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

Re: Full Screen QTVR in FireFox

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.