Just when you hink you've got it figured out well enough...

http://rejectedfilmscores.150m.com/TESTList.html


Ignore the info; I didn't want ot create a seperate page for you guys, or delete all the text, since I just plan on copying and pasting it later.

The corners, aren't working. AS you can see. Too much space above and below (on table top and bottom), and the right corners aren't showing at all.

It set the middle cell ("no producer rejected") to 100% because it was crunching the text together otherwise.


Running on IE6.

I did the same thing here, and it worked (thanks to you guys):
http://composerbase.150m.com/petertomashekresume.html


Nothing whips you back into place like making you feel dumb again. ;-)


(And YES, I know the decloration thingy isn't there ;-)

I recommend that you start by fixing the HTML errors and CSS errors reported by the online validators.

Error 503, service unavailable.

McGrew, only Line 16, c 11 and Line 61, character 732 were errors, the rest were not in HTML.

CSS errors: Don't affect what I'm doing (even though they were all right)


These online validators suck. So, can someone help?

You have a lot of structural problems in your HTML (in addition to the non-standard markup that is reported), and the validator reports "The maximum number of errors was reached. Further errors in the document have not been reported." Plus it lacks a DOCTYPE declaration, which throws browsers into quirks mode.

Can anyone help?

Yes, start with correcting all the errors.

Dear lord, make it stop.

And if all possible, smite pandy everytime he says that.

What don't you understand about the help you've already received?

None of it actually helps. It points to erros, many of which are not errors, and doesn't actually address the issue of the CORNERS.

So? What are they then? Look a lot like errors to me.

You don't get it. There's no use messing around with code that's that broken. Do you know what errors may affect your precious corners? I think you don't. Me, I don't want to go through all the HTML and CSS and correct the errors just to get a starting point for looking at the corner problem. It isn't my responsibility. It's yours. You might actually learn a few things in the process that would make creating web pages a lot easier and quicker for you in the future. But that would be constructive. I'm getting a feeling you don't like constructive.

Right, it's not your responsibility. Silly me for coming to a forum titled HTML HELP.

And it doesn't take a genius to now using font-face instead of font-family, doesn't screw up a corner. And not all the code needs to be looked at.

I'll try another forum for this.

You have got help for all your questions but you discard the help if it doesn't offer an instant fix. We can't help you of you aren't willing to work with us on the problem. Sorry, but that's the truth.

No, I asked about the corners and the CSS and style sheets I am using, and no replies were about that, instead they were about HTML errors (none of which I found), and CSS errors (all of which have been repaired).

So no, my questions haven't been answered. And it's not so much of an instant fix (though that is nice), but also knowing WHY what I am doing isn't working so I dont' have this problem again.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...;doctype=Inline

It has errors out the wazoo. Fix these errors, and then we can eliminate the basic stuff and help you with your real problem.

Okay, since no one will listen to me, I'll go piece by piece from the Validator:

1. Doesn't need an "iso".

2. Doctype IS there, despite what it says.

3. Is NOT mine, but code from the ads put on my site (because it is free).

The rest were either from the ads, or NOT errors.

It counted the , a few thousand times as an error, which it's not; anyone who uses a space knows that.

And it's counting the closing tag as an error.

Folks, I went through it and I see NO ERRORS. Just a couple of nit picks which really don't need changing and work fine. The rest are NBSp being reported as an error.

You can't see errors in that? That part is throwing your *entire page* into quirks mode. In other words, all bets are off as to how a browser will render it. You don't put any HTML tags before a doctype. That's why the validator cannot see it.

What's a <nobanner> anyway?

Anyhow, got that? Are we listening to you now, dude? Are you listening back? Can you get off your high horse and realise that maybe us bunch of non-listeners may be on to something here?

The validator is tried and tested technology: it doesn't lie.

You haven't told the browser what character encoding to use with your document. Either configure your server to sendin the HTTP header rather than the that it is currently sending, or if you can't do that, then include the corresponding <meta http-equiv=...> tag as described in the W3C Character encodings document.

Yeah, but it isn't in the right place. It needs to come before everything else.

Regardless of where the code comes from, it's on your page and it is breaking your page.

Whether or not they are from the ads, they are errors.

That looks like an error that cascades from the missing DOCTYPE declaration to me:

That's a side effect of the missing quotes inwhich should be

Again, since my site is free, it puts it's own code automatically -- on every unpaid site --in the pages. When I edit the code, the Dcotype IS first, before everything else. Okay, Peter?
and the NOBANNER is a code you can put in that removes banner ads from your page (but causes more pop-ups).


thank you you, Darin, now we're getting somewhere. with that line, "Whether or not they are from the ads, they are errors.".

