Help Request about 4.01 Strict

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
    might fix my page.

    I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
    Transitional to 4.01 Strict.

    The Transitional page and css links are:
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshore.htm
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beach.css
    The Strict versions are
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshoreS.htm
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beachS.css


    The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
    http://validator.w3.org/

    The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
    <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>

    What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
    new window? (please, not javascript)


    On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    <table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">

    However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    bottom of the left hand menu column.

    Thanks in advance for the help.

    .. Ed
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed Mulroy

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Ed Mulroy wrote:
    > I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
    > might fix my page.
    >
    > I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
    > Transitional to 4.01 Strict.
    >
    > The Transitional page and css links are:
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshore.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beach.css
    > The Strict versions are
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshoreS.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beachS.css
    >
    >
    > The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    >
    > The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
    > <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>
    >
    > What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
    > new window? (please, not javascript)

    As far as I know, it's the only way you can do it, useing window.open
    which is a piece of JS.

    >
    >
    > On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    > <table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">
    >
    > However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    > results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    > bottom of the left hand menu column.

    Hmmmm, perhaps float the menu bar to the left?.
    Or maybe you could use a clear both.

    >
    > Thanks in advance for the help.

    NP, I am still learning this CSS stuff my self.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
    Chaddy2222, Jun 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed Mulroy wrote:
    > I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
    > might fix my page.
    >
    > I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
    > Transitional to 4.01 Strict.
    >
    > The Transitional page and css links are:
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshore.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beach.css
    > The Strict versions are
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshoreS.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beachS.css
    >
    >
    > The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    >
    > The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
    > <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>
    >
    > What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
    > new window? (please, not javascript)


    None, target is used with framesets

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

    Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in new
    window.
    >
    >
    > On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    > <table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    those are presentational attributes that should be defined in your
    stylesheet

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html

    >
    > However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    > results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    > bottom of the left hand menu column.


    Don't really see a difference except padding on table cell a bit
    different between version. Basically I think you may be trying to design
    with CSS but your mindset is still in 3.2 table layout mode.

    Following are not snide remarks but to encourage you to think in a
    different direction...

    Think about this, why are your links in a table at all? They are just a
    list right? Why are your pictures and text in a table? Is it just to
    hang them in some particular placement on the page? You need to shake
    off the shackles of the table and compose the page semantically then
    style to make it appear as you wish. Google for some CSS layout tutorials.



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Ed Mulroy

    Martin Jay Guest

    In message <>, Ed Mulroy
    <> writes
    >I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
    >might fix my page.
    >
    >I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
    >Transitional to 4.01 Strict.
    >
    >The Transitional page and css links are:
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshore.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beach.css
    >The Strict versions are
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshoreS.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beachS.css
    >
    >
    >The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    >
    >The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
    > <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>
    >
    >What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
    >new window? (please, not javascript)


    AFAIK there is none. A while ago I put together some web pages for a
    friend who wanted some links to open in a new window, so for the pages
    with those sort of links on I used a Transitional doctype:
    <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(

    >On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    ><table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">
    >
    >However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    >results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    >bottom of the left hand menu column.


    Try giving the table the following style:

    position: absolute;

    Are you going to get rid of the table layout design?
    --
    Martin Jay
    Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
    Fax: +44 870 915 2124
    Martin Jay, Jun 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    > Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in new
    > window.


    This is not a question of how one might choose to read a newspaper. The
    purpose of the site is to present a vaction property to prospective tenants.
    A separate window is used for off-site links is so that the property site
    will remain on his screen. Prospective tenants are not particularly
    computer literate. Once they leave a site a certain percentage of them will
    not be able to find it again.

    > Think about this, why are your links in a table at all? They are just a
    > list right?


    No, they are a table, a two dimensional array of items presented in an
    orderly, predetermined fashion for view in computer screens with resolution
    of 800x600 or more and deliberately without support for text-only, cell
    phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

    Each attempt to do an equivalent presentation with CSS has failed in some
    browsers, usually placing one of the two tables at the bottom instead of
    presenting them side by side.

    > You need to shake off the shackles of the table and compose the page
    > semantically then style to make it appear as you wish.


    I have read many things which rail on similar to "the shackles of the table"
    but have not seen a viable reason for abandoning them. I am very open to
    and desirous of hearing your arguments to that end.

    > Google for some CSS layout tutorials.


