Does anybody know if it's possible to keep it from doing that, and if so, how? It displays fine in Mozilla, no idea what it looks like in Opera.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Greyryder |
Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? |
Lead | |
|
For some strange reason, anytime I put a PNG image that has a transparent area on one of my pages, Internet explorer puts some funky ass color in the transparent section. This tends to create a problem, since the page due to go up this week, has a large clear area in the form of a detached frame.
Does anybody know if it's possible to keep it from doing that, and if so, how? It displays fine in Mozilla, no idea what it looks like in Opera. |
|||
Fractal Dragon |
Re: Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? | ||
|
I've run into similar troubles with PNGs and Internet Exploader. For some reason, the colors are always off. I've just given up. It's not something that makes the page unreadable, so I've just let it slide. I don't feel it's worth my time to work around something that is a bug in someone else's software.
The alternatives are to just use something else besides PNG... like GIF (I know, it's not exactly an optimal solution). I'm not surprised that IE doesn't render something that's an open standard correctly. -FD Writer for Radical Dreamers |
|||
Greyryder |
Re: Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? | ||
|
I only have the problem in in the transparent areas, but I did a quick check, and it seems that if there's a background color behind the clear section, it'll show that that color.
You're right, figures that IE would be the browser that can't handle a standard file format. |
|||
goonigoogoo |
Re: Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? | ||
|
oh jesus. talking about standard file formats don't even get me started on what netscape 4 does to nice clean html.
*shudder* It's BUTCHERY I tells ya |
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? | ||
|
Hell, even the most recent versions of Netscape (even Mozilla) suck. Try putting together a page formatted with CSS, IE displays it ok, Opera does an awesome job, but Netscape can't figure it out, and just sort of sticks all of the block level elements wherever it damn well feels like (and again, yes, Mozilla does this too).
Doesn't Netscape know about the CSS standards? Do they realise that the W3C standard calls for support, and that over the next few years huge chunks of the HTML formatting standards are going to be removed in favor of CSS formatting? What will they do then? Opera (my personal favorite) has it right, and IE is pretty close. But avoid Netscape, it just plain sucks. Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
goonigoogoo |
Re: Internet Explorer, and PNG transparency? | ||
|
Ugh. netscape still makes me wake up screaming. We had to do a webpage assignment using all these 'advanced' xml, java, etc effects. The more advanced your page, the better marks you got. This would all be well and good, except one of the major components of marking was compatability. I believe most people made one really flashy page for IE and Opera, and just made a basic one for netscape. I only made a flashy page and lost marks for compatability since Netscape apparently can't tell left from center
|
|||
Fractal Dragon |
Standards? | ||
|
Is there really any set standard for CSS? I try to avoid them because of their quirks, but the last time I checked, there were a large number of proprietary structures that only worked on either IE, Netscape/Mozilla or Opera.
check out www.webreview.com/style/css1/charts/mastergrid.shtmlfor a sample of what's supported in the "standard" CCS structures for the browsers. As for removing HTML formating, I would really doubt that. It would kill backwards compatibility. -FD Writer for Radical Dreamers |
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
There are two standards for CSS specified by W3C, CSS1 and CSS2. CSS2 is a full recommendation, and I believe CSS1 is now (or will be in the very near future) a requirement. The issue is with standards complience. True to form, Netscape has none.
As for the HTML standard changes: From page 8 of "Cascading Style Sheets: The Difinitive Guide" by Eric A. Meyer (O'Reilly): "HTML, as I previously pointed out, is a structural language, while CSS is its cmplement: a stylistic language. Recognizing this, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body that debates and approves standards for the web, is beginning to remove stylistic tags from HTML. The reasoning for this move is that style sheets can be used to create the effects that certain HTML tags provide, so who needs them? As of this writing, the HTML 4.0 specification has a number of tags that are deprecated; that is, they are in the process of being phased out of the language altogether. Eventually, they will be marked as obsolete, which means that browsers will be neither required nor encouraged to support them. Among the deprecated tags are <FONT>, <BASEFONT>, <U>, and <CENTER>. With the advent of style sheets, none of these HTML tags are necessary." Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
Fractal Dragon |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
I can understand the FONT and BASEFONT tags, but U and CENTER ?!?!? That's gonna drive me nuts!
-FD Writer for Radical Dreamers |
|||
goonigoogoo |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
why just <u>? Why not <i> and <b> while they're at it?! WHY JEEBUS! WHHHHYYY
|
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
I'll bet those are next. Then again, I think tags like <b> and <em> are staying, since they're structural tags. They're there to draw a reader's attention to them. So, essentially, you would still mark important words and such with these tags, but then use CSS to specify what <b> and <em> text should look like.
Basically, from what I understand, anything that's not structural (<html>, <head>, <body>, <blockquote>, <p>, <br>, <hr>, <h1>, etc.) will be taken out. The idea is that the content and structure of a page will be designed in HTML, while the look and layout of the page will be done in CSS. Look on the bright side, it does make for some cleaner markup. Also, in the next paragraph or two he goes on to talk about how XML is likely to take the place of HTML altogether, and since XML has no stylistic markup what so ever, CSS is going to be more necessary than ever. Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
Dan Beeston |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
I know that I had a problem using 8 bit transparency images in Netscape 6.
