Wickham

February 5, 2009

You might find it more reliable to use margin-left instead of text-indent:-

* { margin: 0; padding: 0; }

#sitemap { width: 400px; background-color: #eee;

/*text-indent: 100px;*/

list-style-position: inside; }

#sitemap ul { margin-left: 30px; }

#sitemap ul ul { margin-left: 100px; } /*for the nested ul tag if you want a different margin-left there.*/

February 5, 2009

Re Eric's edits; I think the tags were correct if the nested ul is supposed to be inside the Diary li tag, it looked OK to me as it was originally in the first post.

February 5, 2009

Your list is indenting by 100px in IE7 and Firefox. I edited your styles like this to add a width and background-color to the div just to check:-

#sitemap { width: 400px; background-color: #eee;

text-indent: 100px;

list-style-position: inside;

ul, li { margin: 0; padding: 0; }

which showed the gray div with 100 px space on the left.

I also added ul, li { margin: 0; padding: 0; } which didn't make any difference but it is a good idea with lists as the ul tag has different default margins in different browsers and it helps to get them all doing the same thing first, then you add margins or padding where you want and it should be the same for all of them. In this case the text-indent seems to have set them all the same.

Look at item 5 here:-

http://w ww.wickham43.net/lists.php

which shows two columns, the left with default margins and the right with corrected margins, the upper set for list-style-outside and the bottom two for list-style-inside so the bottom right applies to you and you have text-indent in addition. See if it clarifies the matter.

February 5, 2009

I've been reading this long topic again:-

http://www.killersites.com/mvnforum/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=10257&offset=20

Shetland Wolf on 2 April 2008 and ewwatson on 5 April 2008 2.53 pm used this code:-

if (preg_replace($headers, '', $string) == $string) {

return $string;

} else {

die('You think Im spammy? Spammy how? Spammy like a clown, spammy?');

}

but as far as I can see, $headers and $string variables aren't defined anywhere in Eric's form, so were these just names as an example which require editig to those in your form (or Eric's form) or are they some kind of global code applicable in any case?

February 5, 2009

Thanks for your time on that shelfimage. Good read. Looks like they didn't do it for ie6. Stinks, that's the one that eats up most of my time. Hopefully 8 will further hasten the demise of 6.

If you mean why didn't they build in an emulate IE7 into IE6 that that's clearly impossible and a joke by you, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the emulate meta tag in IE8 can emulate IE6 for testing IE6 by editing IE7 to IE6 in the meta tag, but I've never tried it and I may be wrong.

February 5, 2009

The code you have now:-

background-color: #B3EA10;

background-image: url(images/sky.jpg);

background-repeat: no-repeat;

background-attachment:fixed;

background-position: center center

looks fine and should show the background image centered horizontally and vertically and not stuck to the top left corner, and with the background-color around the sides. Give us an online link if it doesn't.

If you don't want the image in the center vertically use top center instead of center center.

February 4, 2009

is there another way to accomplish this without php? i have not gotten into that. Im hoping to just use css and html. Thanks.

There's SHTML but that type of "include" is almost identical to teh PHP method but PHP gives so much scope for other things to add in later like forms to a database.

PHP "includes" are the easiest part of PHP to learn.

Otherwise you could use a frameset with the repeating bit in a separate frame, but no one will advise you to do that now that PHP can do it better.

February 4, 2009

They should both have ( )

February 3, 2009

I agree that you can put includes inside includes; it just makes the page a bit more complicated and you have to keep a check on what's happening when they all display.

February 3, 2009

I thought that might be the answer, but it isn't. I usually have cookies set as session cookies only, but Opera has more detailed cookie settings and I've tried "Accept cookies only from the site I visit" and "Accept cookies" and checked in Manage Cookies and seen that my site is listed there, but the linked page session2.php still doesn't show the date and time. I've cleared the cache and history too.

However, Chrome had cookies blocked (I don't use this browser much) and after unblocking cookies the date and time now show on the session2.php page, so I'll try Opera again.

