Forum Moderators: open
I've made 2 really simple test pages to illustrate the issue.
Test page 1 <Sorry, no personal URLs. See TOS [webmasterworld.com]> comprises... a
top anchor, a 300px wide table with text and a 'return to top' link.
It reads a simple stylesheet of...
body { margin: 0; }
Test page 2 <edit> is almost identical...
a top anchor, a 300px block of text and a 'return to top' link.
It reads a simple stylesheet of...
body { margin: 0; }
#wrapper { width: 300px; }
With certain browsers (notably IE5/Mac - my main browser)...
On 1, the text is tight to the page top and the 'top' link fully climbs the page.
On 2, the text is slightly (about 20px) dropped and the 'top' link doesn't fully raise the scroll bar (although it puts the text tight against the top of the browser).
[edited by: tedster at 7:00 pm (utc) on April 6, 2004]
You could put <h1 id="top">Your Title</h1> at the very top of the page. If you have your title in a table, that could cause what you're seeing.
Tables lead to all kinds of issues. CSS has it's own issues, of course, but if I were just learning (and it's not clear to me if you are or are very experienced--but just in case!), I'd forget the tables and learn the css. Css will be useful far into the future.
Another thought. IE5 is pretty old. You really might want to consider designing with a standards compliant browser so you know what your site will look like in the future--and with good browsers now. As it is, you may be designing for the past, which strikes me as a sad way to use your time.
<body>
<a name="top"></a>
<div id="wrapper">
<p>Ut enim ad minim veniam....
Now fixed by setting p margin-top to 0.
Thanks.
Indeed.
And you raised some good points.
Clipped from a post elsewhere, in response to a point on tables/spacers...
------
From experience, I realise it’s easy for ‘us so-enlightened’ to glance sidewards in a ‘oh… you’re doing it *that* way are you?’ manner.
My constructive view is that yes - it is a needlessly complex mess… and brought about by someone doing their best. We learn and improve by doing.
With my early css efforts ‘arms and legs sticking out of the two heads’ resembling a Picasso painting… and my more recent ones having a ‘is that flower supposed to be protruding from the donlkey’s butt’ surreal Dali-esque effect… I’m still kludging away with tables-based and spacers. [Although, in my defence, they’re single pixel resized accordingly.]
I want to join the ‘elite’ and adopt web standards. And I also want to know what my pages will look like on screen - preferably they’ll work as intended… and where they don’t I’m at least aware of ‘an issue’.
When I know enough to write appropriate code, I’ll rejoice. Meantime, I’m working and learning and getting better… laughing at my earlier efforts and appreciative that I ‘now know better’.
In no way ashamed or embarassed, I was so proud when I produce my first site - complete with ani gifs. Then again, it was 98.
Such is life.
;-)
g
------
So yeah, such is life.
;-)
g
I don't find css layouts any more predictable than a tables layout, which is a little odd since they are hewn to standards. Maybe that's because the standards themselves (and even more so the browser implementations) are fairly complex.
I think one of the major joys of css layouts is aesthetic. The code (css and x/html) is much more elegant!
