 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / July 2005Browser renders "HTML code fragment" in the wrong position
HTML code fragments in a Publisher 2003 web page do not show up in the correct places. They are on top of other objects. The fragments are not layered or part of any groups. They show up OK in Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp.050301-1521 (128 bit) but do not show up correctly in version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 (128 bit). Anyone have any ideas? Post a URL for review. State if you are using Pub 2003 or Pub 2003 SP1. State what settings the PNG and the VML options are set to under tools, web options. David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] www.publishermvps.com www.davidbartosik.com > HTML code fragments in a Publisher 2003 web page do not show up in the > correct places. They are on top of other objects. The fragments are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone have any ideas? The URL is www.bsatroop99.info. See the "Calendar" tab. Look for the "Back to top" links displaying in the wrong locations. I guess I don't know if I am using SP1. "Help", "About" reports the following: Microsoft Office Publisher 2003 (11.5525.5606) Part of Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003 Under tools, web page options, the PNG and VML boxes are unchecked. Thanx. Joel K. > Post a URL for review. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Anyone have any ideas? Turns out I did not have SP1 installed. However, after updating to SP1, I opened and resaved the doc, did another "Publish to the Web" and re-uploaded the entire site and there is no difference. The "Back to Top" links are still in the wrong place. Again to view the problem go to www.bsatroop99.info and click on "Calendar". Look for the "Back to top" links displaying inside the July calendar. FYI, after updating to SP1, "Help", "About" returns this: Microsoft Office Publisher 2003 (11.6255.6408) SP1 Part of Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003 > The URL is www.bsatroop99.info. See the "Calendar" tab. Look for the "Back > to top" links displaying in the wrong locations. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > Anyone have any ideas? Joel, Perhaps try moving your 'back to top' fragment boxes to the left column, and be sure that the box is not much larger than the resulting text. Also, have you run design checker? And did you delete the old files before publishing the new files? DavidF > Turns out I did not have SP1 installed. However, after updating to SP1, I > opened and resaved the doc, did another "Publish to the Web" and re-uploaded [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > > > > > Anyone have any ideas? Most likely the wayward fragments are layered with something, though that be not be noticeable to you. As DavidF pointed out, the design checker (tools menu) would be the way to check. David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] http://www.publishermvps.com http://www.davidbartosik.com > Turns out I did not have SP1 installed. However, after updating to SP1, I > opened and resaved the doc, did another "Publish to the Web" and [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> > > >> > > Anyone have any ideas? The fragments are not layered or grouped with anything else. Design checker reports no errors. There are no columns on the Calendar page. No I did not delete all of the files before re-uploading the entire site, but I know that all the files updated because the dates and times changed (I double checked every single one). The code fragment boxes are longer than the code fragment itself. The actual code fragment is listed below with brackets substituted for < and >. [p style="font-family:arial;font-size:60%"][a href="#_top"]Back to top.[/a][/p] I want to point out again that on some versions of IE, the fragments render in the correct locations. On other versions of IE (see the first thread for exact version numbers) they do not. Doesn't that point to more of a browser issue than a Publisher issue? > Most likely the wayward fragments are layered with something, though that be > not be noticeable to you. As DavidF pointed out, the design checker (tools [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >> > > > >> > > Anyone have any ideas? To soon to know if it's a browser issue, a pub issue, a code issue, or a design issue. Browsers have a lot of control to correct mistakes. I did see a red flag in your code snippet. On the font size style, remove that "60%", replace it with "10pt" Then resave and republish. If that doesn't correct it I'll probably just have to review your Publisher file. David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] www.publishermvps.com www.davidbartosik.com > The fragments are not layered or grouped with anything else. Design > checker [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >> >> > > >> >> > > Anyone have any ideas? I don't know why that is a "red flag" but ok. I even went so far as to remove any reference to font changes so now it is just [a href="#_top"]Back to top.[/a] - (<> replaced with []) but it still made no difference. In the two different browser versions I compared the source HTML (visual scan) and although I did not look at every single HTML statement I did compare the HTML near the "Back to Top" text and they were identical. Seems to me if the HTML source is the same then Publisher is generating the same HTML and that the issue is with the browser. Joel > To soon to know if it's a browser issue, a pub issue, a code issue, or a > design issue. Browsers have a lot of control to correct mistakes. I did see [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Anyone have any ideas? I have given up on using Publisher for web pages. If I can't get consistent rendering even with very minor version differences in Internet Explorer, then how can I expect to get consistency with different browsers? I spent most of today recreating and redeploying my entire site using something other than Publisher. > I don't know why that is a "red flag" but ok. > [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Anyone have any ideas? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.