scriptygoddess

1 | kristine

April 20th, 2002 at 7:57 am

So now I've heard 3 different major things that get screwed up by certain doctypes (the one that ships with MT specifically) in IE 6.

1) The css scrolling bug that cuts off the whole page at the bottom of the scrollbar until you efresh or resize the window.
2) The custom colored scrollbars don't work.
3) and now this centering thing.

So is it really important to use doctypes and then spend tons of type trying to debug them when it isn't an open table tag or something like that you were thinking?

I see things much more like I want them to by taking out the doctype declaration all together. I know, that won't ever let my page completely validate, but does that really matter?

2 | Lynda

April 20th, 2002 at 9:13 am

Don't take the doctype declaration out! Just be sure you use the CORRECT one. The one that ships with MT is INVALID as it doesn't have a correct URL.

We want to be moving forward as far as standards go. Taking the doctype out won't do that. I've never had a problem at all getting my css/html to function properly because I use the correct doctype.

It's when people do things against standards (like using tables, etc) that they run into problems. Best not to do things the shoddy, work-around way, but to do them correctly from the beginning.

3 | kristine

April 20th, 2002 at 12:16 pm

Somehow, in all my self-taught knowledge, no one ever really explained to me why this was important – anybody got the energy? (or the links to really influencial articles??!!)

My latest gripe with a doctype was that after getting a graphics set all set up (my goldfishy set) so that the tables expanded with their background images to fit the browser properly. Then Kymberlie tried to use it with the doctype that coes with MT and the background images in the tables no longer repeated. I've been designing this way for a long time, trying to fluidity in my designs! So what doctype do I use that will let me have css that shows up properly AND allows for backgrounds in layout tables??

I could just design all css-layouts with a doctype and then I'd be happy :giggle: too bad the graphics just come flowing out of my brain and beg to be created into sets!!!!!

4 | Lynda

April 20th, 2002 at 2:37 pm

Kristine, again, the doctypes that ship with MT should NOT be used because they are not valid. They're pointing to a doctype URL that doesn't exist, so who knows what the browser is trying to read.

I'd suggest a list apart. They have two great articles on a) web standards and b) which doctypes to use and why.

You should be able to design all css-layouts with doctypes. All CSS layouts should obviously not include tables. But still, even back in the hayday when I used tables, I had no problem using them with background images. (Why do that though when you can easily do a css box with a background image? Don't understand)

Here's the article on doctypes and here's the article on web standards

People unfortunately prefer to use workarounds instead of learning how to code properly and that's just setting us back in the movement to make all browsers support web standards.

People like using tables to design their layout because tables work with older browsers and most css does not. People don't realize though that tables are not meant to be used in this manner and they never were, so the further we move forward, the less support there is for using tables as layout tools. It' supposed to encourage people to design for the more standards-compliant browsers, however some people choose having the page look good in Netscape 4.x rather than IE 6 and that baffles the heck out of me.

Let's move into year 2003, let's not take a trip back to 1995. We need to be coding properly, which includes using boxes, not tables.

And let me say this one last time in case someone didn't hear me: DO NOT USE THE DOCTYPES CREATED IN MT. THEY ARE INCORRECT AND POINT TO NOTHING AND WILL LIKELY SCREW UP YOUR SITE

Go read the doctype article to find doctypes that WILL work. They basically tell the browser how to behave and without them, the browser is just guessing and will likely get it wrong.

Sorry, I'm very passionate about this.

5 | Row

April 20th, 2002 at 10:10 pm

I was using some doctype I got from somewhere or other, and I found that I couldn't get overflow : hidden to work in the main scrollbar. It wouldn't colour up, either, although the scrollbar in the DIV was fine.

Do you girls take requests? I was fiddling around with relative positioning and z-index and minus pixels, and I came up with a chunk of empty space at the bottom of the page, which I'd like to clip. Any ideas?

I was fiddling around in the first place because I wanted the equivalent of table align="center" (why isn't there a float: middle?) and found I could do it by wrapping everything around a DIV tag.

