There is an incompatibility between the new HTML5 parser in Firefox 4 and the code in your page.

To see the difference, you can toggle the HTML5 parser off or back on again like this:

(1) Type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Alt+Enter to open the preferences editor in a new tab. Click the button promising to be careful.

(2) In the filter box, type or paste html5 and pause while the list is filtered

(3) Double-click html5.parser.enable to toggle it to false or back to true.

Then reload your page.

Off the top of my head, I don't know the solution to making your page compatible.

This forum focuses on end-user support. You can find more web development help on the mozillaZine Web Development board. Separate forum, separate registration. Please note the tips in the Sticky Post at the top of the forum before posting.

Or you may have other resources that you like.

That page could use some code cleanup. There is an almost endless sequences with a lot of unnecessary code repeating. It looks that the HTML parser can't cope with that code and gives up at some point. I do not see the images in the View Selection Source and in Tools > Page Info > Media. Live HTTP Headers shows that they are retrieved from the server.

Thanks I see what you mean - I have an ancient copy of Dreamweaver (3) and I am not at all familiar with HTML - did this site for my sisters band in a massive hurry - Not sure how to clean up HTML with out we building all the templates from scratch - I have developed some health issues which stop me from being on the PC for too long - Thanks though

Although My HTML skills are poor - I went through all the websites pages (actually the fault were with the templates) and deleted, carefully a pile of replicated and pointless code - thiss seems to have solved the problem - strange that it never seemed to have caused a problem before with other browser or indeed Firefoz 3.6 and before

One major benifit in doing this exercise is that the websites new HTML slim pages load super fast .

Thanks for all your help :)

You're welcome.

Yes, that is quite an improvement of the previous code.