In article <1f59773a50....@nails.ukonline.co.uk>, Jim Nagel <nets...@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