    Perhaps that would find some of these links?
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/html2.htm#stylesheets
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/magother.htm#blogsoft
    (note that the above links are also part of my site)

    .. Ed

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:46bee$44883bbe$40cba7bf$...
    > Ed Mulroy wrote:
    >> I would appreciate it if people were kind enough to suggest how I
    >> might fix my page.
    >>
    >> I have run into difficulty while trying to migrate from HTML 4.01
    >> Transitional to 4.01 Strict.
    >>
    >> The Transitional page and css links are:
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshore.htm
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beach.css
    >> The Strict versions are
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/theshoreS.htm
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/beachS.css
    >>
    >>
    >> The HTML validator gives complaints in strict mode.
    >> http://validator.w3.org/
    >>
    >> The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error: (line 36)
    >> <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>
    >>
    >> What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
    >> new window? (please, not javascript)

    >
    > None, target is used with framesets
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
    >
    > Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in new
    > window.
    >>
    >>
    >> On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    >> <table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > those are presentational attributes that should be defined in your
    > stylesheet
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html
    >
    >>
    >> However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS results
    >> in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the bottom of
    >> the left hand menu column.

    >
    > Don't really see a difference except padding on table cell a bit different
    > between version. Basically I think you may be trying to design with CSS
    > but your mindset is still in 3.2 table layout mode.
    >
    > Following are not snide remarks but to encourage you to think in a
    > different direction...
    >
    > Think about this, why are your links in a table at all? They are just a
    > list right? Why are your pictures and text in a table? Is it just to hang
    > them in some particular placement on the page? You need to shake off the
    > shackles of the table and compose the page semantically then style to make
    > it appear as you wish. Google for some CSS layout tutorials.
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #5
  6. Ed Mulroy wrote:

    >> Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in new
    >> window.

    >
    > This is not a question of how one might choose to read a newspaper. The
    > purpose of the site is to present a vaction property to prospective
    > tenants. A separate window is used for off-site links is so that the
    > property site
    > will remain on his screen. Prospective tenants are not particularly
    > computer literate. Once they leave a site a certain percentage of them
    > will not be able to find it again.


    Those users don't know how to disable JavaScript either... JavaScript is the
    only (valid) way to open links in a new window. But I agree with Jonathan
    that this should be left to the user. Most users at least understand the
    back button.

    >> Think about this, why are your links in a table at all? They are just a
    >> list right?

    >
    > No, they are a table


    I cannot spot any tabular data in your document...

    > , a two dimensional array of items presented in an
    > orderly, predetermined fashion for view in computer screens with
    > resolution of 800x600 or more and deliberately without support for
    > text-only, cell phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.


    What you are talking about is a grid-layout. The default layout algorithm
    for TABLE elements happens to be a grid, but tables are still the wrong
    choice for your purposes.

    You won't loose the 'orderly, predetermined fashion' when you make good use
    of CSS. But you will gain support for 'text-only, cell phone, PDA or
    blind-viewer browsers'. Takes some time, but once you have mastered the new
    (and at the same time old) way to develop websites, it will be much easier
    to create documents that work in any number of (even unknown) user-agents
    than it was to create documents that work in IE4 and NS4 some years ago.

    > Each attempt to do an equivalent presentation with CSS has failed in some
    > browsers, usually placing one of the two tables at the bottom instead of
    > presenting them side by side.


    There are various well tested recipes for multicolumn layouts using CSS.
    Your document is pretty simple, this should not be a problem.

    >> Google for some CSS layout tutorials.

    >
    > Perhaps that would find some of these links?
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/html2.htm#stylesheets
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/magother.htm#blogsoft
    > (note that the above links are also part of my site)


    Seems as if you already got all the informations you need. It does indeed
    take some time to digest all this, but looking at your source suggests that
    still have a lot to learn.

    >> However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    >> results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    >> bottom of the left hand menu column.


    One method is to make the sidebar 'float: left' with a certain width
    preferably in em and give the content area a margin-left which is equal or
    larger than the width of the sidebar.

    And the sidebar is not a table either but can be marked up as a list. And
    the use of CLASS attributes can be heavily reduced by a more clever use of
    CSS selectors.

    --
    Benjamin Niemann
    Email: pink at odahoda dot de
    WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
    Benjamin Niemann, Jun 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    > Try giving the table the following style:
    >
    > position: absolute;


    I'll try that. Thanks a bunch!!

    > Are you going to get rid of the table layout design?


    Yes but only if there is a good reason to do it. I have read many things on
    the evils of tables but they always sound more like religion except for when
    they speak of presentation on platforms that I wish to not support (cell
    phones, PDA's, blind browsers, screens of less than 800x600). Tables always
    worked across browsers but CSS to give the equivalent effect has not always
    worked.

