Suckerfish CSS drop-down menu problem (major IE inconsistency!)

[Neo Geshel]

Why, yes.




See my answer to the previous time you posted that link.




Or an even better solution: drop the cargo-cult rubbish entirely.




Go validate:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/cargo-cult-nonsense.xhtml

See? Doesn't my way work nicely?

Yes, but will it work with future browsers that take a much stricter
interpretation of the XHTML rules? Probably not. Hence my "cargo cult"
material. I'm eliminating the need to re-tool my work down the road to
accommodate stricter browsers.

Essentially, I'm coding for maximum compliance *and* maximum browser
version (past *and* future) compatibility.

BTW, do you always attack anything you don't understand this viciously?
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't correct. What
I have done here - and it is the proper way to do it according to W3C
spec - is a strict interpretation of the XHTML rules. **ALL** of the
rules, and not just those that I decide are convenient for me to follow.
I take pride in the technical accuracy and quality of my work; this
"cargo cult" stuff included.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[brucie]

in post: <

There's nothing wrong with cleartype,

with your setup

and it has very little overhead...

with your setup

 

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote




So, removing some of the complexity made it work? Glad to hear. Who would
have thought...

I see you have not uploaded it yet. What is the point of notifying a fix
without letting us critisize the shit out of it?

Because I haven't had the time. I discovered the fix when working on
another project that also made use of the Suckerfish drop-down menu.
That project has the correct menu. Mine still requires fixing.

BTW, if you're interested, the template page of the other project is at
http://fireemporium.kabis.net

Perfect XHTML/HTML/CSS != perfect rendition. In any browser.

Of course. We're dealing with browsers that must interpret and render
the material according to their own internal programming. Bug in
programming = bug in display. After all, humans made web browsers, not
infallible gods. But XHTML Strict + CSS allows one to come darn close to
a perfect rendition in any current browser, and provide an impressively
decent alternative in older browsers to boot.

Ah, another bit of fucking arrogance I didn't spot first time round.

What is it with Usenet? In the last decade, Usenet residents seem to
have descended into bratty little potty-mouthed schoolchildren. Isn't
anyone willing to be polite anymore? From Brucie's poisonous attitude to
Toby's head-in-the-sand take on XHTML standards (and his waspish
attitude to anyone that doesn't follow *his* narrow interpretation of
the W3C specs) down to your nasty lip, everyone is "flinging the shit"
just because - and probably only because - everyone else is doing it, too.

Whatever happened to taking the high moral, ethical and linguistic road
when writing and answering posts? Just because other people are nasty,
neanderthalic brutes and beasts doesn't mean you have to be.

As for me, I'll stay nice and civilized, thank you. Firm but polite.

Press the wrong button on my newsreader and you attempt to blacklist me? I
don't think so My ISP would just laugh in your face.

On today's Usenet, spammers are the bull and a valid reply-to is the
waving red flag. Why would I want to open myself to hundreds or
thousands of pieces of spam per day? At least I did the moral thing and
made a very noticeable and visible warning.

And at least I didn't mung the reply-to.

BTW you still have not answered my question about why you quite knowingly
**** up your viewers system and then blame it all on them.

I never said I blamed it on them. Please read my posts more carefully. I
said that virtually any problem with cleartype (unless you have a BRG
style monitor) will be hardware related, not user-related. Having
problems with cleartype? Check the hardware, not the user. There *is* a
difference, you know.

For example, one client I set up a computer for had an older monitor
they had to continue using until they had enough money for a newer one.
It was an old 15" with a very misaligned set of focusing magnets. It was
so fuzzy, that it was hard to read even with cleartype turned off, and
it was impossible to read with cleartype turned on. So in that case, I
had to turn off cleartype until they got their new monitor. This was the
only case I came across in several dozen set-ups where I had to disable
cleartype to increase legibility. My own monitor is able to handle
cleartype well, even though it is running at its maximum resolution (and
the fonts are very tiny). In fact, without cleartype, the tiny fonts
would be more difficult to make out, as they would be more blocky and
less "curvy", thus missing much of the visual hints that allow me to
distinguish between an "a" and an "o" at such small type sizes.

