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

Keep in mind that I'm not a web-designer, but people seem to have equated
"decent Java programmer and server admin" with  "can whip up decent
webpages".  Which is a horrible lie, but you know how the non-tech savvy
are.  Seems to work okay in IE, Mozilla, and Opera, but testing in any other
browsers is great too.

I know that there are a few naughty things in the code (like using the
'style' attribute a little too much, and also using fixed-size text), I'm
going to phase them all out, but it was sadly essential to have a decent
looking page first rather than taking the time to design everything exactly
perfectly.

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

Cianan Delahunty wrote:
quote:

> 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

> XHTML - what's it for?  HTML 4.01 strict is usually recommended for new
web
quote:

> documents.


Since when?  Wasn't XHTML going to "extend" HTML?
If so, why isn't it recommended for new pages?

Nicko.

Sometime around Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:37:30 GMT, e n | c k m a is reported to
have stated:
quote:

>
> Since when?  Wasn't XHTML going to "extend" HTML?
> If so, why isn't it recommended for new pages?
>


Because it isn't properly supported.

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

> Because it isn't properly supported.

Not properly served?  Or not properly supported by client browsers?
If you mean it's not properly served, then is it really harmful to write
XHTML code anyway even if it ends up being served as HTML?

Thanks,
Nicko.

Sometime around Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:16:41 GMT, e n | c k m a is reported to
have stated:

[XHTML]
quote:

> Not properly served?  Or not properly supported by client browsers?


IE doesn't support it (meaning around 90% of your visitors) and probably
various other user-agents.  Meaning that you have to serve it as text/html.
quote:

> If you mean it's not properly served, then is it really harmful to write
> XHTML code anyway even if it ends up being served as HTML?
>


Not AFAIK, other than the extra characters meaning slightly bigger files.
But if you're going to serve it as text/html anyway, why not just use HTML
in the first place?

You will find that most of those (here, anyway) that object to using XHTML
do so on principle.  It isn't HTML, so they don't like sending it as
text/html.  I tend to agree.  :-)

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

"Cianan Delahunty" <lol@lol.cx> wrote in message
news:3f9f9643_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
quote:

> http://lankiveil.halo-17.net/crux/index.php
>
> Keep in mind that I'm not a web-designer, but people seem to have equated
> "decent Java programmer and server admin" with  "can whip up decent
> webpages".  Which is a horrible lie, but you know how the non-tech savvy
> are.  Seems to work okay in IE, Mozilla, and Opera, but testing in any

other
quote:

> browsers is great too.
>
> I know that there are a few naughty things in the code (like using the
> 'style' attribute a little too much, and also using fixed-size text), I'm
> going to phase them all out, but it was sadly essential to have a decent
> looking page first rather than taking the time to design everything

exactly
quote:

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

"be gentle" Oh, My...
I'm sorry, Sir, but you've come to the wrong place...

Now on the other hand, if you're looking for blunt, candid, personal
opinion?

> You will find that most of those (here, anyway) that object to using XHTML
quote:

> do so on principle.  It isn't HTML, so they don't like sending it as
> text/html.  I tend to agree.  :-)


Hmm fair enough - good points.
I guess it's still good to know how to use it for the future so I'll keep it
in my memory.

Thanks,
Nicko.

"e n | c k m a" <bob@marley.com> wrote in message
news:NR1ob.170699$bo1.135225@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
quote:
 
XHTML[QUOTE] 
>
> Hmm fair enough - good points.
> I guess it's still good to know how to use it for the future so I'll keep

it
quote:

> in my memory.
>


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


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

Nicko,

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. You may not want to hear this, but I would like to tell you
something about the design and I would like to not hurt your feelings. So,
here are bad news and good news.

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

Also, you need margins in the main area so that your text isn't smacking up
against the edges of the container.

GOOD NEWS:

I think your use of color in this design is very effective, and I think the
overall design concept (aside from the lopsidedness) is very nice.


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