    Some of my pages do have lists instead of tables where they seem to make
    sense, using <dl>, <ul> and the like. One one page I had to admit defeat
    and encase a <dl> INSIDE a table's <tr><td></td></tr>. :-(

    There is one page for which I am very motivated to use CSS instead of tables
    but have never been able to get it to work across browsers. I would
    appreciate it if you would take a peek at it and let me know if you think it
    can be done as CSS based.
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/sitemap.htm
    the style sheet it uses is
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/style4.css

    I have been trying to arrange for my pages to present essentially the same
    across NS 7, IE 5.1, IE 6.* and Firefox. Looking at my site statistics
    right now shows IE at 80.0%, Firefox at 14%, Opera 1.9% and Mozilla 1.5% (I
    take "Mozilla" to be Netscape). It might be worth only supporting only IE
    and Firefox (Opera users tend to be techies and should be used to handling
    compatibility problems).

    > <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(


    I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.

    However, the site is heavily PHP. I can't so much as blow my nose as far as
    PHP is concerned :-( so may not be giving a valid opinion.

    I've been told that PHP is the only way to reliably launch an email because
    mailto: does not always work (for instance, with AOL users). My defense is
    to use mailto: but also display the email address so that they can copy it
    into their mail program. I wish there were some simple intro on the web for
    how to use PSP.

    .. Ed
    .. ed at mulroy dot org

    > Martin Jay wrote in message
    > news:D+4MrCB$...
    >
    >> ...
    >>The 'target' word in a link like that below generates an error:
    >>(line 36) <a href="the_url" target="_blank">link description</a>
    >>
    >>What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened
    >>in a new window? (please, not javascript)

    >
    > AFAIK there is none. A while ago I put together some web pages
    > for a friend who wanted some links to open in a new window, so
    > for the pages with those sort of links on I used a Transitional
    > doctype:
    > <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(
    >
    >>On line 18 I received a complaint about 'align'
    >><table align="left" width="22%" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2">
    >>
    >>However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    >>results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    >>bottom of the left hand menu column.

    >
    > Try giving the table the following style:
    >
    > position: absolute;
    >
    > Are you going to get rid of the table layout design?
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #7
  8. On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Ed Mulroy blurted out atop a comprehensive quote
    (and we know what that usually indicates on usenet):

    > > Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in
    > > new window.

    >
    > This is not a question of how one might choose to read a newspaper.


    The web rarely is. Readers have a much wider range of potential
    choices, regardless of the author's wishes and intentions. Sure, not
    all of them make those choices...

    > The purpose of the site is to present a vaction property to
    > prospective tenants.


    I don't see what's so special about that, relative to anything else
    you might be trying to sell to readers of your site.

    > A separate window is used for off-site links is so that the property
    > site will remain on his screen.


    You can't know that. On screens of limited size, or where the reader
    has chosen to run their browser in fullscreen, your new window will
    overlay the one they were using, and some have no idea how to get
    back.

    > Prospective tenants are not particularly computer literate. Once
    > they leave a site a certain percentage of them will not be able to
    > find it again.


    Exactly my point. So you're aiming to make their Back function
    inoperative, so that their new window is stuck on the external site,
    and they maybe can't find their way back to yours? Hmmm.

    > and deliberately without support for text-only, cell
    > phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.


    So you discriminate against disabled visitors? That's not very nice,
    considering that the web can accommodate them without fuss, and
    without causing any harm to your mainstream readers. Still, the
    choice is yours (subject to applicable legislation).

    [...big snip...]

    It doesn't look as if you're going to learn much from this newsgroup.

    bye
    Alan J. Flavell, Jun 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    > ... tables are still the wrong choice for your purposes ...

    I still do not understand why that is.

    > ... But you will gain support for 'text-only, cell phone, PDA or
    > blind-viewer browsers' ...


    I thought that supporting them was pointless. Pages such as these have
    little value when viewed with text browsers, blind viewer browsers and tiny
    PDA or cell phone displays.
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/flrplan.htm
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/restmap.htm
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/localdir.htm

    > ...One method is to make the sidebar 'float: left' ...


    > and give the content area a margin-left which is equal
    > or larger than the width of the sidebar...


    Unfortunately the float:left scheme does not properly present. When someone
    narrows the window, one column drops to below the other instead of a
    horizontal scroll bar appearing. I have not found anything in CSS which
    when the screen is narrowed will put in a horizontal scroll bar instead of
    hiding half of the page below the bottom of the screen.

    > ... with a certain width preferably in em ..


    I think the pages you looked at dimension in percent but on the other pages
    the sidebars are dimensioned in ex. You and everyone else these days seem
    to speak of em and not of ex. Please tell me if I am wrong to use ex
    instead of em.

    > ... the use of CLASS attributes can be heavily reduced by a
    > more clever use ofCSS selectors.


    Thank you. I had the intention of doing that that. There are about 93
    files on the site and each would need to be edited. I have been
    procrastinating.