Edit: Opera still refuses to show the date and time on session2.php even with cookies.

Edit2: at long last I've got Opera to work. I reset the global cookie setting and it didn't work, but then I found that I'd set my own domain names in the site specific settings to accept javascript but the cookies were still blocked, so that setting overrode the global setting to accept them. Thanks tpattison.

February 3, 2009

This test page shows the code in the main page and the code in the linked session2.php page below the horizontal rule.

http://w ww.wickham43.com/forumposts/phpdatetime3.php

The date time shows in all browsers on the same page but if you click the link to session.php you will see that Opera and Chrome do not show the date and time, so it looks like a browser problem rather than a php code problem. but it could be serious for Opera or Chrome users if their session isn't working so I wondered if there is a solution.

February 3, 2009

I've used Stefan's tutorial for session code and all browsers show date time or browser information if the code is on the first page, but if the session is repeated on a second page which he calls session.php, Opera and Google Chrome do not show the date and time or browser data but IE7, Safari and Firefox do work.

<?php session_start(); ?> above the doctype on session.php and

<?php

echo "

Wickham43.net PHP page was opened on " . $_SESSION['time'] . "

";

?>

in the body

Is this a known bug with these browsers and how is it overcome?

February 3, 2009

When I use Stefan's tutorial to identify browsers using PHP

<?php $_SESSION['browser'] = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']; ?>

I get this using IE7:-

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)

and this using Firefox:-

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5

What is the Mozilla/4.0 reference in the IE7 output and what are the Windows references in the Firefox output? General explanation please.

February 3, 2009

The downloads have been much quicker for the last week or so, so perhaps Stefan has fixed something.

February 2, 2009

Blogger creates sub-directories for each user and it calls them myblog, etc. and it's formatted in this case as myblog.blogspot.com but in some cases it could be blogspot.com/myblog but they have chosen to format it before their own domain name.

The input data entered by the blogger is always held in a database and fed to the page.

February 2, 2009

I've had no trouble with TIMESTAMP in MySQL either.

sjhwebdesign, you offered separate date and time codes; I've had to edit them to be in a session and they work as shown here:-

http://w'>http://w ww.wickham43.com/forumposts/phpdatetime2.php

My original code was supposed to be combined and a standard code but it didn't work online, only on WampServer, which seemed crazy. I found that the short combined version date('r') did work online as shown here:-

http://w ww.wickham43.com/forumposts/phpdatetime3.php

I'm still mystified why the proper combined versions date(DATE_RFC822) or date(DATE_RFC2822) don't work online. Why are they shown on tutorials? Edit: my hosting service has PHP 5.2.5 so it can't be that it's an old version.

February 1, 2009

This code from Stefan's tutorial for sessions for showing date and time placed above the doctype:-

<?php session_start();

$_SESSION['time'] = date(DATE_RFC822);

?>

and this as the body output:-

<?php

echo "Welcome on " . $_SESSION['time'];

?>

shows this result when online in IE7 and Firefox:-

SunPMGMTE_RFebruaryC850

but correctly this when viewed in WampServer:-

Sunday, 01-Feb-09 14:34:44 GMT

Any ideas why it's corrupted online?

Edit: I've reduced it to the minimum code here:-

http://w ww.wickham43.com/forumposts/phpdatetime.php

which is still corrupted online in IE7 and in Firefox online, but OK on localhost in Firefox.

Edit again: this is ridiculous! I found this http://uk3.php.net/date Kenneth Kin Lun 2 Oct 2008

date(DATE_RFC822) and date(DATE_RFC2822) both work. note that RFC 822 is obsoleted by RFC 2822. The main difference is the year being 08 in RFC 822 and is 2008 in RFC 2822.

To use date(DATE_RFC2822), a short form is date('r').

RFC2822 did not work for me but 'r' did work (I've not edited my own url above so that you can still check if it's corrupted for you.)

