were created.[/b] They allow you to specify a completely new root for a website within the Apache "www" folder. But, for "natural ranking" it still isn't the optimun SEO situation. Sure, if each vhost has different quality links to them, then that it always the bot's first consideration for natural ranking. [quote]Would a search engine even know they use the same documentroot? it is not in the headers that i  can see.[/quote] Of course SE bots know the path of each domain they crawl ... otherwise how would they index it? SE bots are extremely smart, but even the dumbest bot can follow and index paths ... it is what they are created for.

You can try the NameVirtualHost directive. Just type in your local IP. NameVirtualHost 123.12.12.123:* # The NameVirtualHost directive is a required directive if you want to # configure name-based virtual hosts.

They will have a seperate docroot that you should define in a DocumentRoot in the vhost directive. Since the user and group is scott ... "/home/scott/public_html" is the DocumentRoot; so just add a sub-folder for each site (also, I always use The NameVirtualHost directive since vhosts use the same IP anyway - unless this is just a local linux webserver, then use the IP): [code] NameVirtualHost 72.29.82.92:* <VirtualHost yelmdirectrealestate.com www.yelmdirectrealestate.com> ServerName yelmdirectrealestate.com ServerAdmin webmaster@yelmdirectrealestate.com DocumentRoot /home/scott/public_html/yelmdirectrealestate.com BytesLog domlogs/yelmdirectrealestate.com-bytes_log CustomLog /usr/local/apache/domlogs/yelmdirectrealestate.com combined </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost olympiadirectrealestate.com www.olympiadirectrealestate.com> ServerName olympiadirectrealestate.com ServerAdmin webmaster@olympiadirectrealestate.com DocumentRoot /home/scott/public_html/olympiadirectrealestate.com BytesLog domlogs/olympiadirectrealestate.com-bytes_log CustomLog /usr/local/apache/domlogs/olympiadirectrealestate.com combined </VirtualHost>[/code] But, if this is an online webserver (not a local developer server) beware the perception by search engines of spamming. If these are two different real estate domains using the same IP AND DocumentRoot, search engines could very well consider this an attempt at spamming. Even when they have their own root, sometimes the fact that they have the same IP can "potentiallY' be considered spam (although they are not as strict if they have a different root).

We just installed the new SuSe 10.1 onto a new intranet server we bought for our large office. The learning curve isn't bad. We were up and running, had all of the modules installed, and debugged the php program we designed, within two weeks. In the USA I recommend going to either Barnes & Noble or Boarders and buying the "Linux Starter Kit by Emmett Dulaney" $39.95. It includes the full 10.1 installation DVD. But I would also recommend buying an advanced SuSe 10.1 book. You will find that you will be at the Novell community boards, as well. What is a little confusing, for those of use who have used Wamp or a Unix Amp, is how they break up the Apache httpd.config file to use various "includes" for modules and commands, rather than one central httpd.config file. Also, the "Web Developer" package install default doesn't install all modules and all programs. You will need to know exactly what programs you want and what modules you need that are beyond the defaults. For the most part, though, I think it is the best available. Oh, and this is the open source version (not to be confused with the enterprise version).

[quote]Or could someone give me a view on how to display more than one div on a line with out the float command?[/quote] Well, this layout is indeed using floats (he just styles them within the actual html markup - and not in the css). This is actually an extremely clever layout (although he is a wise guy for pulling that "IE error" pop-up crap - not there in FF, so I got suckered since I don't use IE much). Overall, it Looks like he is just using two main elements - the leftsideextra is a "fixed position element, while the rest is held in a single margin positioned container. He then floats any side-by-side content (like the Donation top list) by styling the float in the markup). The best way to see what he did is to use Firefox and use the information viewing tools from the (MUST HAVE) installed web developer's toolbar extension.