I'm not saying that what I did was right (by causing Cleartype to be
automatically enabled). I'm just saying that if people have a problem
with Cleartype's effects, it's because cleartype is enhancing a physical
hardware defect or problem that requires repair or replacement.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[SpaceGirl]

in post: <


with your setup




with your setup

Yes... even on our oldest machines. I dont much care if others cant see
that stuff, they should upgrade.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Yes... even on our oldest machines. I dont much care if others cant see
that stuff, they should upgrade.

sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.

 

[SpaceGirl]

sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.

*raised eyebrow*

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[brucie]

in post: <

*raised eyebrow*

you look really sexy when you do that.

if you read the other posts in the thread you will see one that
describes the problems my setup has with cleartype. MS know of the issue
and seemingly like every problem discovered in the last 100 years they
say it will be fixed in longhorn.

 

[Neo Geshel]

in post: <SpaceGirl <[email protected]> said:





sorry, i cant upgrade any further. the hardware hasn't been invented
yet.

Sure it has. It's called a Pentium-III processor. Speeds range from
450MHz clear up to 1.02GHz. Any machine with a minimum of a P-III (or
equivalent processor), 256Mb of RAM and a 6Gb hard drive will be able to
handle both XP and ClearType without any problems whatsoever and without
any noticeable impact on performance (at least not without sophisticated
performance benchmarking software).

Unless you are using a BGR style monitor (and SP1 introduced cleartype
support for BGR) or something less than a SVGA monitor (which hasn't
been sold as a serious PC monitor since the early 90's), a problem with
cleartype indicates a problem with the hardware which requires repair or
replacement.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[SpaceGirl]

in post: <


you look really sexy when you do that.

if you read the other posts in the thread you will see one that
describes the problems my setup has with cleartype. MS know of the issue
and seemingly like every problem discovered in the last 100 years they
say it will be fixed in longhorn.

Well it's fine on my dual display machines - I guess I dont need
anything more than that, and I suspect most other people wont hit your
glitch too


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Well it's fine on my dual display machines -

i would be embarrassed to admit i only had 2 monitors. please don't tell
me they're also less than 34"

I guess I dont need anything more than that,

i have a very small peepee so i have to do everything i can to
substitute for it. you should see how big and long the aerials are on my
truck _and_ theres 4 of them.

and I suspect most other people wont hit your glitch too

i'm not a lemming. the first thing i do when installing new shit is to
go straight to the options/setting and start fiddling. it is my computer
and it will work how i want it to. i discover a lot of
problems/conflicts/glitches most people don't know exist because they're
happy with the default hand holding setup.

most importantly people need to break out of their stupid little small
minded mentality assuming that just because something works for them and
they like it it will also work for the other *one billion* people online
and that they will like it.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

...Geshel

why are you still here?

 

[rf]

Neo Geshel wrote

And at least I didn't mung the reply-to.

Neither did I.

I never said I blamed it on them. Please read my posts more carefully. I
said that virtually any problem with cleartype (unless you have a BRG
style monitor) will be hardware related, not user-related. Having
problems with cleartype? Check the hardware, not the user. There *is* a
difference, you know.

So? What difference does it make? It is still "at their end". You are still
blaming something at the users end. It is, therefore, their fault. Correct?
Simple answer here, just a yes or a no.

For example, one client I set up a computer for had an older monitor
they had to continue using until they had enough money for a newer one.
It was an old 15" with a very misaligned set of focusing magnets. It was
so fuzzy, that it was hard to read even with cleartype turned off, and
it was impossible to read with cleartype turned on.

So, you admit that you can stuff up somebodies system by switching on
cleartype. Yet you continue to publish a page on the web that intentionally
switches on cleartype. This to me means that you are intentionally trying to
**** up some of your users systems. Is that true? Once again, a simple yet
or no.

So in that case, I
had to turn off cleartype until...

your lame web page turned it back on again.

My own monitor is able to handle
cleartype well,

Yours might. Mine may or may not. In any case DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS. I
could quite easily fiddle around with the latest batch of IE security holes
and change your desktop to lime green with puce icons. Do you want me to do
that? No, probably not. You would probably say DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS.

I'm not saying that what I did was right (by causing Cleartype to be
automatically enabled).

If you can not unequivocally say that it is right then why the bloody hell
are you doing it. It serves absolutely no purpose to your site and, as is
now proven by brucie and yourself IT CAN **** UP A USERS SYSTEM.

