Hi all<br /><br />I have the table wrappers working great in IE (Thanks to Chuck) but I thought I would test it in NS 4.7, not that it bothers me as I use IE but someone just may be useing it, and I know it is an old version but Yahoo search engine wont allow you to put you business site on their search list unless it works perfect in NS 4.7, no big deal but this is what happens.........<br /><br />Loads with some of the side graphics missing from boxes and if you scroll the page slow they appear and scroll fast the disappear agian.<br /><br />Just wanted to know if anyone else has seen this, it's not hurting any one though.<br /><br />Another great hack by all you lot.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />PS. Just noticed the Panel Generator absolutely brill a must have... whoops the box that shows all the holders is to small. lol<br /><br /> []http://www.threadsdev.com/images/panels/10306-4976.png[/]

NS 4.7 is so bug ridden and non standards compliant that the people who coded it should be put up in front of a firing squad... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />What you are describing is a classic NS 4.7 error. I'll take a look at the script that controls that area, but I can't guarantee that I'll be able to fix it. NS 4.7 is probably the problem, and not my script.

Hi Dalantech<br /><br />No....don't waist your time just asking only<br /><br />Thanks

No problem <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />NS 4.7 is just irritating because I really do try to script so that my site looks good in all browsers (even the Mozilla users like my site). But then 4.7 was released and I got hit with a lot of negative posts cause all of a sudden "my scripting sucked"...

Netscape 4.7 doesn't *really* support CSS very well. It's very spotty. Since threads (and most sites) use CSS... I don't know how anyone can successfully use that browser anywhere without trouble.<br /><br />Threads is very very close to XHTML compliant. And all the new Stylesheets released with threads (and any that I've posted) validate with w3.org. So NS is the dinosaur. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

There is a way to work around the bug in Netscape with disappearing background images. The trick is to have an extra table inside the table and set the background to "#". For some odd reason Netscape then shows the background image properly. Crude, but effective. =]

I have to agree with everyone else on this. Netscape 4.7x is out of date and quite useless where standards compliancy matters. Perhaps you should write to yahoo telling them they are falling behind the times if they think pages should render well in non standards compliant browsers. I wonder, does their online email offering work well in 4.7? I'll have to check. Would seem sort of hypocritical of them if it doesnt... lol<br /><br />I myself code nothing with 4.7 in mind. It's not worth the effort. Since most browsers are given away for free I see no reason why users don't upgrade. <br /><br /></2cents> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />

I agree. Not much sense in running an old browser (unless the latest has more bugs <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

LoL I'd rather live with a new browser and new bugs than Netscape 4.anything LoL<br /><br />I think that Mozilla's Pheonix browser may be perfect for users of older machines that have system requirements that are not up to par with the bigger browsers.<br /><br />

Dalantech, <br /> <br /> I was playing a bit. I know what you mean about graphics files being huge. I was playing with adding graphics into the mod. Here is one I was playing with today. I went with the square corners as even with the graphic corners saved as transparency they where not transparent under my colored backgrounds. One a white background they are fine. <br /> <br /> Test Forum <br /> <br />I managed to keep every graphic except the top one to 41K. The top one ended up being 1705K with only that one little graphic. Now if I convert to jpg that can save that to 1300K <br />

Odd, cause I show that graphic as being 1.6 KB. Are you sure you didn't add a few zeros to the size that you listed for that top image <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <br /> <br />The only problem I saw was that you cut your images at 1000 pixels. If someone views your forum at a greater resolution that 1024 x 768 then your background graphic will tile (an effect that may or may not look good). <br /> <br />I cut my graphics at 1560 pixels and my site looks good at 1600x1200. <br /> <br />Edit: I'd also make the background page color the same (or close to) the blue that you used for your wrapper. The dark blue on light blue is tough on the ol' peepers <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

it seems that "the blues (large fonts)" and "the blues" have different color table wrappers. Was this intentional? Just curious since they are named the same.

They should be the same. I'll check. <br /> <br />Edit: Good catch! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I've updated all of the style sheet text files to fix a typo and update the blues. The zip file in the first post has been fixed.

Yeah I meant 1600 bytes and 41 bytes<br /><br />What ya mean hard on the eyes. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Your graphic is blue against white LOL<br /><br />I will see about that top graphic resizing to 1560.

LOL! Look again, the background is grey with a binary pattern going through it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mr binary <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> Yes ya da grey man! <br /> <br /> I softened the blue a bit more so it matches the tdheader. Should be more fluid now. Graphics sizes are 36bytes and the top is 1770bytes. <br /> <br />Also I updated the templates to be XHTML compliant.

hey just wanted to say thanks . I used your mod. changed the image colors but was a great help having it all documented<br />Thanks again <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What did you have to change to make them compliant? Did you add the "alt" parameter to the image tags?

Thanks for taking the time to say thanks, and glad you like the hack <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You hit it on the head buddy <br /> <br />Simple but yes that makes it XHTML compliant. Most people forget about the small stuff <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> All image tags need a closing tag which you had /> and they need the alt variable defined which was missing.