I have to make sure that the transparent channel is black or the colour will effect the background of the image. Dan |
|||
Ryn Talysin |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
I had a class for Web coding over the summer, and yeah they are trying to seperate Style from Structure. Within the next couple big Browser upgrades to HTML4.01...there will be no more < center > tag...it made me so sad to learn of it...But then i learned how to actually use CSS and i was all happy again, since you can basically create your own < center > tag
Oh wait...what was the main topic again? Uh...oh yeah! PNG, PNG is good, i wish MS and the other browsers would get off their lazy bums and support it better. especially if whoever actually owns the GIF format decides to get huffy and starts asking for outrageous amounts of money to include that format into Image editing programs. Can't remember who owns it..it's either Compaq or Unisys or something like that...but they are finally starting to ask for money to include the format in programs like Photoshop and such, not a whole lot right now...but you'll never know. That's why we need PNG and MNG(i think) to catch on more, since those are open standards and readily available to anyone. MNG...if that's the name of it, is able to do Animation like GIF, so we do have the Animation and the Transparency...just need better support. Oh, and don't be afraid of CSS, i thought it was a big bad scary thing at first, then i actually learned what it is...it is rather simple and very useful. I mean, you can use one CSS to make hundreds of pages for a site look the same so you don't have to code all the Style part into each page, it's really something when you have over say...10 different pages or so and need them to all look the same. -Stephen
ParadigmCentral |
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
I LOVE CSS. There's nothing quite like being able to just write out the content of a page, worrying only about structure and not at all about the look of it, then adding a <link> or @import tag and a few <div>s and <class>s and having the page look just like all the others.
In another browser generation or two it'll replace tables as the easiest way to lay out pages. It sort of works for that now, but the positioning rules (from CSS2) aren't very well, or very consistently, supported. Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
Dan Beeston |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
CSS rocks all over the shop.
I use multiple style sheets that allows me to change the style of individual comics in my archive. For instance, comics that occur outside at night have a dark background with stars. It allows the comic itself to be appear brighter to the reader. www.lilleystreet.com/comi...comnum=112 Before I did this the readers eye would dilate and they wouldn't be able to see the characters very well at all. Also I have different backgrounds for dawn scenes and rainy weather. Plus I can change the font for halloween comics and stuff like that. Dan |
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: Standards? | ||
|
Another nifty trick is to take advantage of the media setting in the <link> tag. Basically, you can have one style sheet for "screen", viewing on a monitor, and another for "print" for printing the page. That way, you can have your navigation buttons, background, fancy formatting and odd colors all disappear for printing, leaving only cleanly formatted black text on white background that'll print well. You can even make it so special messages, like copyright messages and such, appear only when printed, or maybe just get bigger. Or, if you're paranoid, you can make it so your page appears blank when they try to print. All of this and not a bit of programming involved.
CSS is so flexible in some ways it's freightening. Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
rmcgcreative |
IE tranparency... | ||
|
I think that was the original question. PNG transparency is just plain not supported in IE. Netscape, Opera and all the other do support it, though. I believe Win XP does, or was supposed to. Best bet...avoid transparent PNGs.
On my site where I needed quality color but also transparency, I faked it. I resorted to a design where everything is absolutely positioned, then just created files that just lined up perfectly with the background file underneath. The images look like they are floating boxes with transparency, but they're just plain jpg's. Check it out...the collage on the home page, the martini glass on the Portfolio page, even several areas of the comic page, and all nav headers appear transparent but are not. www.rmcgcreative.com
|
|||
Greyryder |
Re: IE tranparency... | ||
|
I've found that in the GIMP I can put in a background color behind the transpearancy. I just make it the same color as the background on my site. That way it looks just like it does in browsers that support standards.
XP supports it fine, it's just IE that can't handle it. If anyone is getting from my posts that I don't like IE, you're right. I miss the interface from Netscape 4.x, but got tired of it mangling HTML, that I began slowly switching over to IE. Mozilla saved me. I still miss the way Netscape used to put bookmarks into multiple columns, instead of making you scroll through them. Now I have to organize my bookmarks. |
|||
J Clark Idle ME |
Re: IE tranparency... | ||
|
Sorry to point this out, but Mozilla isn't any better than Netscape... yet...
I have a site I put together using CSS formatting exclusively (no layout tables), and it looks fine in IE, looks great in Opera, but look terrible in both Netscape and Mozilla (there's no discernable difference). My personal preference is Opera, mostly because it actually knows what to do with CSS, and it's fast. It's not perfect of course, and has some issues with the more complex Java effects, but that's why I still have IE, just in case (I actually have Opera, IE, Netscape 6, Netscape 4, and Mozilla for testing out web pages, so it's not an issue at all if a page doesn't work in Opera, I know I have [i]something[/i] that'll display it properly). Later.
---- "I'll have the spam, spam, spam, egg, spam, spam, spam, and spam." |
|||
rmcgcreative |
Opera & javascripts | ||
|
Opera messes up javascripts a lot. I've got the Mac version, anyway, Opera 6 on OSX 10.2. IE 5.2 is, I hate to amit it, pretty consistent. It consistently sucks, but it is fast and renders pages the most faithfully, even if contents and artwork disappear after a page loads, or it get hung up trying to execute a simple javascript. At least it runs them most of the time. Opera just seems to ignore many of them. Netscape 7 looks promising, but it is just too late for them. Look at your site's traffic stats. Gauranteed most of your traffic is IE of some flavor. Design to this, then test on everything else!
|
|||
Greyryder |
Re: Opera & javascripts | ||
|
I don't know a thing about CSS Idon't even know what it is). I barely know enough HTML to clean up after my editing program. Yes, most of my hits are from IE, and I always make sure the page displays properly in that excuse for a browser.
As for Mozilla not supporting CSS properly, try e-mailing the Mozilla team. It's an open source project, and the main goal is standards support. Give them links to a couple of examples, and maybe they can get it fixed in the next release. Me, I'm sticking to the browser that doesn't tick me off just to use, and kills pop-ups on it's own. I have no use for Internet Explorer, other than Windows update, and making sure my comic looks right for the masses. |
|||