I'm just saying that if people have a problem
with Cleartype's effects, it's because cleartype is enhancing a physical
hardware defect or problem that requires repair or replacement.

Once again you state quite clearly that when you turn on cleartype and it
fucks up their system then THEY should fix it. You **** it up for them but
it is up to them to fix it, at their own not insignificant expense.

You sir are a bloody menace.

I wonder how Rene Kabis feels about you fucking up peoples systems and then
putting his name to the page that does it? Hmm. Maybe I'll shoot him off an
email and ask him

<typety type/>

<waits/>

 

[Neo Geshel]

Terminating empty elements and quoting attributes are both requirements of
normative passages of the XHTML spec.

As I said, please look up what "normative" means.

I know exactly what normative means. Question is: do you? (see bottom)

No -- you only have to follow the normative rules.




Both are.




So do I. But that's my point -- chapter 4 doesn't have any rules -- only
a few suggestions.

Exactly my point. And if you take the time to look, the termination of
empty elements and proper nesting and a whole host of other things are
in chapter 4. And therefore - according to your definition - they are
all "suggestions".

Take a close look at chapter 4:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs
And you'll see that proper nesting (ch 4.1), termination of open
elements (ch 4.3) and quoted attribute values (ch 4.4) sit beside the
use of CDATA (ch 4.8) inside script and style tags. If 4.8 is only a
"suggestion", please tell me what it is that you see in that document
that makes 4.1 to 4.7 and 4.9 to 4.12 different in nature than 4.8.
After all, they all sit in the same section; the one right after the
"normative" section, and marked "this section is informative"

How many times do I have to hit you over the head with the facts before
you take your head out of the sand??

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[SpaceGirl]

Neo Geshel wrote



Neither did I.




So? What difference does it make? It is still "at their end". You are still
blaming something at the users end. It is, therefore, their fault. Correct?
Simple answer here, just a yes or a no.




So, you admit that you can stuff up somebodies system by switching on
cleartype. Yet you continue to publish a page on the web that intentionally
switches on cleartype. This to me means that you are intentionally trying to
**** up some of your users systems. Is that true? Once again, a simple yet
or no.



your lame web page turned it back on again.




Yours might. Mine may or may not. In any case DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS. I
could quite easily fiddle around with the latest batch of IE security holes
and change your desktop to lime green with puce icons. Do you want me to do
that? No, probably not. You would probably say DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS.




If you can not unequivocally say that it is right then why the bloody hell
are you doing it. It serves absolutely no purpose to your site and, as is
now proven by brucie and yourself IT CAN **** UP A USERS SYSTEM.




Once again you state quite clearly that when you turn on cleartype and it
fucks up their system then THEY should fix it. You **** it up for them but
it is up to them to fix it, at their own not insignificant expense.

You sir are a bloody menace.

I wonder how Rene Kabis feels about you fucking up peoples systems and then
putting his name to the page that does it? Hmm. Maybe I'll shoot him off an
email and ask him

<typety type/>

<waits/>

If you ask me, it all sounds alike a deliberate Windows hack. If it
works, then I'd hope the mechanism that allows it to work is plugged.
God knows what else could be achieved using similar methods. Perhaps my
web site doesn't like the screen resolution or colour depth you have...
Perhaps I dont like your current network settings...

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Toby Inkster]

[http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/cargo-cult-nonsense.xhtml]

Yes, but will it work with future browsers that take a much stricter
interpretation of the XHTML rules? Probably not.

Yes of course it bloody will.

BTW, do you always attack anything you don't understand this viciously?
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't correct.

You really are arrogant. I'm not the one who came here having problems
with a cut-and-paste menu jobby.

I have done here - and it is the proper way to do it according to W3C
spec - is a strict interpretation of the XHTML rules.

Your way is a perfectly legal and valid way. But so is mine. And mine is
likely to cause less problems in older browsers.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote



So? What difference does it make? It is still "at their end". You are still
blaming something at the users end. It is, therefore, their fault. Correct?
Simple answer here, just a yes or a no.

No. The fault lies with the hardware. Not the user. Fix the hardware,
not the user. The user has no fault in this matter.

