In article <1f59773a50.jim(a)nails.ukonline.co.uk>, Jim Nagel
<netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
Jim wrote on March 2:
> a couple of sites just to underline this longstanding feature
> request:
http://libraryofavalon.org.uk
>
http://www.smoothartist.com this one is close to home! ;=}
today i met the designer of the first site and the colour issue came
up. he points out that it is designed to be simple black text on a
white background. i tried Firefox, and verily i see simple black on
white. i checked with Fresco, and it too shows black on white.
Look at the source of
http://libraryofavalon.org.uk
It refers to a CSS loa.css, the source of which says:
body { background-color: 000000; .....}
i.e. black. There are no other colo(u)r definitions I can see, so
everything else is default. So you have black text on black in NetSurf.
Other browsers don't get this 'right' because it should say:
body { background-color: #000000; .....}
^
NetSurf isn't bothered by a little missing hash. All other browsers are
hippies, obviously.
so why is Netsurf (r6761 and 6288 before) showing unreadable blue on
black?
It's right. Sort of. But FF, MIE, Opera, Safari, and Chrome also don't
agree and want their hash.
the second site is by Michael Drake. Netsurf shows his links as
unreadable blue on black, whereas Firefox shows them underlined white
on black.
Michael has defined colours in the body tag
<BODY TEXT="#ffffff" LINK="#ffffff" VLINK="#aaaaaa"
BGCOLOR="#000000">
Unfortunately (and perhaps very surprisingly) NetSurf ignores LINK and
VLINK in BODY so unless link colours are set with a CSS default colours
only apply. When the background and default link colour are the same or
too similar, netsurf is useless. Wonderful otherwise, of course. :-)
HTH
T
--
Tim Hill,
www.timil.com