lhk

Hi moshu,

LOL yes – the problem is, I’m also no coder… ??

I think your supposition about is_single is correct.

As to the loop in that template… I think I need a good night’s sleep before I tackle that. But currently those next/previous calls are I believe inside it.

Any coder out there with a clue? ??

Hi moshu,

I think in the case of the relevant category I talk about it’s template by category which decides the template.

I wondered about the conditional, but right now I have trouble imagining where to paste the tag in the php and what it would call.

And would is_single refer to the single.php (which I as I said don’t use) template or to the fact that this is a single post?

As an added info – I don’t use permalinks so most breadcrumb plugins are a no-no.

Hi,

pros:

– clean colors scheme (though not one of my favs)
– well-done graphics
– clean categorization

cons:

– navigation overkill (even including a written explanation)
– graphic sizes too large, long load time
– too little contrast, fontsize too small

Additionally, and that’s just a quirk of mine, I hate designs which hug top and bottom of the browser like that.

Hi again,

I solved this one using

https://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/07/31/gzip-compression-issue-in-wordpress-12-mingus/

However, that host wouldn’t take the .htaccess version of that fix. I had to put it into a php.ini.

Hi spencerp,

thanks for doing the footwork :-)))

I just vaguely remembered having the same problem once during positioning a righthand column yesterday.

Hi again,

that seems to definitely be linked to gzip. Damn it. I just switched gzip off, and the error has vanished.

Any ideas what I can do? There is a definite difference in load times and I’d love to use gzip for that site.

Hi again,

the plugin works for that site. However, I’d still like to know about Filosofo’s solution.

Yes, thanks moshu,

I found this thread:

https://www.ads-software.com/support/topic/70943?replies=7#post-372905

and now I wonder just what filosofo did ??

It looks to my weary self (is it so hot everywhere on this planet or is it just me who has nearly 40 degrees Celsius at 90% humidity?) as if filosofo faced exactly my problem and found a more elegant solution. Or modified that plugin?

Hi again,

@podz: I would be willing to write that, but I’m no blogger.

I’m a webmaster and I have here – all the time – been discussing this question from the vantage point and the POV of someone who has to make educated decisions based on what a client needs, is able to pay, has in his (business) mind and wants of the future.

So if you want that POV you can also have it.

@manstraw: …just as the arguments for tables, no CSS and no extra accessibility enablement stand.

And you even yourself concede that there is a an ulterior agenda in this whole topic by calling a near 100% marketshare “a monopoly”.

Sorry to wake you up chap, but Bill Gates never had a monopoly in the relevant sense of the word. He never was and still isn’t the sole player. No one twisted the arms of customers to use Windows or to not buy Macs. They didn’t, they preferred Windows over Linux and they didn’t like Apple’s prices overly much either. Had Apple lowered their prices to the level of windows boxes, we might have a Mac world right now instead.

In fact, the only truly and successfully standardized items on this world, and there are – in reality – only very very few of that, derived from a 90+% marketshare. Browsers were at that point, and W3C – on explicit purpose – saw to it that standardization did NOT happen.

Oh, and don’t tell me that IE couldn’t or wouldn’t have made progress, if IE was all you had to deal with, you’d have no problems designing a CSS driven site if you wanted to. If W3C hadn’t purposefully alienated the MS programmers in the first place, IE might have been fully CSS-supportive already in Version 5.

Instead the consortium took up the Netscape vs IE battle with a sharp twist and used their socalled primary mission to actually try to break IE’s market position.

It’s never a good idea to transfigure, to idealize such an obscure yet influential group’s activities and actions in the long run.

Hi again,

@handysolo:

No, I don’t believe (or expect) that anyone participating here in this thread will change his/her minds. Remember? I said I’m a realist. ??

But I do expect that a few people who before were likely to blindly follow a futuristic idea without even having a close look at reality, now might to a raincheck. And to me that’s worth having that discussion.

@ladydelaluna:

If the W3C consortium would pose its recommendations as you do, I wouldn’t be arguing, I wouldn’t even need to do that. Basically we two do agree on the most salient point of the whole debate.

Unfortunately neither the W3C nor most other people here use such a logical and appropriate approach. Instead it’s immediate clobbering over the head of people with that Tarzan&Jane-style screams “IE bad, FF good” and “tables bad, CSS good”.

Have you had a good look at the majority of threads/responses that people get here who ask about tables (any which way)? The first thing they get clobbered with is “CSS is better!”. Well, that is not the case for every case. I gave quite a few logical, reality-based and stringent causes and reasons why this is NOT the case.