So, you admit that you can stuff up somebodies system by switching on
cleartype. Yet you continue to publish a page on the web that intentionally
switches on cleartype. This to me means that you are intentionally trying to
**** up some of your users systems. Is that true? Once again, a simple yet
or no.

I had to work with a monitor that was already so badly damaged that it
could not properly display anything. Cleartype did not create the
problem - it only compounded an already horrible problem by a small
degree. Once the hardware was replaced, the enabling of cleartype
increased the visual performance of the new monitor by making small text
easier to read.

your lame web page turned it back on again.

Not if you de-select the check box, which is what I did. If you leave
the check box enabled, then no matter what setting you choose in the
drop-down menu, cleartype will still be enabled when you visit that
page. If, however, you de-select the check box (and forgo any font
smoothing whatsoever), the web page cannot turn cleartype on. Easy, no?
Best thing is, most people will first go for that check box.

I've researched this. I've done my homework. I know what I'm talking about.

Yours might. Mine may or may not. In any case DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS. I
could quite easily fiddle around with the latest batch of IE security holes
and change your desktop to lime green with puce icons. Do you want me to do
that? No, probably not. You would probably say DONT **** WITH MY SETTINGS.

Go right ahead. I don't use IE. The only reason I use it is to test new
designs to see if they work in IE or not. Any of our client's computers
actually have IE nearly completely disabled (but not uninstalled - some
programs like Norton Antivirus use it to render their control panels) so
that a regular end user cannot even find it, much less run it.

If you can not unequivocally say that it is right then why the bloody hell
are you doing it. It serves absolutely no purpose to your site and, as is
now proven by brucie and yourself IT CAN **** UP A USERS SYSTEM.

And how many web sites have Flash intros where the loud music cannot be
turned off? There is much worse that is being done on the web. To use a
metaphor, don't come down hard on the litterbug when there's a murder
taking place on the other side of the street. If you want a really juicy
target, start at the bottom, with the worst offenders (the spamware,
spyware and malware creators) that just love an IE user with an
unpatched (or underpatched) system.

Once again you state quite clearly that when you turn on cleartype and it
fucks up their system then THEY should fix it. You **** it up for them but
it is up to them to fix it, at their own not insignificant expense.

I never said that Cleartype "fucks up" anything. If cleartype *does*
produce a negative effect, it is simply enhancing an already
pre-existing hardware problem. That problem existed before cleartype was
enabled, and would have had to be fixed by the end user anyways, with or
without my "meddling".

You sir are a bloody menace.

And you make mountains out of molehills. Find some other windmills to
tilt against, will you? Mine are just windmills, not dragons in disguise.

I wonder how Rene Kabis feels about you fucking up peoples systems and then
putting his name to the page that does it? Hmm. Maybe I'll shoot him off an
email and ask him

<typety type/>

<waits/>

Actually, he's the brains of this working relationship, and he's the one
that found the cleartype page on MS's web site and was impressed with
what it could do to improve the viewing experience.

As the technical "brawn" of this group, all I do is make suggestions and
do the heavy lifting.

--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[rf]

rf wrote:

No. The fault lies with the hardware. Not the user. Fix the hardware,
not the user. The user has no fault in this matter.

You still don't get it do you? What are you, a bloody idiot or something?

There are two people in this transaction: You with your bloody pretentious
web site and a user with some equipment.

If it is not *your* fault then it *must* be the viewers fault. You can blame
the equipment all you like but who owns and maintains that equipment? Your
user.

Not if you de-select the check box, which is what I did. If you leave
the check box enabled, then no matter what setting you choose in the
drop-down menu, cleartype will still be enabled when you visit that
page. If, however, you de-select the check box (and forgo any font
smoothing whatsoever), the web page cannot turn cleartype on. Easy, no?
Best thing is, most people will first go for that check box.

What bloody check box. There is no check box on that page, there is only a
badly broken menu.

I've researched this. I've done my homework. I know what I'm talking

about.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

I have also done research into cleartype. Some brand new very modern
notebooks have video systems that are simply not compatible with microsofts
implementation of cleartype.

They display the colours the wrong way round.

They are almost unusable when cleartype is switched on.

Do you really expect anybody who has purchased one of these in the last six
months to replace it because your fucked up web site has fucked up their
settings?

