Re: Lack of background image in Netscape

[ July Full List | Reply ]

Re: Lack of background image in Netscape

From Inachu at HELP DESK on 24 July '99
replying to Lack of background image in Netscape posted by Ronn

>Doea anyone have an idea why a jpeg used as a table background image
>will show up in IE 5 but not Netscape 4.5?

If the code does not look like this:
<BODY BACKGROUND="background.jpg">

Then IE must be using a new type of back ground:

Cascading style sheet-"CCSS" used in DHTML for mouseover events.

The website could be using JAVA SCRIPTING to place the back ground
image. As you know IE JAVA and Netscape Java are not compatible.

The same thing goes for style sheets. So when you build a website
Build it first with NETSCAPE 3 or 4 in mind first.
Windows version of Java uses window hooks that use something
other than java and this is the reason for it not working most of the time.

Then after you finnish building the site with Netscape then it
should work in IE as well.(Not always but has better chance than the other
way around.)

*Reply to this message*
Required Details
Your name:
Subject:

Optional Details
Home page title:
Home page URL:
Email: (if you'd like to receive automatic replies by email)
Your Message
>>Doea anyone have an idea why a jpeg used as a table background image >>will show up in IE 5 but not Netscape 4.5? > > > >If the code does not look like this: ><BODY BACKGROUND="background.jpg"> > >Then IE must be using a new type of back ground: > >Cascading style sheet-"CCSS" used in DHTML for mouseover events. > >The website could be using JAVA SCRIPTING to place the back ground >image. As you know IE JAVA and Netscape Java are not compatible. > >The same thing goes for style sheets. So when you build a website >Build it first with NETSCAPE 3 or 4 in mind first. >Windows version of Java uses window hooks that use something >other than java and this is the reason for it not working most of the time. > > >Then after you finnish building the site with Netscape then it >should work in IE as well.(Not always but has better chance than the other >way around.)