Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Full Screen QTVR in FireFox

Expand Messages
  • LoveFilm
    I have run into this problem before .. but didn t think to check the DOC TYPE. Anyway.. thanks for the code to fix it! Haven t tried it yet but I suspected
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I have run into this problem before .. but didn't think to check the
      DOC TYPE.

      Anyway.. thanks for the code to fix it! Haven't tried it yet but I
      suspected a fix would involve some CSS declarations.


      > The problem is that as soon as you use a Strict doctype then using %
      > for pano height is a problem. If you specify a height = 90%, then the
      > question is 90% of what. I think the 'standards' don't really define
      > the height for the body/html. So this is what you do:
      >
      > <style type="text/css" media="screen"><!--
      > html { width: 100%; height: 100% }
      > body { color: black; background-color: #e7e7ff; margin: 0px; padding:
      > 0px; width: 100%; height: 100%; overflow: hidden }
      > .qt { text-align: center; width: 100%; height: 100% }
      > --></style>
      >
      > </head>
      >
      > <body>
      >
      > <div class="qt">
      >
      > <script type="text/javascript"><!--
      >
      > Your Anti-Eolas script here
      >
      >
      > //--></script>
      >
      > </div>
      > </body>
      >
      >
      > Eric
      >
    • gerdsy
      ... None. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html Everyone still serves their web pages with a mimetype of text/html, which means your XHTML
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "fierodeval" <fierodeval@...> wrote:
        >
        > Excuse my ignorance, but, what is the function of this lines?
        >
        > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
        > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
        > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        >
        > Some people use it but I don't understand what functionality is added.
        >

        None.

        http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html

        Everyone still serves their web pages with a mimetype of text/html,
        which means your 'XHTML' page is interpreted as HTML, not XHTML.

        The real mimetype for XHTML is application/xhtml+xml
        (I think), but here is the problem. Internet Explorer 6 cannot handle
        it. Neither will Internet Explorer 7
        (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx). Firefox can
        handle it by the way.

        It just makes people feel good to have XHTML doctypes
        (my opinion only) so they can follow the 'standards'.


        Eric
      • andrew334513
        OK I ll give this a go and see how it works out. I take your point about using deprecated tags in the script, but so far this is the only way I ve found of
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          OK I'll give this a go and see how it works out. I take your point
          about using deprecated tags in the script, but so far this is the only
          way I've found of embedding a QTVR in a page that works x-browser, and
          without IE prompting to activate the control.

          Is there a way to do this while following standards?

          While the standards may be 'unlcear' and cause plenty of confusion,
          there will never be an Internet based on IE. As a result, surely the
          standards are the best we have to deliver effective websites from a
          user perspective, and we should aim to follow them as closely as
          possible. :)

          Andrew

          >
          > Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards.
          > Just use Internet Explorer.
          >
          > BTW, I noticed you have an embed tag in your javascript, but embed is
          > a deprecated tag and not part of any w3c standards.
          > Oh yes. That's right. We put all out deprecated tags into a script to
          > fool the validator, and then we can tell everyone that we are
          > standards compliant. But the browser still sees those deprecated tags
          > (just not the w3c validator).
          >
          > Somebody answer me this, seriously:
          > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2006May/0000.html
          >
          > Not picking on you, btw. It's just I'm not really sure there are any
          > standards at the moment.
          >
          > The problem is that as soon as you use a Strict doctype then using %
          > for pano height is a problem. If you specify a height = 90%, then the
          > question is 90% of what. I think the 'standards' don't really define
          > the height for the body/html. So this is what you do:
          >
          > <style type="text/css" media="screen"><!--
          > html { width: 100%; height: 100% }
          > body { color: black; background-color: #e7e7ff; margin: 0px; padding:
          > 0px; width: 100%; height: 100%; overflow: hidden }
          > .qt { text-align: center; width: 100%; height: 100% }
          > --></style>
          >
          > </head>
          >
          > <body>
          >
          > <div class="qt">
          >
          > <script type="text/javascript"><!--
          >
          > Your Anti-Eolas script here
          >
          >
          > //--></script>
          >
          > </div>
          > </body>
          >
          >
          > Eric
          >
        • gerdsy
          ... It depends on what the standards are, regarding HTML inside javascript. I don t think there are any. Nobody really seems to care about the issue. I mean, I
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "andrew334513" <andrew@...> wrote:
            >
            > OK I'll give this a go and see how it works out. I take your point
            > about using deprecated tags in the script, but so far this is the only
            > way I've found of embedding a QTVR in a page that works x-browser, and
            > without IE prompting to activate the control.
            >
            > Is there a way to do this while following standards?
            >

            It depends on what the standards are, regarding HTML inside
            javascript. I don't think there are any. Nobody really seems to care
            about the issue. I mean, I can take a page full of HTML that violates
            all of the W3C standards, put the entire body in javascript, and then
            the validator will like it. Makes no sense to be.