You are not just a menace, you are a bloody insane arsehole. You should be
locked up just like those blokes who write viruses.

Go right ahead. I don't use IE.

So why do you **** up the settings of those who do?

I never said that Cleartype "fucks up" anything.

Yes you have. You have said that it fucked up one of your users systems.
Everybody else has said it fucks up too. It fucks up brucies system. It
fucks up certain notebok users systems.

If cleartype *does* produce a negative effect, it is simply enhancing an already
pre-existing hardware problem. That problem existed before cleartype was
enabled, and would have had to be fixed by the end user anyways, with or
without my "meddling".

Jesus Bloody Christ the users system was WORKING PROPERLY until you came
along. I would not cause that meddling. I would call it wanton destruction.

Actually, he's the brains of this working relationship, and he's the one
that found the cleartype page on MS's web site and was impressed with
what it could do to improve the viewing experience.

Then he is as much of a fucked up idiot as you are.

Plonk

 

[rf]

<waits/>

Wait's over. Exactly what I expected. Said fuckwit appears to be Neo's
boss/associate or whatever. I quote the most relevant part of his reply:

<quote>
Sure, turning on cleartype may not have been totally in the right, but it's
far from the worst that could have been done.
</quote>

Same story. It may be bad to **** with peoples systems but I Don't Care.

It appears the these people should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Exactly my point. And if you take the time to look, the termination of
empty elements and proper nesting and a whole host of other things are
in chapter 4. And therefore - according to your definition - they are
all "suggestions".

The closing of all (not just empty) elements and the quoting of all
attribute values are practices required by normative parts of the XHTML
spec. See part 3.1.1, point 1. (All of chapter 3 is normative.)

 

[Neo Geshel]

You still don't get it do you? What are you, a bloody idiot or something?

I'm not the idiot here.

There are two people in this transaction: You with your bloody pretentious
web site and a user with some equipment.

If it is not *your* fault then it *must* be the viewers fault. You can blame
the equipment all you like but who owns and maintains that equipment? Your
user.

And if an electrical fault (caused by age) causes your house to burn to
the ground, you're saying that your house's destruction is your own
fault, and not the fault of the fire or the age of the electrical
system? Get real. Things break without it being anyone's fault. Hardware
wears out or suddenly gives from hidden manufacturing faults. Or the
damage could have been done by the previous owner, or a lightning strike
that overwhelmed an electrical component, or any number of a million
different reasons why the user could have ended up as a completely
innocent party. The world is shades of gray, not black and white. It's
not an "us-or-them" situation.

As I said, fault lies with the hardware, not the user. It's the hardware
that failed and needs replacing. It might be the *responsibility* of the
user to fix or replace the hardware, but it's *not* their *fault* that
the hardware became broken or damaged in the first place (unless they
did the damage intentionally).

Things break and get damaged all the time without it being anyone's
*fault*. It is often a user's *responsibility* to get a problem fixed,
without it being their *fault* that the hardware became damaged or
broken in the first place. There *is* a difference. Get over it.

What bloody check box. There is no check box on that page, there is only a
badly broken menu.

It's sad that you can't even find a simple check box:
http://publishing.kabis.net/cleartype.png
De-select that check box, and no web site will ever be able to turn
cleartype on again.

about.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

I have also done research into cleartype. Some brand new very modern
notebooks have video systems that are simply not compatible with microsofts
implementation of cleartype.

They display the colours the wrong way round.

Of course. It's called RBG; as opposed to the usual RGB. I've known
about it for years.

They are almost unusable when cleartype is switched on.

Only if you haven't installed Service Pack 1. SP1 adds cleartype support
for these kinds of monitors. It even says so on the cleartype site.

Do you really expect anybody who has purchased one of these in the last six
months to replace it because your fucked up web site has fucked up their
settings?

Any laptops (with XP pre-installed) purchased within the last six months
will have already had Service Pack 1 installed at the factory, negating
your argument.

<insane foaming-at-the-mouth ranting snipped />

I think you need some professional help from someone with a nice, comfy
padded room. You're making a mountain range out of a molehill. In the
greater scheme of things, this issue is peanuts. Deal with it like a
well-adjusted member of humanity, not like a raving lunatic, and move on.

I have.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************