6 | kristine

April 20th, 2002 at 10:38 pm

got it – mt doctypes suck. Will definitely keep that in mind :giggle:

In my attempt to learn more, I read all of the links you posted. Thank you I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out

And then, I started to play. I added several different doctypes and didn't have very good results. All that I tried took away my colored scrollbars. All that I tried made some of my tables rows that were previously centered to be not. And on one skin, it even changed the widths of the sidebar.

The following changes were consistant between the 4.0 strict and 4.0 transitional from the a list apart article and then re-checked at the wdg's site
My normal layout – main change was loss of colored sidebars
My buffy skin – not only did I experience a loss of colored sidebars, but it changed the widths of the two sidebars [how it should look]

So I took the doctype back off. I know that if I did some modification to my buffy skin, I probably could make the padding go away; but I like my matching scrollbars!! I'm kinda attached to that aspect of my design!!

Oh, and as for using tables instead of css blocks for repeating backgrounds – sometimes its just easier to take what Image Ready shoots out and create a layout with a table. So quite a few of my linkware sets are done this way. Otherwise, I get into absolute positioning, and people who don't get how to change things when they go to implement them. I have gotten more familiar with how to do it with css lately, though, and more of my sets are heading in that direction. I've been hearing for along time that tables aren't good for layout, and I know this… its just sometimes the way to get the most consistant results w/o tons of hacks. Yes, call me lazy 😉

If some of this comes through fuzzy, I'm sorry… I've had some definite dizziness today and been staring at the screen too long!!!

7 | Lynda

April 21st, 2002 at 8:54 am

Hmmm. You're using HTML doctypes? Have you tried XHTML doctypes? I've honestly never had a problem with them, but maybe I just code with them correctly. It's a big thing, going back and learning how to recode things correctly.

I don't know about colored scrollbars. I know they aren't a part of web standards, but I can't recall if I've tried to use them recently.

Mark once pointed out to me that he didn't like colored scrollbars because he couldn't figure out where their design ended and the scrollbar began. He didn't like people messing with his browser. I thought it was such a good point, I never bothered with colored scrollbars again.

The big, big thing about using doctypes is that you *need* to code *correctly* and learn how to code correctly. This is a big step and if you're not ready for it, by all means, get rid of the doctypes.

The way I did it was I started on my design at the time from scratch and rewrote the whole thing. It took a while to get everything right and validated and I had problems figuring out how to make things work at first, but I soon figured that out and now don't really even need to think about it anymore.

Sorry I got so defensive the other day. We're all doing this FOR FUN, right? If it's for fun, we shouldn't have to worry about doing things to the letter as long as the output is okay. Let the big wigs with all the money figure out a way to get all browsers to support web standards.

8 | kristine

April 21st, 2002 at 1:03 pm

no no no! I didn't think you were being defensive! I *know* that I'm not nearly as standard complient, and I hadn't tried learning any of this for a long time (probably because I have never been standards complient enough to make them work in the past :giggle:)

I was trying html doctypes yesterday, not the xhtml. The weird thing about using MT now is that some of my tags are XHTML formatted and some aren't… so with things the way they are (ie w/o a complete overhaul like you did), any real validation that looks at doctypes won't work.

I'd like to be more standard complient. But right now, its more important to me to develop new graphics sets and work on my projects than it is to go back and rework everything I've done.

But in my two new projects I'm working on, I'm gonna try and see if I can be a bit less table friendly and a bit more aware of this :giggle:

And a big UGH to the thought that doctypes won't work with my colored scrollbars! I love how they add to my designs, truthfully!!!!

Thank you, Lynda – you really did open my eye on some of this stuff, and gave me some good background resources for when I *do* get better at this!!! {{hugs}}

9 | Lynda

April 21st, 2002 at 3:04 pm

Kristine, I've never seen MT spit out code that wasn't XHTML compliant. What is it spitting out at you that isn't compliant?

10 | kristine

April 21st, 2002 at 3:50 pm

Nope, its everything AROUND the MT code that's not XHTML compliant! Sorry to be confusing. My first experience with XHTML code was when I started using MT in November-ish. And I had never coded anything with the format of ending tags like br's with a <br /> or anything like that.
So I have MT-generated codes that are escaping like XHTML code should, and the layout around it that isn't! When I validate, if I tell it I'm using HTML, it tells me that some tags are invalide because they are ending the tags like XHTML should; and vice versa!