January 31, 2009

This works, but I don't really like your page structure, so it's just a quick fix:-

Edit the style in the head section of the test page to make it position: absolute which takes it out of the normal flow of the other codes (adjust the top position if not correct):-

.glossymenu{

position: absolute; top: 365px; left: 50%; margin-left: -85px;

padding: 0;

width: 170px; /*width of menu*/

border: 1px solid #9A9A9A;

border-bottom-width: 0;

margin-top: 5px;

margin-right: 0px;

margin-bottom: 5px;

/*margin-left: 20px;*/

}

January 30, 2009

Newseed's suggestion is the normal cure, but you have this:-

html {

margin:-10px;

padding: 0px;

height: 1000px;

width: 700px;

margin-left: auto;

margin-right: auto;

}

which attempts to give a width and auto margins to the html which is not a div, it's the whole page. I've never done that and I don't think it's correct. Use a wrap div and then check whether any of the divs inside have a side margin within it (which is why Newseed said delete them).

Edit: try changing html to #wrap in the CSS above

#wrap {

/*margin:-10px;*/

padding: 0px;

height: 1000px;

width: 700px;

margin-left: auto;

margin-right: auto;

}

and putting in the wrap div around the markup as Newseed suggested

January 30, 2009

That copyscape site really is useful.

I tried it with my sites, my tutorial showed up my own mirror site I have as free webspace with my ISP!

I then used copyscape on my old mirror site which showed lots of entries, but most seemed to be just short extracts with a link, which is acceptable.

January 29, 2009

Hi,
Something that will not repeat, but will just take up the whole page?

It needs to be big enough to cover the whole page, and remember that some people use resolutions of 1920*1200.

An alternative is to position a large background image centrally so that in smaller resolutions both sides get cut off equally as that usually looks better than if the right side loses a lot and the left loses none, or if your image isn't big enough for large resolutions it will center with space at the sides.

See http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_background-position.asp

Falkencreative gave yo the short method of coding with all styles inside the background.

w3schools gives each separately using background-image, background-position, etc.

January 29, 2009

A common problem is that people save a file as say home.html or style.css and it doesn't work because it's actually been saved as home.html.txt or style.css.txt. Check in Windows Explorer with view Details to see if files have a .txt extension and remove it.

January 29, 2009

Fixed that link up there.

Yes, by setting the Forum Categories and permissions correctly, a non-registered user could be allowed to view certain area, but a Registered and logged-in user could view even more areas. (the Kids could view the General info, the parents could view the driving stuff)

That's what we have here with one board for admin hidden from the general public, but it isn't controlled by a separate username and password, it's controlled by the Administrator who sets permissions.

PhpBB3 seems to have gone a stage further in that some forums can be password protected by another level of passwords.

January 28, 2009

I think jlhaslip has a point, I think most forum software allows a general area from the main username and password and also secondary group folders with further login so that could be restricted to parents.

It's worth looking at a few like phpBB3. All the software is bundled up for a simple installation, but setting up the boards and admin does take some thought (as Stefan found out with this new forum).

Additional add-ons for extra security from spammers are always necessaryy and spammers are the main problem with forum software.

This page says phpBB3 has password protected forums

http://www.phpbb.com/about/features/

which means additional usernames and passwords besides the basic login as far as I know, but my forum is phpBB2 which doesn't have it.

However, there are better forums than phpBB3 according to some people, so it's worth looking at others.

January 28, 2009

Why did you not email with this announcement 5 min after it went live... what do I pay you for?

I sent in a comment today about my form's IE8 beta 2 back button problem to the IE8 Microsoft feedback site and someone said that it didn't cause a problem with RC1.

I knew that RC1 had been issued to special testers so I assumed he must be one of them. He didn't tell me to install RC1 but luckily I googled and found out that it was available.

In fact when I turned on my Vista PC to download it, RC1 was available in the Updates (I still use an old XP PC most of the time.)

Another problem solved is anchors which didn't work like this:-

but only with something inside, even just a . period:-

.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by Wickham