Scrolling blocks, Camino, Safari and Internet Explorer

Nuke Cadet Joined: Feb 03, 2003 Posts: 3 Location: USA

I have noticed that scrolling blocks work very well with Camino/Netscape browsers. The browser seems to reset the size of the scroll area so that you never see a blank space while you are wait for the scrolling text to reach the viewing area. It also limits the size of the area.

Is there a way to make this happen with Explorer?

Then there is Safari, which doesn't show any scrolling text. Are there any solutions to this?

Would love to hear if anyone has had the same problem.

Lyka120

Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: -88

scrolling blocks work fine with IE for me.

As for the other one, I've never heard of it.

AI

Nuke Cadet Joined: Feb 03, 2003 Posts: 3 Location: USA

I glad to hear that it works fine, but in explorer do you have a blank text area when you first load a page. I've noticed that, in explorer, the Scroll area is much bigger, pushing the rest of the column further down the page.

Is this the same for you?

Nuke Cadet Joined: May 21, 2003 Posts: 3

Since you mentioned Safari I assume you're using a Mac.

(Side note: Safari is Apple's browser that uses the KHTML engine that the Konqueror browser for Linux/X-windows uses

http://www.apple.com/safari/).

Safari doesn't support the <MARQUEE> tag which is why nothing shows up in the block. As to a fix, you can get the same kind of scrolling from Javascript without using a non-W3C compliant tag. I'm working on a version of the block that scrolls without the MARQUEE tag using Javascript.

FWIW, the block does work with Camino 0.7 for the Mac, along with the latest & greatest versions of Phoenix, Netscape, and Mozilla for the PC. I banished IE from my Mac's hard drive a long time ago so I can't comment on it. Wink

Nuke Cadet Joined: Feb 03, 2003 Posts: 3 Location: USA

Thanks for the information! I've only been using IE to test compatibility, since most of the visitors to my site use it. I personally like Camino the best but Safari is coming up a close second.

Thanks again for clearing that up.