Re: The Battle of the Browsers

In article 
<041220062129563845%dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article
> <paul.sture.nospam-8F1E0F.03351205122006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Paul
> Sture <paul.sture.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > I tried again and it came out as intended. Spotted a thumbnail which 
> > didn't load (image 151_s****ts), so did a reload, and then it came out 
> > similar to your screenshot.
> 
> I tried again... 033 failed with the cascade, then 109 after reload,
> then 033 again.
> 
> Cleared the Safari cache... 033 crapped it out again.
> 
> Closed the window, then opened the URL from History, and it displays as
> intended, no overlap.
> 
> I don't see anything different in the code at image 033 or image 109,
> so I'm guessing it's a Safari bug or something with a plugin I have
> loaded.

I suspect your Safari is fine. This html/css is not cross browser 
well sup****ted and stable. And the trouble comes from the 
original ideas (not necessarily from anything Eric has done... 
though if he were to group his different sized pics and keep them 
grouped, introduce some extra cl***** with slightly different 
dimensioning to apply to the different groups in the css, the 
situation could be improved. 

".photogallery {display:inline-block;}" will not endear itself to 
many browsers.

In my opinion, the idea of floating divs as in 

http://tinyurl.com/yfyc7k

is more stable. 

In the original post for this thread, all the thumbs were the 
same size and so Eric's and (Lauri's ... the original template) 
idea might work better.

-- 
dorayme