            It is possible to use only <object> tags inside the javascript for the
            QTVR. But there are some limitations with that...

            Some older browsers cannot handle it. Opera 7 can't handle QTVR with
            <object> tag, but Opera 8/9 works ok. Safari 2 can handle it, but some
            older Safari browsers cannot accept any <param> tags inside the
            <object> tag.
            As time goes by, these older browsers will be used by far fewer people
            and not be relevant.

            I don't know how many Mac Users have Safari < version 2.

            So, it depends on whether you want to accept this limitation for users
            of some older browsers.

            I suppose you can just declare your strict doctype while using <embed>
            in your javascript for now. And then after a while just switch your
            javascript with one that only uses <object>.

            It depends on your preference, seeing as there is no standard
            regarding this issue.


            Eric
          • Andrew Nemeth
            ... Oh come on, there is much more to it than just that! Back in the bad old days you had to write your code to be v3 or v4 browser specific, and then use
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On 02 Aug 2006, at 18:37, "gerdsy" wrote:

              > It just makes people feel good to have XHTML doctypes
              > (my opinion only) so they can follow the 'standards'.
              >

              Oh come on, there is much more to it than just that!

              Back in the bad old days you had to write your code to be v3 or v4
              browser specific, and then use Javascript to browser-sniff to figure
              out what the user was using.

              A right royal PITA, and guaranteed to break sites when v5 and v6
              browsers came along. Separating the page content from page layout also
              makes it much easier to maintain & upgrade pages, and also completely
              change the layout design if you wish.

              For more specific and detailed benefits, see

              <http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/>

              So there's much more to this than "my web design teacher told me to do
              so" :?)



              Regds,

              Andrew N.
              <http://nemeng.com>
              Blue Mountains Australia
            • Eric O'Brien
              I think another Eric ( gerdsy ) is correct. For standards-compliant browsers, when an element has a height of some percent, it is taken to be a percent of its
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I think another Eric ("gerdsy") is correct. For standards-compliant
                browsers, when an element has a height of some percent, it is taken
                to be a percent of its PARENT element. It would seem that the
                default height of "body" or "html" would of course be 100% but
                apparently it is instead undefined.

                Why the developers of Firefox decided to render "100% of undefined"
                as what looks like 20%... (!?) who can say.

                But the fix is indeed to style body (or whatever the containing
                element is in your case) to have "height: 100%"

                FYI: When a DOCTYPE is omitted, browsers will each render in their
                own version of "quirks" mode. Which, I believe, is essentially
                simulating the bugs that existed in browsers that are now two or
                three versions old (Netscape 4 and IE 5).

                To me, the important thing is not so much trying to get a page that
                validates, but AVOIDING creating pages that rely on quirks mode.
                Why? Because each Browser developer implements quirks mode as they
                see fit. At least in standards mode there are some.... ahh...
                standards to point to when things behave oddly or incorrectly.

                eo



                On Aug 1, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Andrew Armitage wrote:

                > Hi all,
                >
                >
                >
                > I don't know if anyone has had this problem with FireFox but I am
                >
                > wanting to publish a full screen QTVR. I have achieved the end result
                >
                > which is fine and works as it should, but as a web designer I would
                >
                > like the code to be standards compliant!
                >
                >
                >
                > The code as it is works in FireFox and IE6/7 but as soon as I add in
                >
                > the XHTML DTD at the top of the page, the QTVR only covers the top
                >
                > third of the screen rather than the full page. I have used Pano2QTVR
                >
                > to generate the code in the page and then changed some of the code
                >
                > myself, but it seems to only work with HTML 4.
                >
                >
                >
                > Interestingly enough, looking at other full screen QTVRs, they don't
                >
                > seem to specify a DTD other than HTML 4 (if at all).
                >
                >
                >
                > The full screen version is at
                >
                > http://www.virtual-panorama.net/portfolio/troon.html and the problem
                >
                > page is at http://www.virtual-panorama.net/portfolio/troonCopy.html
                >
                >
                >
                > Any thoughts would be welcome!!
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks in advance...
                >
                >
                >
                > Andrew
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.