vragabond,
Sorry. After reconsidering my last response to you, I humbly offer the following correction. It should have been "hubristically presumptive".
"As far as being assumptive, I based that statement on the fact that Mike tested his simple code in IE and FF with same results, thus eliminating the option of a browser problem."
However, you said it must be a CSS code problem. That was presumptive.
"Since a simple example worked, your code must have had elements that have thrown FF off. That is why I suggested using Web Developer toolbar or DOM inspector to look for the error (a suggestion you gingerly ignored)."
Again, presumptive.
(... responses to 3 paragraphs of lecturing pontifications mercifully omitted ...)
"However, since (IE) version 6 this has been rectified and margins should not be a problem anymore... If you still can produce a simple example that renders differently in FF and IE6 with a proper doctype, I will be happy to inspect it and give you my opinions."
Sounds reasonable. Here's the test program:
Incorporating Baby Jeffy's suggestion, I concentrated on DOCTYPE.
What I wanted to do was simple: Insert a blank line between the table title & the table. However, IE 6 & FF 1.0.4 rendered differently.
The test program has 4 permutations: With the loosest & strictest DOCTYPE, and with and without a </p> after <p class=TableTitle>. The 2 DOCTYPES used were:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
"
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
"
The CSS code remained unchanged for all 4 permutations. Here are the results. 'Y' indicates a blank line was inserted:
IE FF
Loose, no </p>
Loose, </p> Y Y
Strict, no </p>
Strict, </p> Y Y
Duh. Now, I know. Yes, there are very good reasons to upgrade to strict XHTML.
Without the ending </p>, I was able to sometimes insert a blank line in IE, & other times in FF. If <p class="TableTitle...> was moved into the preceding "Text" class, all was copacetic, too, for reasona that are obvious now.
In any case, made the decision to upgrade my site to strict XHTML less than a week ago. With this ultimately trivial problem resolved, the most CSS-intensive document with a strict XHTML DOCTYPE works, & works identically in FF & IE.
The Web Developer toolbar is a good suggestion.
The XHTML community must be well-organized since good sites appear among the 1st few Google hits, with these sites cross-referencing one another nicely. As a result, good advice & tools seem to be easy to find.
I did a survey; its results might be of interest.
I surveyed 10 of Alexa's top 100 sites, all of general interest & none pure-Web related (ie, ad servers). The sites in ranked order were Yahoo, Google, ebay, Microsoft, Amazon, the BBC, CNN, Mapquest, Wikipedia, & the New York Times.
The Home Pages of these sites use nearly 100% pure scalable fonts: Yahoo, Microsoft, the BBC (perhaps the simplest, defining font sizes with numbers; eg, 1, 4, 6), Mapquest, & Wikipedia. CNN uses the reverse; ie, all font sizes are defined in pixels.
Of relevance here is their DOCTYPE's:
None: Google, eBay, & Amazon.
HTML 4.01 Transitional: Yahoo, Microsoft, the BBC, CNN, the NYTimes.
XHTML 1.0 Transitional: Mapquest, Wikipedia
As you might expect, the worst troglodyte site is the New York Times. Here are some sample font sizes: 3, 1, +1, -1, 11px, 10px, 12px, 82%, 125%, 78%. There's probably an em or ex somewhere in their labyrinthe, too.
In any case. if the results of this rigorous yet limited survey can be extrapolated, XHTML upgrading seems to be a seller's market.
Thank you for your very valuable time.
livefree