Posted by Neredbojias on 10/25/05 23:50

With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> > With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:
> >
> >> http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php
> >
> > It's like I'm getting a double bottom in Mozilla (-or perhaps it
> > screen-prints prematurely too low and then doesn't fully erase.) I'll
> > betcha it's a Moz bug, though.
>
> More likely than a bug is the excessive absolute positioning and all
> those px dimensions. There is no need for most of it.
>
> A tip for the OP: open your page in the moz/FF DOM inspector and look at
> both CSS style rules and computed styles for various elements. You may
> find your own answers there.
>
> And rather than reinvent the wheel, take a look at some already
> tried-and-true CSS templates. Even if you don't use one, study the
> techniques used. For some examples, see:
> <URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/>
>
> > The best rendering engine *mechanics* are still in IE.
>
> Sure, if you believe that non-conformant rendering and seriously broken
> overflow behavior is A Good Thing. I don't happen to agree with that.

Not what I meant; perhaps I used an ambiguous word. IE's architectural
rendering algorithms, as we know, suck, but its dynamic refresh ability
(in regard to screen printing and such as is required, for example, on
resize) surpasses that of any other browser. Ergo, IE may render a page
wrong, but it renders it "better" nonetheless.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]