stan wrote:
>When I go to this site:
>http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...360_1106838463
>
>The window looks like this:
>http://www.fototime.com/96EAA4802CC856E/standard.jpg
>Notice how the realtor info covers up details about the house.
>[...]Is it the site?[...]
>

Everyone who wants to ask/bitch about how Web-related things work
needs to bookmark this page:
http://validator.w3.org/

When you have a problem with how a page renders,
FIRST look to see if it is a pile of crap.
If the guy who created it didn't follow the rules,
then every browser that tries to render his page
HAS TO MAKE GUESSES about what his crap code is trying to do.

If you've ever tried to read a page of misspelled, poorly-punctuated,
using-the-wrong-words gibberish written by some pseudo-literate,
you have an idea of what is going on here.

*This* is the kind of thing the Validator should return:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...wehaveawinner/

As BeeNeR said, the crap page in question contains 138 errors.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...360_1106838463
That's 138 places the browser has to GUESS.
It's a wonder it renders as well as it does.

>It works OK in IE[...]
>

....because the moron who slopped it together "checked" it in IE
--the LEAST standards-compliant browser.
Unfortunately, the majority of people putting up Web pages
are exactly this clueless about what they are doing.

If he had a clue, he would have:
1) Used a (non-M$) tool that produced better code from the start.
2) Validated his code against the W3C's tool.
(The WorldWide Web Consortium
is the arbitor of what *is* proper HTML and what **is not**.)
3) AFTER he had a standards-compliant page,
if he wanted it to look right in IE,
he would have **added** the needed tweaks
for those using the LEAST-compliant browser.