Indeed the first response should be question instead: “whom and what do you want to publish this to?” and the second: “what do you want to achieve?”. And only after the answers you’ll have an inkling of whether or not “CSS” is indeed “better”. Or accessibility enablement.

If the purported usergroup is e.g. continental European (or African, or Eastern), neither catering to PDA/cellphone devices makes any major sense, nor is in many cases CSS the best response.

Thus the continuous cry of “CSS is best” is what I am against. Not designing for the usergroup you have to cater to.

@manstraw:

There is no “conspiration theory” in the history of W3C decisions, you can read their statements up online. There are enough data available to check back on this. They were and are on a biased mission. If this doesn’t fit with your view of them, I’m sorry, this doesn’t change facts.

In the late 90ies there was a nearly 100% market share for the IE worldwide. Netscape had lost its edge, IE was the standard software on people’s computers and no one but a few tech-oriented students and geeks even went for anything else. Neglectable. IE was the only logical choice if “standard” was what the W3C consortium really wanted. They had a nearly uniform and already existing standard at their fingertips and chose to disregard it.

And quite simply: don’t tell me that’s because the IE had low quality or lacked. Because if that’s the sole thing what hinders you, you can – instead of choosing a different standard – work to better the one you have. That’s what usually happens in such cases. Not so with the W3C. Thus the only answer to this little fact is that they had a totally different agenda. And they stated this often and openly enough so that even you can find that through a good Google search.

Hi,

nice.

I agree on having either capped or non-capped sections, and would use non-capped.

Else is very nice, I wouldn’t round anything and the subtle pattern in the blue area is very appealing. No need to put anything there.

Looks restful, clean and elegant.

Hi ladydelaluna,

have a look at this:

“Ok,

i’ve learned that the original link not working in ie problem relates to using fixed positioning and as you recommended, the only workaround is to not use fixed positioning. so i’ve adapted your suggested stylesheet for the site, as a result learning more about using css for positioning. fixed the centering, decided to stick with a fixed with of 740 that centers liquidly.

here’s the latest rub, regarding inherited property ordering:
i wanted to make a subnav for some of the sections. tinkered a little with the css you had made for the nav, and was unsuccessful in working around what properties inherit and where exactly i can specify what properties. i would like the subnav to be indented — increasing the left-padding, and not be all uppercase via the property “capitalize.” in an experiment, i was able to indent the subnav, but not change the uppercase property. can you offer suggestions about that?”

from

https://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5794.html

and at this

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=links+not+working+in+IE+CSS&btnG=Google+Search

Hi again,

@doodlebee:

How about reading, instead of guessing? I wrote:

“a couple of basic parameters of life OVER HERE:

A landline costs 25 USD base fee WHERE I LIVE, the average phone bill for such a line for most people is around 50 USD all put together.

A mobile phone contract costs also around 25 USD base fee, the average phone bill for this, when phoning exclusively via mobile phone, would be somewhere around 300 to 500 USD per month.”

That’s what pretty conclusive, I’d say. If I had a mobile phone and phoned for the same amount (calls and durations) with that, as I phone with my landline, I’d pay 25 base fee plus 300-500 US dollars per month (roughly).

If that was in the country south to me, it’d be some 500-600 USD, if in the country west to, that’d be some 200-300 USD, east of me some 1000 USD, north of me some 500-700 USD.

Nowhere – except maybe in the far Scandinavian countries – would it approach anywhere close to your bill of only 50 USD for a complete family. I always was talking one single person.

And a landline here where I live can be had for 25/month plus (depending on contract) 30-50 USD for inland and longdistance foreign country calls. Which, if you calculate, is still more than what you pay.

As to standards – you and I probably won’t still be alive before any general WWW “standard” is achieved. The chance is high that none ever will be.

W3C fucked up. If they had used IE specs as the standard at the time, they might have had a good fighting position to achieve a uniform standard. As it was for the Betamax vs. VHS system. There “only” PAL vs. SECAM vs. NTSC is making trouble and multi-system VCRs are and were available.

But have a look at other such attempts at standardization and you’ll grow grey hair. Papersizes, power (and powerplugs), DVD-players, secondary software for Unix/Windows/Macs/PCs, etc.etc..

Even in the USA you still have at best a distribution of 50:50 between the two big ones, not to speak of the rest also there and also not conforming. Lately FF has come into not at all unfounded criticism for hopping into the bed with Google, there are the first row of really serious bugs and deficiencies and also the first couple of equally serious viruses and exploits (bound to be more with each new FF user). With every bug, virus and image loss W3C also loses out. IE7 shows that Microsoft isn’t really playing the standards game yet (and I seriously doubt they ever will).

