Hi there,

I'm trying to create myself a photography website using a CSS based layout.
I'd normally create a website using tables, so this is a first for me.

The link to my website is here: http://tinyurl.com/4focd

The content on this site is so far very low (so not all the links work yet),
but before I spend too much time in the design and coding of this (by
coding, all I know is HTML and
CSS, so nothing fancy going on here I'm afraid), I'd appreciate it if you
could have a look at what's there already, and give me some feedback on the
design, and also some pointers on how I'm doing the CSS.

I realise that the layout only seems to work as I intend in Internet
Explorer 6, and this is how it should look: http://tinyurl.com/64epj  If you
have any tips or hacks that you know of that will make the site work well in
most popular browsers, that'd be really helpful.

One more thing, as I only know HTML and CSS, I've been struggling to find a
quick way of adding photos to the Gallery section, without manually creating
a popup page for each image!  I can just make the link for each image open
in a popup window on it's own, but I preper the HTML popup window (see the
second photo from the left for an example of the HTML popup window).  Does
anyone have any tips for doing this in a more efficient way at all?  Any
time saving advice will be appreciated, especially when I hope to add
several hundred photos to this website, once all the galleries are added.

Thanks for any help or advice, it's appreciated.

Regards,

Stephen

Reply-To: rick at niof dot net
Message-ID: <slrncjtkg9.u1s.rickpasotto@tc.niof.net>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:34:01 -0400
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.93.248.169
X-Trace: sv3-TwIIgJOgqF7Mym0WoBHxk3o7M//KkJ5VDemWrpYa5q4pMSJlZuDwNJK7M60TOIf
q2a/jI9+MaSLi82z!SHW2kaeHhLuyPIWjw/5XPRi/k9fJpmQADkwkxESTzlFM4duyaveFaIAc3hb
TwOKai4Cs8eHDHLaq!yxAkKHYX6Ma5u/OvhkNft76eZT0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.13
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com alt.html.critique:52716

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:39:50 GMT in alt.html.critique, Ben Measures
wrote:
> Rick Pasotto wrote: 
>
> You erroneously corrected him, what you said was not the truth.

You are wrong.

What statement did I make that you believe to be in error? Post the
article ID, quote the statement, and explain *why* it was wrong.

Learn to deal with *facts* instead of unsubstantiated assertions.

--
"Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power."
-- Lao-Tzu, philosopher (6th century B.C.)
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:57:27 -0400 in alt.html.critique, Neal wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:14:19 -0400, Rick Pasotto
> <rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> 
>
> Welcome to Usenet.

Fool.

I've been dealing with usenet since long before the internet existed.

Your attitude serves merely to perpetuate and compound the incivility.

--
"Reason often makes mistakes, but conscience never does."
-- Josh Billings, columnist and humorist (1818-1885)
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

Rick Pasotto wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote: 
>
> What statement did I make that you believe to be in error? Post the
> article ID, quote the statement, and explain *why* it was wrong.

kchayka wrote:
> <!-- Hide script from old browsers
>
> The only browser you are hiding anything from is Netscape release 2 and
> other similar things. These are now totally obsolete. You don't need this
> cargo cult stuff any more.

Rick Pasotto wrote:
> I'm not so sure of that.

True.

> This does not validate:
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> document.write('<link rel="stylesheet" href="extra.css">');
> </script>

True.

> This *does* validate:
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> <!--
> document.write('<link rel="stylesheet" href="extra.css">');
> -->
> </script>

Getting colder. The result of the script execution will not validate (as
XHTML). Then again, the script may not even execute
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_4 .

> What you refer to as 'cargo cult' is actually quite useful *today*.

Wrong. Brought about because your supporting code was not correct for
XHTML and not correct for the OP's doctype.


The reason for using HTML comments in script tags is exactly as kchayka
described.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.14
> Script data ( %Script; in the DTD) can be the content of the SCRIPT
> element and the value of intrinsic event attributes. User agents must
> not evaluate script data as HTML markup but instead must pass it on as
> data to a script engine.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3
> User agents that don't recognize the SCRIPT element will likely render
> that element's contents as text. Some scripting engines allow the script
> statements to be enclosed in an SGML comment. User agents that don't
> recognize the SCRIPT element will thus ignore the comment while smart
> scripting engines will understand that the script in comments should be
> executed.