So folk, keeping in mind the real errors on the page are not mine, but ads put on AFTER I save a document (and are not present when editing), can someone finally please help me with what I asked for when I created this topic?


Two questions Darin, why would I need to tell the browser about character encoding when no one has ever complained about not seeing characters?

and 2: why would putting "text/css" in quotes make a difference? I normally delete that part altogether, and even then ... even then ... that doesn't affect the corners. If it did, they wouldn't be showing at all.

So, can I have some html help now?

When the browser (or validator) receives it, the DOCTYPE declaration is not first. That's what matters.

This throws browsers into quirks mode, where they emulate the bugs of older browsers. See Activating the Right Layout Mode Using the Doctype Declaration for an explanation.

And it causes validators to parse your document without validating it. Some validators can add a default DOCTYPE declaration to the beginning of a document if there isn't one at all. But the presence of a DOCTYPE declaration in the wrong place suppresses this feature.

You've got your share of real errors too. When I download your page, fix the DOCTYPE declaration, and upload the file to the validator, here's what it reports:

Are you using Strict or Transitional markup? You declare Strict, but use elements, attributes, and structure that is valid only in Transitional.

You omit the required type attribute (from script and style elements).

You don't quote attribute values that need to be quoted. See the FAQ entry Should I put quotes around attribute values?

You omit the required alt attribute (from img elements). See Use of ALT texts in IMGs

You use method=LINK for forms when the only defined values are get and post

You omit the required action attribute from forms.

You use id=Sections more than once. Values for the id attribute must be unique.

You stick block-level elements like div inside inline elements like a.

I may have missed some, especially since the validator stopped reporting errors after a while.

The rounded corner problem? It works fine for me in Opera. MSIE and Firefox look strange, but your page puts them in quirks mode. I recommend that you fix your DOCTYPE declaration so they render in standards mode.

Get yourself some real hosting and do yourself and your coding a favour then. <nobanner> is non-standard and will geenrate an error in any proper HTML validator.

Easy.

I never used them, and never had a problem with it. In a thread here at HtmlHelp, it was suggested I do, and I ask which to use because the lnik given to me really didn't help me on which to use. I went with the one suggested.






Always seemed pointless, plus when I use the quick editor on my site (that always me to see, preview, and code on one page), it removes them when I press save.



Required? I read the lnik you posted and it didn't say it was required. Anyway, the images are hosted on my site. If the images go down, that means the whole site is down. No need for an ALT attribute.

Unless I am ignorant of a real reason to have one.



Fixed. But again, the links always worked.



I give. Is this really necessary?



Not really. Any item I apply that to uses the code in that style sheet element. Unless there is a reason to not do that, it works fine and never errors.
I don't go with class because it's just simply a logner word, and I want to try to keep the code on my pages as short as possible.



Only about five times. and it's nothing more than a "jump to". What's wrong with that?
It's never caused a problem with jump.



And it matters whether the corners work in IE, because that's what I used and I've never been on a computer that doesn't. I doesn't really matter to me whether it views right on another operating system (for the times being).

And why would it view right for you in MSIE? I copied the exact same code I used on the provided ComposerBase link (changing the image name, or course) and did it all the same. Yet it doesn't show right in RejectedScores. So why isn't it viewing right if I did the same thing, on both pages?

Anyway, the point of whether it views right in IE is, again, because I only use that, and if it doesn't view right in that, then I don't know whether I've done it right.

Why would you continue to use an editor that breaks your markup?

Not all browsers (or other user agents) will download your images. The ALT attribute provides alternative text for situations where the image isn't used.

Yes. It tells the browser where to submit the form.

Do you really misuse the ID attribute just because you're too lazy/thrifty to type "CLASS" instead of "ID"?

No, I use ID because it's shorter than "class" and takes up less room.

I didn't know until this thread that the edited was messing things up.
Like I said, there are two. That one, then hte regular code editor which doesn't mess things up at all, and keeps things the way I left them.
(still puts in the ads though)


Can someone suggest a better host site then?

id, name and class are all different. Basically, id's are unique and if you use an identical id twice on any given page it'll generate an error upon validation and it may give some browsers issues.

I use http://www.cphosting.com for hosting and have used them for over 6 years. Never had an issue with them.

It will definitely give you problems in all browsers if you try to use it with scripts. For CSS some browsers let it pass, some don't. Doesn't seem like a very good idea to use the same id more than once, does it?