In my book the only chance at a standardized web will happen the next time a major technological hardware step is taken. And due to the way our society and our business competition works, chances are even less likely then than now. Have a look at what’s happening currently with MP3 and the fact that lately we have more rather than less different formats.

Given all that, it is to ME very off to suggest, that everyone use systems and devices which are geared to a fraction of all users and countries.

The telecommunication prices differencies I didn’t table for nothing. They are part of those differencies which see to it, that there is no system and no approach which works for the whole planet yet. And not for a long, long time to come yet. And “long” in my book means several decades, not a couple of months.

Many US american companies have landed badly splat on their noses because they assumed that what works well US-side also works well in Europe, Asia or Africa. Walmart e.g. lost in the upper number of millions of dollars over one such a simple item as KY-cream when expanding into countries outside of the USA. They lost way more until they learned about the differences in eating and clothing habits outside of the USA. I happen to know, as I happen to know someone whom they had to engage to set them right.

Thus if you base assumptions (of usage and usability) merely on what happens to work out in the USA, you’re bound for a similar experience right sharply. If someone had to pay 200-300 bucks to have the “fun” of surfing with PDAs and mobile phones at leisure and earns less than 1500 bucks a month averagely he hasn’t got lots to spend left over. Guess how valid your business plan is in such a case!

What I’m saying is most definitely NOT that CSS and accessibility don’t have their places. I very much insist however that all they have are places – among other systems and approaches. And that this will be just like that a long enough time to stop that silly CSS/accessibility-nazism which is going on.

And I will most assuredly defend that position on a forum like this one, where people from all the planet come together to seek help. What works for you, doesn’t work for others. It’s really time to notice that.

@ladydelaluna:

I don’t say standards are a bad idea. I like the fact that I can e.g. order a US videotape and play it on my NTSC-enabled VCR. I have more trouble when ordering a US-DVD and without major alteration US electronic/electric devices are unusable here. I’m quick by now in re-calculating non-metric measurements, and it took me only a short time to understand that the US pound is much lighter than my metric one.

You see what I try to say?

Standards might be a really good idea, but acquiring them is another ballgame. And W3C missed out. Which is why I will never call that bunch of idiots anything but geeks (which is much more polite than “idiots”). Instead of trying to brainwash people into “IE is bad, FF/Mozilla is good”, they should have taken a good hard look at the market share of IE during the late 90ies and heeled to facts. If they had, we’d have a standard now already.

And don’t start this “but IE is indeed worse” game on me. That was and is a propaganda item. The edge other browsers (and OS) have over IE mainly consists of their rarity where it comes to practical daily life. FF is just now starting to feel the hot breath of popularity in its neck.

If you closely and neutrally look at the motives behind this anti-IE campaign of W3C you’ll discover that it wasn’t technics-driven, it was personal antipathy against a marketleader and its owner.

Now, I don’t even say it’s a bad idea to shave a marketshare off Bill Gates. But the very fact of doing so is ensuring, FIRMLY ensuring that there will be no standard.

Given these facts all that to-do and moaning is to me just a big, huge lie. Propaganda. Hot air. The W3C has actively seen to it that there will be no standard, so it had better chill its feet (along with their fans) when people deal with the pile of shards they left behind them.

Have you – at any time – really noticed that the W3C ruleset is nothing but a RECOMMENDATION? That nowhere in all this there is the slightest means to enforce anything? That no company, no software author, no webmaster is in any way forced to heed those recommendations and that the VAST majority simply ignores them? Including those people who code browsers? Opera, Safari and FF still don’t display the same. And one would assume that at least that much would be easily possible.

No, I’m not oldfashioned or trying to hold on to anything. I am – contrary to quite a few – however a bonehard realist. And yes, I know that that is a stance which is extremely painful to take for many. I have never ever believed that anyone in commerce or in the powergame truly means “only the good for people”. This is not true in the real world, and it’s not true in the virtual one. Which is something you discover the moment you look behind the eyecandy and hogwash presented to the “believing public”, and which you’ll only grasp when you look at it from a realist’s vantage point.

Hi ladydelaluna,

I’d try erasing the CSS content completely, and then item by item putting it back. In a live testbed/sandbox of course. You should soon notice what causes the problem.

Different method:

Upload plugin, activate, insert the relevant calling code into an “myarchives.php” and upload to your themefolder (you can take the normal archives.php as a base, but change the php templatename snippet to “My Archives”), then write a page and choose “myarchives.php” as a template.