A review if possible, sirs and madams

I'm guessing this is your site we're talking about at
http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php, because I don't see your
original post.

Nah mate, it's not - I came in as soon as Will mentioned that coding in
XHTML was a bad idea. I have started making sites in XHTML 1.1 Strict [just
to stay ahead of the ball... so to speak].

Thanks anyway,

Nicko.

My site's in XHTML. Is there a problem with it? I haven't noticed any.

The point that Will was making [as I understand it] is that there's no point
writing in XHTML if it's not being served as it's proper file type (which I
think is something like application/html+xml or something similar) instead
of text/html. And, even when served properly, some browsers get it wrong
anyway (ie. IE... ha... that's funny).

Nicko.

Thanks for the critique, it's most helpful.

XHTML because... that's what everything else I read told me to use. Why is
HTML 4.01 recommended over XHTML? I'll make the switch if necessary, but I
want to be sure before I go changing things.

Table... it's actually more necessary than you think. Not only was it a
royal pain to get everything to align properly using CSS only (If it worked
in IE, it wouldn't work in Opera, and if it worked in Opera, it wouldn't
work in IE), the only way to do it was to use fixed pixel-widths, which is a
naughty thing that I wasn't prepared to do. The second reason is
compatibility, it'll still look pretty bad in an ancient browser, but at
least it'll work with the tables.

CSS suggestion... noted and implemented. Thanks :-)

- CdG




"William Tasso" <news27 (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote

Cianan Delahunty wrote:
http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php

Keep in mind that I'm not a web-designer, ...

Okay, that's enough blathering from me, over to you. Remember, this
is my first time, so please be gentle :-)

XHTML - what's it for? HTML 4.01 strict is usually recommended for new
web
documents.

Table - is completely unnecessary for this design

You already know about the fixed size text, but the other issue is you've
made it too small. Try this: body{font-size:100%;}

Looking good.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

e n | c k m a wrote:

I'm guessing this is your site we're talking about at
http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php, because I don't see your
original post.

Nah mate, it's not - I came in as soon as Will mentioned that coding
in XHTML was a bad idea.

Only in terms of www - for reasons documented by others in this thread.

I have started making sites in XHTML 1.1
Strict [just to stay ahead of the ball... so to speak].

heh - my site uses an XHTML DTD for exactly the same reason - well similar.
The next iteration will be HTML 4.01 strict - I have no need of the XHTML
diversion - currently.

yep - it's a learning process ;o)

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

Cianan Delahunty wrote:

[sequence rearranged to aid readability - I hope]

"William Tasso" <news27 (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bnof09$13f8bi$1 (AT) ID-139074 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de...
Cianan Delahunty wrote:
http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php


XHTML - what's it for? HTML 4.01 strict is usually recommended for
new web documents.

XHTML because... that's what everything else I read told me to use.
Why is HTML 4.01 recommended over XHTML? I'll make the switch if
necessary, but I want to be sure before I go changing things.

Please let me refer you to other usenet posters with a better grasp of the

issues:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=xhtml+appendix+c

Table - is completely unnecessary for this design

Table... it's actually more necessary than you think. Not only was
it a royal pain to get everything to align properly using CSS only
(If it worked in IE, it wouldn't work in Opera, and if it worked in
Opera, it wouldn't work in IE), the only way to do it was to use
fixed pixel-widths, which is a naughty thing that I wasn't prepared
to do. The second reason is compatibility, it'll still look pretty
bad in an ancient browser, but at least it'll work with the tables.

Is your layout so different from mine (see sig) ?

You already know about the fixed size text, but the other issue is
you've made it too small. Try this: body{font-size:100%;}


CSS suggestion... noted and implemented. Thanks :-)

ok now you just need to lose { ...font-size: 80%; ...} at least for the

main content if not everywhere, and convert all instances of px/pt to a
meaningful unit (%, em, ex)

font-size 60% is just about un-readable in most normal viewing situations.

One more thing: take a good look at the discussions in the archive on the
subject of using font-family: Verdana

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ve...oup%3Aalt.html


--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

Bonnie Granat wrote:

http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php

BAD NEWS:
I think the basic idea is good, but the page has an *unbalanced* feel to it.

It's ironic how you can see this in other sites, but not your own.

I recommend moving everything to the left.

You mean like this?
<URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/granat.png>

SCNR

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

e n | c k m a wrote:

The point that Will was making [as I understand it] is that there's no point
writing in XHTML if it's not being served as it's proper file type (which I
think is something like application/html+xml or something similar)

application/xhtml+xml

instead
of text/html. And, even when served properly, some browsers get it wrong
anyway (ie. IE... ha... that's funny).

Well... depends on your definition of wrong. When a browser gets a MIME
type it doesn't recognise and can't display correctly, it is arguably
correct to prompt the user to save it or open it in a different
application. This is precisely what happens with IE and
application/xhtml+xml.

Arguably, IE should do this with text/html too. ;-)

However, such problems disappear when you stop:

(a) ignoring the Accept HTTP header; and/or
(b) caring about Internet Explorer.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

"kchayka" <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote

Bonnie Granat wrote:

http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php

BAD NEWS:
I think the basic idea is good, but the page has an *unbalanced* feel to
it.

It's ironic how you can see this in other sites, but not your own.

I recommend moving everything to the left.

You mean like this?
URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/granat.png

This is what it looks like in small type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepage.gif
This is what it looks like in medium type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepagemed.gif

I cannot accommodate large type in a small window.

--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.editors-writers.info

Sometime around Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:29:28 -0500, Bonnie Granat is reported
to have stated:

This is what it looks like in small type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepage.gif
This is what it looks like in medium type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepagemed.gif

I cannot accommodate large type in a small window.

At the risk of restarting your 15-updates-a-day thing again...

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/bonnie.png [29k]

Fullscreen at 1024x768, text size 100%.

:-D

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Bonnie Granat pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

"kchayka" <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3fa14734$0$40218$39cecf19 (AT) news (DOT) twtelecom.net...
Bonnie Granat wrote:

http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php

BAD NEWS:
I think the basic idea is good, but the page has an *unbalanced* feel to
it.

It's ironic how you can see this in other sites, but not your own.

I recommend moving everything to the left.

You mean like this?
URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/granat.png


This is what it looks like in small type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepage.gif
This is what it looks like in medium type
http://www.editors-writers.info/homepagemed.gif

I cannot accommodate large type in a small window.

This is what it looks like in another browser. That's Firebird on the
right, and IE6 on the left. Firebird looks the same with a large window. I
tried to point this out to you a couple weeks ago, where the image is on
top of the text, all the time.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna...ges/bonnie.jpg 72KB

Firebird 800x600
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna...es/bonnie2.jpg 55KB

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.