Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - [CSS]Movable Type appearance in IE vs Firefox

- Tilted Technology (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/)

- - [CSS]Movable Type appearance in IE vs Firefox (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/78962-css-movable-type-appearance-ie-vs-firefox.html)

[CSS]Movable Type appearance in IE vs Firefox

Hey all, I just switched over from IE to Firefox and checked out my homepage. I noticed that the part that uses Movable Type for blogging appears correctly in IE, but not in FireFox. I know squat about CSS, but I do know that I want white text on a black background and I'm not getting it in FireFox. Can someone help? Are there some general tags to look for or do I need to post the page source?

Thanks in advance.

well, i don't see your problem unless its not the page you have linked in your profile.
i'm using firefox to view it and i see an all black page with white text.

WTF? The last time I looked, it was all screwy. Weird. I did tweak it a little, but probably forgot to clear the cache. :crazy: :confused:

I also don't think I tweaked the code correctly. I think I'm supposed to not touch the index.html, but am supposed to tweak the stylesheet instead.

Okay, here's the other part, the links are supposed to be red, and the hex number of the link is 904040, but the link appears...blue.

1) you're not using css
2) you're defining the link colors in the body tag. you can't just put down the numbers, you need to specify it like this: link="#904040"

Okay, I changed the color tags. It looks like IE is more forgiving than Firefox. I still can't get the archives to look right though.

remember what i just posted about the colors? and how you have to use them? this is what i found on your archive page:

Code:

<body bgcolor="000000" text="FFFFFF" link="904040" vlink="904040" alink="FFFFFF">

i think you can figure out the problem.

I'm convinced that movable type is using CSS, because I've gone into the templates and changed the values as indicated, rebuilt the site, cleared the cache, but when I go to the archives and look at the page source, it still has the old body tags.

Edit: So I figured out part of my problem. I had the incorrect path listed for the location of the stylesheet. I changed that, so I can make direct changes to my stylesheet and the changes should be across the board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FngKestrel

thats what i meant earlier when i said you weren't using css. there was not a file linked, shoulda been more specific :eek:

Don't use css other than for simple formatting of text or objects. If you are using it for placement you will have headaches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asshopo

Don't use css other than for simple formatting of text or objects. If you are using it for placement you will have headaches.

asshopo, that is some of the worst advice i have ever seen. As much formatting as possible should be done through css. There are no bigger headaches involved in css layout than there are using tables or image maps. CSS pages are more flexible, more modular and load faster than a comparable page built with tables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theFez

agreed.
have a visit here to see what css is really about:
http://www.csszengarden.com

Apparently you guys haven't run into the wrapping issues and vertical centering with an unknown height. I don't give a crap if I can move my divs all over the page, I care if I can center my objects.

CSS2 sucks, period. CSS3 might be better if ALL browsers will support all parts of it (and yes, I AM saying IE is the bad guy here).

I tried designing a site in pure css and I spent more time trying to make stuff LOOK verticaly centered than I did coding the site.

i've vertically centered before, using something like this

http://www.jakpsatweb.cz/css/css-ver...-solution.html

?

using css is just plain smarter. you don't have to redesign every frickin page to get the look you want, just modify the css file. everything *can* be done with css2, though it is admittedly new and unpolished. doesn't mean we should sweep a good thing under the rug because its a little ugly at times.

I understand asshopo's pain. See, I used to be a big CSS/DIV freak until I realized how much TIME I wasted on it all.

CSS is one of those things that has good intentions and works well on paper, but doesn't actually cut it for what MOST people need to do. It's one of those things that CAN be good if used properly, but you have to know it 100% inside and out. You have to know every single workaround available to accomodate any and all browsers. To me, it's not worth it.

I'd rather just assign a classname to a table, give it the formatting in the CSS, and if I need anything positioned a certain way... just use the align attributes. You'll seriously spend HOURS trying to figure out how to do something that should be simple, like vertical aligning, when you could just slap the appropriate tag on the table.

The whole, "get rid of tables and use DIVs instead" is horrible and pointless, also.

Yes, I've been to CSS Zen Garden and the site I'm working on now USED to be entirely done in DIVs/CSS. Right now, I'm in the process of undoing it all because of the headaches it has caused. I'm sick of wasting time on it. It is infinitely more painful to work with pure CSS as opposed to just goddamn doing some of the more advanced formatting in the appropriate attributes...

A perfect example is: I have a .net application that uses a header, nav, body, and footer user controls (a lot of those parts are dynamic). The body table cell class is named ".mainContent". I have a style that centers ALL tables (and text) under .mainContent, however, if I have ONE table on a page that I need left aligned, you can't undo the centering (in firefox, anyway).

The code to center these objects in firefox is:

Code:

.mainContent table

{

        margin-left: auto;

        margin-right: auto;

}

The thing is, I need a few tables under .mainContent left aligned. What's the alternative? Instead of ".mainContent table", use ".mainContent #tableID"? Haha no way. Well, I'm sure there IS some odd workaround for it, but I'm just at the point where I don't really care anymore. I've seriously wasted (altogether) days upon days just trying to do stuff like this that SHOULD be easy.

Why is it like this? Who the hell knows why. I'm sure there's a more "official" way to do what I'm trying to do, but my point exactly: unless you know the specifications inside and out, you're better off using CSS for basic formatting.

It's flat out ridiculous either way you look at it to spend hours trying to figure out how to freakin align something...

If someone needs table X on Page Y vertical aligned, then I'll just edit it in the page and be done with it. It works great for basic stuff like font, text size, or in .net you can apply a general style to a datagrid. *That* works great, but the whole "ditch tables and use CSS" movement is flat out pointless.

i myself just switched from tables to divs, and i find it much more flexible now. sometimes it is hard getting everything to behave like you want it to, but once it does boy are you set! i would say i probably spent like 15 minutes on it to do the switch (although i had been using css before that so i knew what it was about) and the page looks and acts better than it did with tables.

in conclusion, css is pretty boss! (although there are things that need to be added to it)