Thus /all/ conforming browsers will not render script contents. AFAIK
the only browsers that do this are pre-NN2.


So kchayka was right and you were wrong. Be a man and apologise for
spreading muck on kchayka's truth.

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote

> kchayka wrote: 
this 

Ahem. I refer you to the second post in this thread wherein *I* wrote that
:-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

rf wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote
> 
>
> Ahem. I refer you to the second post in this thread wherein *I* wrote that
> :-)

Oops, my apologies. For some reason I got you two mixed up, now noted. ;)

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:
>
> kchayka wrote:
> 

Ooops, wrong attribution - that should be "rf wrote:".

Redirect all your apologies that way ;)

--
Ben M.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:12:16 GMT in alt.html.critique, Ben Measures wrote:
> Rick Pasotto wrote: 
>
> kchayka wrote: 
>
> Rick Pasotto wrote: 
>
> True.
> 
>
> True.
> 
>
> Getting colder.

Does the code snippet validate or not. That is the *only* question.
There is no 'colder'.

> The result of the script execution will not validate (as
> XHTML). Then again, the script may not even execute
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_4 .

I made no mention of the script *execution*. Stick to what I actually
wrote. The (X)HTML snippet I posted *does* validate. That is *all* that
I said.
 
>
> Wrong. Brought about because your supporting code was not correct for
> XHTML and not correct for the OP's doctype.

All I claimed was that using HTML comments resulted in the code passing
the w3c validator. Perhaps you don't consider that useful. I do. Perhaps
the validator is in error. Could be. My statement still stands.

> The reason for using HTML comments in script tags is exactly as kchayka
> described.

That may be the *official* reason but I pointed out an instance where
they could be used otherwise.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.14 
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3 
>
> Thus /all/ conforming browsers will not render script contents. AFAIK
> the only browsers that do this are pre-NN2.
>
>
> So kchayka was right and you were wrong. Be a man and apologise for
> spreading muck on kchayka's truth.

Why don't you deal with what I *actually* wrote instead of what you
imagine I wrote.

Look, I didn't say it was a good idea. I didn't say it should be done.
I didn't say it conformed to anything at all. I merely said that it
resulted in the code passing the validator. Stop trying to pretend I
said anything else.

--
"Reason often makes mistakes, but conscience never does."
-- Josh Billings, columnist and humorist (1818-1885)
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:1vy%c.23348$D7.6689@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

| The "below" bit.
|
| I stole your stuff and had a quick play. The home page.
|
| What do you have? A logo, some navigation, a big picture and a copyright
| notice. Lets just simply plonk them on a page without any styling at all
| (except for width and height on that image):
|
| http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/ste/index1.html
|
| This is really very close to what you want. A tiny bit of CSS will fix up
| things:
|
| http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/ste/index2.html
|
| Ok, it's not exactly that tiny but this will be used of course on every
| other page of the site.
|
| --
| Cheers
| Richard.


Hi Richard,

I've been up since 5am after an early start for a work meeting at the other
end of the country, so I'm just about to collapse into bed because I'm so
tired now!  So this is just a quick reply to thanks for the response, and
I'll be back to you either tonight (after a cat nap!), or more likely
tomorrow about this time.

But I just wanted to say this about the site you did - wow, those buttons!
I'm impressed that this can be done is CSS! :-)  I thought you were talking
about some naff-looking buttons that were nothing like my image rollover
buttons!  Just please do me a favour and keep that site online for a good
several days please, as I'd like a chance to go through it and see how it
was all done - I've got some learning to do!

Thanks Richard,

Stephen

Rick Pasotto wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote: 
>
> I made no mention of the script *execution*. Stick to what I actually
> wrote. The (X)HTML snippet I posted *does* validate. That is *all* that
> I said.

If the script does not execute then the point is moot. You may as well
have written:

<!--
<script type="text/javascript">
document.write('<link rel="stylesheet" href="extra.css">');
</script>
-->

Like your script, this validates but may not do what you intended. Hence
the "getting colder".

--
Ben M.