Looks exactly the same in Safari v1.2.3 as it does in Firefox 1.0PR (Mac OS X).
Thanks a bunch!;) Somewhat nice to be able to say "hey, my site works perfectly in everything but IE, because IE sucks and can't render perfectly valid XHTML/CSS".;-]
I'll make a note that your site looks slightly weird in Netscape communicator 4.8
Lol! I can imagine that. (Going completely OT.) I had completely forgotten that the 4.x branch still existed. However... I don't think I'll worry too much about it, since I wouldn't expect XHTML 1.0/CSS 2 to work very well in it - and one has to make a choice of technology. Last time I chose funcionality over design, now it's time to see if I can merge the two, and I have a feeling (I haven't tried the 4.x branch for years) that using the old Navigator 4.x will b0rk it pretty much.;)
That shit happens all the time because too many peeps test only with IE, and it's just a leetle too forgiving when it comes to malformed HTML. (And we all know about their standards adherence.)
I have the exact oposite problem... A design I'm making (http://new.lillesvin.net.nyud.net:8090) works in anything but IE (Tested in Firefox/Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror - unfortunately don't have access to a Safari). It's XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS 2 - yet IE is so far from rendering it correctly that I'm actually thinking about just inserting a note to IE users, that their browser is not standards compliant and that they should check out Firefox/Mozilla or Opera instead.
And calling IE "a leetle too forgiving" about HTML is perhaps a weak formulation. I'd say that it has its very own interpretation of how HTML should be formed, as it apparently does NOT conform to the standards in any ways.
I used to live in a city with a population of 40k people. The library there used to have full-blown PC's and they weren't able to maintain them properly. (E.g. one could edit system-files by opening IE, do a "view source" to open Notepad and then open whatever file you wanted to edit.) Admitted, they weren't the most competent sysadmins on the face of earth.
But comming home after a summer vacation and find that they'd gotten themselves a Solaris system with thin clients was a blessing. All computers was working always! Which is the way it should be on a library.
I see how this can be problematic if you want to allow users to use floppies and such, but I think security should have the highest priority.
They asked me to test the system for holes and I couldn't find any! (No, I'm not really a good cr4x0r, but I've learned a few tricks along the way and considering their skills as sysadmins, I found it pretty impressive.)
Slashdot Mirror
But hey, thanks for checking.
And calling IE "a leetle too forgiving" about HTML is perhaps a weak formulation. I'd say that it has its very own interpretation of how HTML should be formed, as it apparently does NOT conform to the standards in any ways.
Hmm, how would one make a MacQuarium out of an iBook (or the fancy iMacs or PowerBooks for that matter)? :-p
I used to live in a city with a population of 40k people. The library there used to have full-blown PC's and they weren't able to maintain them properly. (E.g. one could edit system-files by opening IE, do a "view source" to open Notepad and then open whatever file you wanted to edit.) Admitted, they weren't the most competent sysadmins on the face of earth.
But comming home after a summer vacation and find that they'd gotten themselves a Solaris system with thin clients was a blessing.
All computers was working always! Which is the way it should be on a library.
I see how this can be problematic if you want to allow users to use floppies and such, but I think security should have the highest priority.
They asked me to test the system for holes and I couldn't find any! (No, I'm not really a good cr4x0r, but I've learned a few tricks along the way and considering their skills as sysadmins, I found it pretty impressive.)