Here http://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.asp you will see a very wide
(outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
never happens in IE6+, FF. Can anyone find the problem? Thanks
Here is the screen shot that may not be available soon:
http://browsershots.org/png/512/59/592a613878b44a98e770c88a7 fd5faf1.png

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:57:06 -0800 (PST), VUNETdotUS wrote:

> Here http://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.asp you will see a very wide
> (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> never happens in IE6+, FF. Can anyone find the problem? Thanks
> Here is the screen shot that may not be available soon:
> http://browsershots.org/png/512/59/592a613878b44a98e770c88a7 fd5faf1.png

why worry about it? IE5 is ancient history. I'm surprised you even have a
copy. From stats I've seen from my website, it would appear that FF
outrules IE anyways. Chances are it's probably due to IE5 just not
recognizing the coding. Back then, css was just beginning and browsers had
to change with the times.

On Nov 20, 10:59 am, richard <s... [at] google.dom> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:57:06 -0800 (PST), VUNETdotUS wrote:
> > Herehttp://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.aspyou will see a very wide
> > (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> > never happens in IE6+, FF. Can anyone find the problem? Thanks
> > Here is the screen shot that may not be available soon:
> >http://browsershots.org/png/512/59/592a613878b44a98e770c88a 7fd5faf1.png
>
> why worry about it? IE5 is ancient history. I'm surprised you even have a
> copy. From stats I've seen from my website, it would appear that FF
> outrules IE anyways. Chances are it's probably due to IE5 just not
> recognizing the coding. Back then, css was just beginning and browsers had
> to change with the times.

You may be right. However, I've noticed that when I use Google cached
link it shows the same result in all IE (including IE7, not FF). I
think something is wrong with right positioning, perhaps. Thanks

In article
<6f6262a0-8fd0-4077-96b2-9e7d2903153a [at] i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.co
m>,
VUNETdotUS <vunet.us [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> Here http://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.asp you will see a very wide
> (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> never happens in IE6+, FF. Can anyone find the problem? Thanks
> Here is the screen shot that may not be available soon:
> http://browsershots.org/png/512/59/592a613878b44a98e770c88a7 fd5faf1.png

You put up a transitional doctype doc, it does not validate and
the errors can be seen via http://validator.w3.org/ and at
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Best to fix these before peering into the murky waters of IE size
calculations.

--
dorayme

On Nov 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <6f6262a0-8fd0-4077-96b2-9e7d29031... [at] i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.co
> m>,
>
> VUNETdotUS <vunet... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > Herehttp://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.aspyou will see a very wide
> > (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> > never happens in IE6+, FF. Can anyone find the problem? Thanks
> > Here is the screen shot that may not be available soon:
> >http://browsershots.org/png/512/59/592a613878b44a98e770c88a 7fd5faf1.png
>
> You put up a transitional doctype doc, it does not validate and
> the errors can be seen viahttp://validator.w3.org/and athttp://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
>
> Best to fix these before peering into the murky waters of IE size
> calculations.
>
> --
> dorayme

Yes, thanks. But they are topmargin, leftmargin in BODY tag or omitted
ALT tag. Is this is a serious problem?

In article
<ff8b7d53-1637-48df-b4da-1a71792c1a42 [at] d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m>,
VUNETdotUS <vunet.us [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme wrote:

> > VUNETdotUSwrote:
> > > Herehttp://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.aspyou will see a very wide
> > > (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> > > never happens in IE6+, FF.
> >
> > You put up a transitional doctype doc, it does not validate and
> > the errors can be seen via http://validator.w3.org/ and
> > at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
> >
> > Best to fix these before peering into the murky waters of IE size
> > calculations.

>
> Yes, thanks. But they are topmargin, leftmargin in BODY tag or omitted
> ALT tag. Is this is a serious problem?

I only saw the number of errors and the first one (which you omit
to ask if it is serious) before replying. The first listed was:

Line 8, Column 6: required attribute "TYPE" not specified.

<style>

The attribute given above is required for an element that you've
used, but you have omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and
XHTML document types the "type" attribute is required on the
"script" element

I was just remarking on it, and thinking that if someone was able
to look into IE 5 and your code, it would encourage them if you
had your mark up kosher. Given you are obviously a keen css
stylesheeter, what motivated you to include those layout
instructions in <body...>? You using a generator?

--
dorayme

On Nov 20, 3:23 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <ff8b7d53-1637-48df-b4da-1a71792c1... [at] d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
> m>,
>
>
>
> VUNETdotUS <vunet... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > > VUNETdotUSwrote:
> > > > Herehttp://www.vunet.us/wic/test/top.aspyouwill see a very wide
> > > > (outside the screen) div with id="middle" (red color border). This
> > > > never happens in IE6+, FF.
>
> > > You put up a transitional doctype doc, it does not validate and
> > > the errors can be seen viahttp://validator.w3.org/and
> > > athttp://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
>
> > > Best to fix these before peering into the murky waters of IE size
> > > calculations.
>
> > Yes, thanks. But they are topmargin, leftmargin in BODY tag or omitted
> > ALT tag. Is this is a serious problem?
>
> I only saw the number of errors and the first one (which you omit
> to ask if it is serious) before replying. The first listed was:
>
> Line 8, Column 6: required attribute "TYPE" not specified.
>
> <style>
>
> The attribute given above is required for an element that you've
> used, but you have omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and
> XHTML document types the "type" attribute is required on the
> "script" element
>
> I was just remarking on it, and thinking that if someone was able
> to look into IE 5 and your code, it would encourage them if you
> had your mark up kosher. Given you are obviously a keen css
> stylesheeter, what motivated you to include those layout
> instructions in <body...>? You using a generator?
>
> --
> dorayme

historically I kept body attributes and left unchanged since there was
not conflict with modern browsers. I will remove attributes but I
suspect this is not the problem. Thanks.

In article
<5097f4b6-b847-48e6-ae01-10745fccedbb [at] y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>,
VUNETdotUS <vunet.us [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 20, 3:23 pm, dorayme
> > I was just remarking on it, and thinking that if someone was able
> > to look into IE 5 and your code, it would encourage them if you
> > had your mark up kosher. Given you are obviously a keen css
> > stylesheeter, what motivated you to include those layout
> > instructions in <body...>? You using a generator?

>
> historically I kept body attributes and left unchanged since there was
> not conflict with modern browsers. I will remove attributes but I
> suspect this is not the problem. Thanks.

It is probably not the cause of the problem, if I had IE5 I would
look to see. Surely you don't need to worry about IE 5 though?

--
dorayme

On Nov 20, 4:00 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <5097f4b6-b847-48e6-ae01-10745fcce... [at] y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>
> >,
> VUNETdotUS <vunet... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 3:23 pm, dorayme
> > > I was just remarking on it, and thinking that if someone was able
> > > to look into IE 5 and your code, it would encourage them if you
> > > had your mark up kosher. Given you are obviously a keen css
> > > stylesheeter, what motivated you to include those layout
> > > instructions in <body...>? You using a generator?
>
> > historically I kept body attributes and left unchanged since there was
> > not conflict with modern browsers. I will remove attributes but I
> > suspect this is not the problem. Thanks.
>
> It is probably not the cause of the problem, if I had IE5 I would
> look to see. Surely you don't need to worry about IE 5 though?
>
> --
> dorayme

I removed topmargin, leftmargin and result is the same. See
screenshot:
http://browsershots.org/png/original/33/336e85618fdfdb509ee2 b31abcbbd8aa.png