On 03-04-2008 16:47 CET, oxy composed this enchanting statement:
> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox, it was
> always like IE 6 but not now.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311
> Firefox/2.0.0.13
>
> useing windows xp home,
>
> can anyone help
>
>
I do not use IE. What's different?

--
Kind regards,
Melchert

(MacOS 10.3.9 / Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0)

"oxy" wrote ...
> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox, it was
> always like IE 6 but not now.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311
> Firefox/2.0.0.13
>
> using windows xp home,

Not without you telling us what is different.
Looks the same (well Firefox with Adblock has remnant
of an ad that IE7 with IE7pro does not). Big ad ("Find it Faster") has a different
picture and content but that was only because a different tab in the ad was selected.

Firefox: 2.0.0.13 and beta test (Nightly) version Minefield/3.0pre

--
HTH,
David McRitchie, extensions I use are briefly documented on my site
Firefox Custom: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox.htm

On 03/04/2008 15:47, oxy wrote:
> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox, it was
> always like IE 6 but not now.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311
> Firefox/2.0.0.13
>
> useing windows xp home,
>
> can anyone help
> regards oxy
>
I'm surprised it loads at all, with 156 errors!



--
wtwjgc (Joe)
http://www.localcooling.com/ref/?type=link&id=26575

oxy wrote:
> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox, it was
> always like IE 6 but not now.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311
> Firefox/2.0.0.13
>
> useing windows xp home,
>
> can anyone help
> regards oxy
>
>

I don't have IE to compare, but it looks fine in both SeaMonkey and
Firefox. There is the obvious suggestion of clearing the cache, but if
that doesn't solve it, we need some idea of what is going wrong.

Lee

wtwjgc wrote:
> On 03/04/2008 15:47, oxy wrote:
>> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox,
>> it was
>> always like IE 6 but not now.
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13)
>> Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13
>>
>> useing windows xp home,
>>
>> can anyone help
>> regards oxy
> I'm surprised it loads at all, with 156 errors!
>
>
>
>

validation is BS, no matter which doctype I specify it says not valid,
surely one of them is compliant and they load fine

Thank you, as you may have gussed I dont have a clue, once I cleared the
cache everything back to normal.

sorry for being a pain but we all have to learn,

best wishes, oxy
"Leonidas Jones" wrote in message
news:KMmdnUYQ7_wQnWjanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@mozilla.org. ..
> oxy wrote:
>> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox, it
>> was
>> always like IE 6 but not now.
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13)
>> Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13
>>
>> useing windows xp home,
>>
>> can anyone help
>> regards oxy
>
> I don't have IE to compare, but it looks fine in both SeaMonkey and
> Firefox. There is the obvious suggestion of clearing the cache, but if
> that doesn't solve it, we need some idea of what is going wrong.
>
> Lee

oxy wrote:
> Thank you, as you may have gussed I dont have a clue, once I cleared the
> cache everything back to normal.
>
> sorry for being a pain but we all have to learn,
>
> best wishes, oxy
> "Leonidas Jones" wrote in message
> news:KMmdnUYQ7_wQnWjanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@mozilla.org. ..
>> oxy wrote:
/snip/

I'm very glad its working for you now.

Lee

SG wrote:
> wtwjgc wrote:
>> On 03/04/2008 15:47, oxy wrote:
>>> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox,
>>> it was
>>> always like IE 6 but not now.
>>>
>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13)
>>> Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13
>>>
>>> useing windows xp home,
>>>
>>> can anyone help
>>> regards oxy
>> I'm surprised it loads at all, with 156 errors!
>>
>
> validation is BS, no matter which doctype I specify it says not valid,
> surely one of them is compliant and they load fine

Evidence that "surely one of them is compliant", please.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

SG wrote:
> wtwjgc wrote:
>> On 03/04/2008 15:47, oxy wrote:
>>> my home page http://www.virginmedia.com/ looks different on Firefox,
>>> it was
>>> always like IE 6 but not now.
>>>
>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13)
>>> Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13
>>>
>>> useing windows xp home,
>>>
>>> can anyone help
>>> regards oxy
>> I'm surprised it loads at all, with 156 errors!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> validation is BS, no matter which doctype I specify it says not valid,
> surely one of them is compliant and they load fine

Loading fine or not, looking at the source code shows a lot of errors,
e.g. several spurious occurrences of , a lot of unescaped &
signs (which ought to be written & in the source code if you want
them to appear as & when rendered), unpaired tags, and more.

Install the HTML Validator extension from
http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ then use View Source with that
extension in place and you'll see the errors yourself. Correct them,
then you'll have something which looks more like XHTML, and it should
look more the same in any "decent" "modern" browser.

Best regards,
Tony.
--
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!

"Tony Mechelynck"
> Install the HTML Validator extension from
> http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ then use View Source with that
> extension in place and you'll see the errors yourself. Correct them,
> then you'll have something which looks more like XHTML, and it should
> look more the same in any "decent" "modern" browser.

It's the page he uses as his home page. Not a page he wrote.

David McRitchie wrote:
> "Tony Mechelynck"
>> Install the HTML Validator extension from
>> http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ then use View Source with that
>> extension in place and you'll see the errors yourself. Correct them,
>> then you'll have something which looks more like XHTML, and it should
>> look more the same in any "decent" "modern" browser.
>
> It's the page he uses as his home page. Not a page he wrote.
>

Ah, sorry. He was saying he could change the doctype so I thought he had
write access. Well, anyway, if he can get into touch with the webmaster
for the site, he should tell him that, if he used some automated tool to
create it, he should change tools, and if he used some flesh-and-bones
web-writer, he should put someone else into his stead, in both cases
because the page source is horribly bad from the point of view of XHTML
syntax.

Best regards,
Tony.
--
A novel approach is to remove all power from the system, which
removes most system overhead so that resources can be fully devoted to
doing nothing. Benchmarks on this technique are promising; tremendous
amounts of nothing can be produced in this manner. Certain hardware
limitations can limit the speed of this method, especially in the
larger systems which require a more involved & less efficient
power-down sequence.
An alternate approach is to pull the main breaker for the
building, which seems to provide even more nothing, but in truth has
bugs in it, since it usually inhibits the systems which keep the beer
cool.

David McRitchie wrote:
> "Tony Mechelynck"
>> Install the HTML Validator extension from
>> http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ then use View Source with that
>> extension in place and you'll see the errors yourself. Correct them,
>> then you'll have something which looks more like XHTML, and it should
>> look more the same in any "decent" "modern" browser.
>
> It's the page he uses as his home page. Not a page he wrote.
>

But, if so, he could change the doctype forever, and the errors will
still be errors. If a page is invalid, its likely to be invalid for any
doctyoe he inserts.

Lee