R
rosco
I've been learning HTML basic and then CSS, using XP, writing '.txt' files
in Notepad, calling them up in Word 2000, where-in they appear in a
quasi-browser form, and, if it looks good, saving (converting) to a '.htm'
(html) file, then opening with IE6, Netscape7.1 and Opera7 to view the final
product. My home page is finished, looks good, and has been re-coded from
HTML to CSS, except for basic positioning, where I rely totally on tables to
get fully horizontally liquid layout.
I am ready to begin coding my secondary pages, but thought I would make a
seriously attempt to replace tables in my home page with CSS positioning
code. I bought a few text books, and followed advice and links provided by
this newsgroup, for example, http://www.meryl.net/css/ , which lists many
examples of tableless sites. My desire to remain fully liquid, I thought,
might be accomplished with the {position: relative} feature, used with
{display: block}or {width: percentage}-- or something of that fashion.
However, none of the {position: value} commands has any effect, in my hands,
nor does {display: block} or {display: blockquote}, nor does setting the
{width: value} to a fixed or percentage -- though {display: none} does work.
Thinking that Word 2000 may not be fully CSS compliant, I first tried
downloading Word 2000 upgrades (converters), and, when that didn't work, I
bought the pricey Word 2003 upgrade to 2000 -- all very fancy, with lots of
HTML and web coding bells and whistles, but, the basic procedure I use of
writing code in txt files, converting to HTML with Word, then viewing with a
browser, no longer works. The '.txt' files -- the very same ones that work
with 2000 -- when opened in 2003 look like txt files, not a quasi-browser
form; and these '.txt' file when saved (converted) to '.htm' or any of the
other options still look like '.txt' files in Word 2003; and when the
resulting '.htm' files are called up in a browser, they still look like
'.txt' files. If I go back to just Word 2000 then I can work again.
1) Are there simple commands that will enable me to use 2003 like I
have been using 2000? I've looked and looked.
2) Is there a another way to write code directly in 2003, either
starting with '.txt' files, or, perhaps, coding directly in HTML? (I'm not
even sure what a HTML editor is and how it differs from what I've been
doing -- forgive my ignorance.)
3) If HTML editing is what may give me access to CSS positioning
effects, should I ignore 2003 and go with a free editor (suggested recently
a few posts downstream in this newsgroup), or, if necessary, purchase
Frontpage? Would Frontpage give me CSS liquid-style layouts?
4) If my current table-liquid-layout format works will enough, should
I forget, for the time being, about positioning with CSS , being fully CSS
compliant, and just get on with it?
Thanks in advance for wading through my problem and any advice you may have.
Rosco
in Notepad, calling them up in Word 2000, where-in they appear in a
quasi-browser form, and, if it looks good, saving (converting) to a '.htm'
(html) file, then opening with IE6, Netscape7.1 and Opera7 to view the final
product. My home page is finished, looks good, and has been re-coded from
HTML to CSS, except for basic positioning, where I rely totally on tables to
get fully horizontally liquid layout.
I am ready to begin coding my secondary pages, but thought I would make a
seriously attempt to replace tables in my home page with CSS positioning
code. I bought a few text books, and followed advice and links provided by
this newsgroup, for example, http://www.meryl.net/css/ , which lists many
examples of tableless sites. My desire to remain fully liquid, I thought,
might be accomplished with the {position: relative} feature, used with
{display: block}or {width: percentage}-- or something of that fashion.
However, none of the {position: value} commands has any effect, in my hands,
nor does {display: block} or {display: blockquote}, nor does setting the
{width: value} to a fixed or percentage -- though {display: none} does work.
Thinking that Word 2000 may not be fully CSS compliant, I first tried
downloading Word 2000 upgrades (converters), and, when that didn't work, I
bought the pricey Word 2003 upgrade to 2000 -- all very fancy, with lots of
HTML and web coding bells and whistles, but, the basic procedure I use of
writing code in txt files, converting to HTML with Word, then viewing with a
browser, no longer works. The '.txt' files -- the very same ones that work
with 2000 -- when opened in 2003 look like txt files, not a quasi-browser
form; and these '.txt' file when saved (converted) to '.htm' or any of the
other options still look like '.txt' files in Word 2003; and when the
resulting '.htm' files are called up in a browser, they still look like
'.txt' files. If I go back to just Word 2000 then I can work again.
1) Are there simple commands that will enable me to use 2003 like I
have been using 2000? I've looked and looked.
2) Is there a another way to write code directly in 2003, either
starting with '.txt' files, or, perhaps, coding directly in HTML? (I'm not
even sure what a HTML editor is and how it differs from what I've been
doing -- forgive my ignorance.)
3) If HTML editing is what may give me access to CSS positioning
effects, should I ignore 2003 and go with a free editor (suggested recently
a few posts downstream in this newsgroup), or, if necessary, purchase
Frontpage? Would Frontpage give me CSS liquid-style layouts?
4) If my current table-liquid-layout format works will enough, should
I forget, for the time being, about positioning with CSS , being fully CSS
compliant, and just get on with it?
Thanks in advance for wading through my problem and any advice you may have.
Rosco