carbonize

If your site is flash based it's irrelevant how many CSS files you make as all the content is (usualy) stored in the swf file. Also CSS will not affect accessibility except in making text larger. Accessibility is mainly down to your code and how the page is laid out in the HTML file it's self.

I love how old established programs are reinventing themselves using the new Mozilla products. Netscape releases a new version based on the Firefox code, Eudora releases a new version based upon (and partly written by) Thunderbird.

They actually mention it on the main page of the Eudora site www.eudora.com

Yup. You have to do your best to make sure your site is accessible but you have to draw the line somwhere. It's the same with old browser support. I have stopped worrying about how my site looks in NS4 because you have to draw the line somewhere. But what makes me laugh is the amount of sites that are pure flash based with no HTML version. This would result in little or no search engine placement and terribly support (in my opinon) for people using text based browsers.

Don't get me wrong I'm a Firefox user but not a Firefox fanboy I just hate half truths and misquoting. I know FF is not perfect. I'm also aware that there are things that Opera doesn't handle properly and I'm sure you could write a different acid test that Opera would fail on if you really wanted to. I used to be an Opera user back around version 6 and I do like it but I don't find it intuitive and it's options can be obscure. I prefer Firefox because it's cookie handling options are simple. I also think Opera 9 is a bit to flashy for it's own good. But still Operas options are better than IE's. I was reading a comparison of browsers somewhere and the guys only complaint about Opera was how it handles pop up windows by putting them inside the main container. Now thats a fanboy. My argument about people not exploiting Opera due to it's poor userbase is true. I'm sure there have been exploits found in Opera in the past so nobody would be he first now. To find exploits in something like Opera or IE requires research and disassembly but to find an exploit in Firefox just needs you to read the code (and spend a few hours working out what does what). Nobody is going to waste the time trying to find an exploit in Opera given the effort it would take. I would guess that most people who find exploits in Firefox are Firefox users just trying to make it safer (and get a name) because there would be little point in implementing a FF exploit on your site given the low number of people you would catch.

Yes but gimp is slower and more complicated where as Paint.NET is fast. The main differences I have noticed so far is that Paint.NET clearly shows when something is transparent and you can see what changes a plugin will make to the big image before applying it.

No for XHTML it is type="text/javascript". language= is only for html 4.01

I'm not sure but I don't think you can call a function from in a string like that or possibly just not during a document.write.

It's looking in the wrong place for the file. I'm guessing that somehwere it stores the full path to the OSCommerce installation and that must be incorrect.

Paint.NET is a brilliant, free, graphics program. It requires version 2 of the NET framework to be installed. It is very powerful with lots of plugins and they have tutorials in their forums.

Sometimes there is only so far you can go with accessibility. Your client wants a good looking site, you want an accessible one. Sometimes you have to meet in the middle. The main problem for webdesigners these days is the fact that there are so many different screen resolutions now. There is still a good proportion of people on 800x600, most use 1024x768 but there are slightly more people using 2000x1024 than 800x600 (or is it the next resolution down? ). You have widescreen to worry about as well. It's all very well saying use proportional fonts but it is better to offer a choice of stylesheets that way you still have control over how the page looks even with larger fonts. Opera and Firefox both support the selection of stylesheets when alternatives are offered but you are best using some other system javascript, php, perl etc) to save the users choice to a cookie.

Ok after a problem that required me to reinstall Windows I am now using the free Anti Virus Shield from AOL. It is powered by Kaspersky and had no problems so far.

I read the myth page and most of it is rubbish. I cannot access the page as works proxy blocks it but the one myth that sticks in my mind is where they state it's a myth that Firefox is 100% W3C compliant. Bascially they are editing the reports to suit their ends. Nobody ever said Firefox was 100% W3C compliant. They said it is MORE compliant than IE, which isn't saying much. They also say about Firefox not displaying all web pages correctly. Wrong. Firefox displays the pages correctly according to the W3C standards. The pages don't render as they writer wants because they only tested he page in IE and we all know IE allows sloppy HTML/CSS. Opera is the most secure browser. This is for the same reason that there are only a handful of viruses written for Linux. People who write viruses and look for exploits do so to get fame/infamy. They write viruses for Windows because it is the most used OS out there. They find exploits in IE because it is the most used browser. They find exploits in Firefox because it is open source but atleast the people who find viruses in Firefox do so and then (usualy) report the problem to Mozilla. Nobody bothers to find any exploits in Opera due to the fact it has a very very very small userbase.

Have a look at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss but at a guess I'd say it's because you are not sending lastBuildDate.

Yeah OK I see what you mean. Still doesn't explain why it doesn't work when image is truecolor. Now I just seem to have a problem with my noise generation. Only works for the first 10 lines. Oh well another day another bug. Decided to stick with imagecreatetruecolor and just use a white background.

imagecolortransparent only works with imagecreatetruecolor according to php.net Also imagettftext only works with images made using imagecreatetruecolor.

No imagecolortransparent makes all instances of that colour transparent regardless of if they cme before or after the imagecolortransparent code. And your answer does not explain why it works on WAMP but not on LAMP. It should work fine with imagecreattruecolor and I need to use imagecreatetruecolor to use imagettfstring.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/myzero.php appears to be working as it should now.

OK looks like imagecolortransparent works on WAMP setups but not LAMP. For gifs tha is. Works fine for PNGs just a shame IE doesn't support PNG transparency.

average.php I was wondering which function is trying to divide by 0.

Whats the code in average.php on line 46? Wonder if slapping this in average.php might help find the problem <?php echo '<pre>'; print_r($_SERVER); echo '</pre>'; ?>

Or you can just download the templates etc as they are all available for download seperately.

I think I'm getting closer as somebody else on a different forum had the same problem and this is what they said about it But I grabbed the colour from the image and it is indeed what it is being set to so I'm open to ideas, any ideas.

I'm wondering if the issue is not with the actual include request but with the server sending back the information. Something like if you get your image hotlinking .htaccess wrong and forget to put in the www. So if people view your site as http://yoursite.com they see the images but if they view as http://www.yoursiet.com they don't. Just a different take on the situation.

I know it doesn't solve the problem but it looks to me like you are including files that are on the same web space by using http request but why when an internal include is better and faster? I may be wrong and the files you are including could be on a remote server, if so just tell me to shut up.