croatiankid

you shouldn't need the text align attribute for the body.As saying text-sling:left; in every other element means extra bytes to d/l from the css, a bit useless in my opinion, And it says on that site that its for ie5 for windows. Who the heck uses ie5 nowadays?

#content

#id{margin: 0px auto;width:900px;}

#id{margin: 0 auto;width:900px;}

"width:200;" its better to give units like px or em or % "width:200px;"

with utf-8 in html 4.01 strict it validates.

no that is not correct. A formal notice of copyright is not required on a webpage. it can be useful as a deterrent against infringements but the work is still protected by copyright law with or without notice.

Why don't you want to use those you linked to? I don't like using alt or title attributes because not all browsers will display them as tooltips. If the image loads, Opera doesn't do anything with the alt attribute.]

name is deprecated , id is and should be used instead.

How come it does't work if put before?

IE doesn't like elements with dimensions smaller than the font size, so either setting the font size to 1px (idk if 0 is valid), or line-height, or overflow:hidden should work.

Yeah unfortunately I think IE7 still doesn't support xhtml, and I'm sure ie6 doesn't. It's hard to make good use of technology, which isn't even that new anymore, when the most popular user agent doesn't support it. I mean couldn't they give xhtml support in a service pack at least? Not to mention transparent PNGs, sheesh. However, that does have a solution I read somewhere on msn, I think it uses JS in CSS to get IE to use its PNG transparency thingy (it's not that IE doesn't support transparent PNGs, it's just that it's not enabled by default. Why? I don't think MS' developers know {no offense intended if there are any here}).

it might be because one of them gives LIs padding, the other gives them margin (not sure which gives which). Here's a tip for you that will make CSS so much easier in the future: when you just start making your CSS, the first line you shouuld put in is

*{padding:0;margin:0;}

That gets rid of any browser-default paddings and margins, and if you give an element padding-top:5px;, it will have 5 px of padding in every browser.

So i was right wow thats a first. Alternatively you could make a div called link, give it all the properties and just put the link inside that.

I spent over 2 hours getting my whole site to validate 100% with w3c. I am now running valid XHTML 1.1 on www.innovateidea.com Does anyone else out there fully validate their HTML with w3c? Note:Even w3.org has invalid page more then 10 as on today…

i don't know if you have spaces up and down, or left and right, but try this anyway:first try adding to your CSS

#tabela img{display:block;}

if that doesn't work, then try

#tabela li {display:block;}

, if that doesn't work, then you will have to delete all spaces in your html code between UL and /UL, making

<ul id="nav"><li><span>Sekcja</span><ul id="tabela"> <li><a href="1"><img src="sklad2_17.jpg" height="13" /></a></li><li><a href="2"><img src="sklad2_18.jpg" height="16"/></a></li><li><a href="3"><img src="sklad2_19.jpg" height="15" /></a></li><li><a href="4"><img src="sklad2_20.jpg" height="17" /></a></li></ul></li></ul>

it's not a problem with firefox. you should take a look at this.

The W3C's CSS2 spec states that for Inline, non-replaced elements, the 'height' property doesn't apply, but the height of the box is given by the 'line-height' property.

block level elements are supposed to be centered with

margin:0 auto

,inline with

text-align:center;

absolute or relative positioning, and z-index.

I only use XHTML in applications (in combination with XML and/or MathML...), and in CMS. Also I always use a full strict doctype to avoid quirks. Indeed people say that XHTML is the future, and perhaps it is. But if you don't use it as it was intended to (in combination with XML technology), there's no benefit.

Why are you even using Xhtml 1.1 when your serving it as text/html?

that's because you're using a strict doctype.

what doctype are you using?

Yep, instead of for example; <b><i>text</b></i> you have to write <b><i>text</i></b> or <i><b>text</b></i>

Looking at the site I created again, I saw the same problem occur,(this time in both firefox and internet explorer) with the UL tag. It's frustrating learning all the little differences associated with different browsers and what works or not. I've found that it's easier just to position one thing at a time and then check my work in the different browsers to make sure everythings alright before proceeding on to the next step.Anyway, I just stumbled upon an article which kind of adressed that concern, but I'd like to get some feedback on it from some of the professionals on this board. He suggested that because of the different margins and padding that different browsers display, you insert the following css:*{margin: 0;padding: 0}My question would be is this actually worth doing? Does it save in the overall time it makes to create the site because less problems arise(as everythings more uniform across all browsers), or is this actually a bad technique because it requires more coding to to specify padding/margins for whatever div, element that needs adjusting. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Impossible.

okay first we need to validate your code. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...FTMT%2Fnews.htm is the URL. For starters, you're using an HTML DOCTYPE, but have XHTML elements, like XMLNS and XML:LANG; get rid of them. change get rid of the backslash in

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

in HTML METAs and LINKs don't need to be closed. Then get rid of

</link>

. You cannot use a specific ID more than once in the same document. The whole point of IDs is they're unique for one element on the page. change them to CLASSes and update your CSS accordingly (change the relevant #s to .s).error 26: you have messed up comments, looking like

<!---comment--->[code]. Comments are supposed to follow this scheme: [code]<!--comment-->

. notice there are only two dashes on each side, not three.

With invalid code like you have, the problem isn't firefox, but rather your code.