Doctype? #2 - Post ID 92419

User 404575 Photo


Registered User
887 posts

This thread has been in the mozilla usenet group and I'm wondering if they're right? ( it's about my site at http://www.coloradoprocessservers.net ) Should I change it to what he says? Was HTML Editor putting it in like that originally?

We previously thought the overlap problem was being caused by a non-compliant rendering engine in netscape's browsers.

From: Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
Subject: Re: FF takes 5 minutes to load!
Newsgroups: mozilla.support.firefox

On 03.09.2009 13:57, Sarah Austin wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> squaredancer <squaredancer@t-online.de> wrote :
>
>> On 03.09.2009 14:03, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Lion Irons
>> to generate the following:? :
>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:r6KdnWwvx-S_GgLXnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d@mozilla.org...
>>>
>>>> Sarah Austin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been a happy user of Seamonkey ( latest ) but Adwords new
>>>>> interface is balking at it now, saying I need "a modern browser",
>>>>> such as Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I just downloaded Firefox 3.5x and installed it but the thing
>>>>> takes about 5 minutes to start up.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the weird thing is, I hit ctl-alt-del to watch the process and
>>>>> it's slowly loading about 580 megs of something as it starts.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the heck is going on?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sarah,
>>>> When you download a new program, ALWAYS go to the source, and
>>>> always download the latest version.
>>>> 3.5.0 had a problem in this respect. Check for updates, and update
>>>> to 3.5.2 and this problem should be solved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> anyone who has read the post in this group would realize that even
>>> the latest version has the same problem. Firefox is a resource hog,
>>> the most popular fix is to keep closing and reopening FF.
>>>
>>> I use IE I never have this problem, its also much more secure and
>>> almost all web pages display correctly
>>>
>>>
>>
>> yes - well /ALMOST ALL/ websites display correctly in FF.... the
>> sites that DO NOT display correctly are those coded for IE.... that
>> is, are non-W3C compliant.
>
> Oh REALLY? Try http://www.coloradoprocessservers.net/
> The owner had to tweak it in Seamonkey AND Internet Explorer just to
> keep the two graphics from overlapping the text at the top there. The
> W3C link is at the bottom, it IS compliant.
>
> It's apparently the rendering engine in FF and Seamonkey.
>
>> I wonder why that is??
>> Do you have an explanation as to why non-compliant coding doesn't
>> show correctly in Firefox (and other) browsers??
>
> Or why compliant coding doesnt?
>
>

Oh really, yes. The doctype declaration is not correct, it should be:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">

Even more correct would be:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

It's the screwball doctype that is messing things up, not Firefox.

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support
Melissa Rhiannon
OS Windows 10
User 463058 Photo


Ambassador
1,073 posts

Melissa Brookstone wrote:
This thread has been in the mozilla usenet group and I'm wondering if they're right? ( it's about my site at http://www.coloradoprocessservers.net ) Should I change it to what he says? Was HTML Editor putting it in like that originally?

We previously thought the overlap problem was being caused by a non-compliant rendering engine in netscape's browsers.


I believe this is the doctype provided by the 2008 editor. The 2009 editor fixes this.

You should change it, but not to either of the suggestions he gave. The page validates because you have a valid doctype. However, it's not a complete doctype, so this makes browsers render in quirks mode. Basically, this means they follow their own rendering rules, rather than the standards.

His first suggestion is to use a 4.0 transitional doctype. I don't know why he would suggest dropping back from 4.01 to 4.0. However, his suggestion that using XHTML 1.0 strict for your non-xhtml coded page would be an even better choice is just plain crazy. What's he thinking?

Simply replace what you have with the complete version:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">


Now your page will require some more tweaking in all likelihood, but it will be rendered more consistently from one browser to the next.

Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.