    I am an engineer, literally someone with a pocket protector and, at least in
    the past, a slide rule. While I may be a bit creative with respect to
    things like bandwidth, response time and fringing capacitance I have little
    if any creativity of the sort needed to be a graphic designer. My web site
    is admittedly uninspired. I welcome any comments and greatly appreciate
    your suggestions.

    .. Ed

    > Benjamin Niemann wrote in message
    > news:e69ne0$ais$...
    >
    > ...
    > Those users don't know how to disable JavaScript either...
    > JavaScript is the only (valid) way to open links in a new window.
    > But I agree with Jonathan that this should be left to the user. Most
    > users at least understand the back button.
    >
    >>> Think about this, why are your links in a table at all? They are
    >>> just a list right?

    >>
    >> No, they are a table

    >
    > I cannot spot any tabular data in your document...
    >
    >> , a two dimensional array of items presented in an
    >> orderly, predetermined fashion for view in computer screens with
    >> resolution of 800x600 or more and deliberately without support for
    >> text-only, cell phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

    >
    > What you are talking about is a grid-layout. The default layout algorithm
    > for TABLE elements happens to be a grid, but tables are still the wrong
    > choice for your purposes.
    >
    > You won't loose the 'orderly, predetermined fashion' when you make good
    > use
    > of CSS. But you will gain support for 'text-only, cell phone, PDA or
    > blind-viewer browsers'. Takes some time, but once you have mastered the
    > new
    > (and at the same time old) way to develop websites, it will be much easier
    > to create documents that work in any number of (even unknown) user-agents
    > than it was to create documents that work in IE4 and NS4 some years ago.
    >
    >> Each attempt to do an equivalent presentation with CSS has failed in some
    >> browsers, usually placing one of the two tables at the bottom instead of
    >> presenting them side by side.

    >
    > There are various well tested recipes for multicolumn layouts using CSS.
    > Your document is pretty simple, this should not be a problem.
    >
    >>> Google for some CSS layout tutorials.

    >>
    >> Perhaps that would find some of these links?
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/html2.htm#stylesheets
    >> http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/magother.htm#blogsoft
    >> (note that the above links are also part of my site)

    >
    > Seems as if you already got all the informations you need. It does indeed
    > take some time to digest all this, but looking at your source suggests
    > that
    > still have a lot to learn.
    >
    >>> However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
    >>> results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
    >>> bottom of the left hand menu column.

    >
    > One method is to make the sidebar 'float: left' with a certain width
    > preferably in em and give the content area a margin-left which is equal or
    > larger than the width of the sidebar.
    >
    > And the sidebar is not a table either but can be marked up as a list. And
    > the use of CLASS attributes can be heavily reduced by a more clever use of
    > CSS selectors.
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Ed Mulroy wrote:

    >> ... tables are still the wrong choice for your purposes ...

    >
    > I still do not understand why that is.


    HTML is about the semantics, the meaning of the document contents. TABLE
    means 'tabular data' (think of Excel). Layout and design is the domain of
    CSS.

    >> ... But you will gain support for 'text-only, cell phone, PDA or
    >> blind-viewer browsers' ...

    >
    > I thought that supporting them was pointless. Pages such as these have
    > little value when viewed with text browsers, blind viewer browsers and
    > tiny PDA or cell phone displays.
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/flrplan.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/restmap.htm
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/localdir.htm


    The information provided by the images can also be provided as plaintext.
    (Ok, in these cases it requires addition work to provide both readable and
    viewable versions of the same content.)
    And I can't find a reason why people with disabilities should not be
    interested in these offers (except for the fact that they cannot use the
    site...).

    >> ...One method is to make the sidebar 'float: left' ...

    >
    >> and give the content area a margin-left which is equal
    >> or larger than the width of the sidebar...

    >
    > Unfortunately the float:left scheme does not properly present. When
    > someone narrows the window, one column drops to below the other instead of
    > a
    > horizontal scroll bar appearing. I have not found anything in CSS which
    > when the screen is narrowed will put in a horizontal scroll bar instead of
    > hiding half of the page below the bottom of the screen.


    I'd consider this as good behaviour. Horizontal scrolling is much more
    painful than vertical scroll. My keyboard has PgUp and PgDown, but no
    equivalent for left and right. And my mouse has a single scroll wheel for
    up/down movement. Your equipment might be different though...

    >> ... with a certain width preferably in em ..

    >
    > I think the pages you looked at dimension in percent but on the other
    > pages
    > the sidebars are dimensioned in ex. You and everyone else these days seem
    > to speak of em and not of ex. Please tell me if I am wrong to use ex
    > instead of em.


    I'd say that ex is just as good as em. The point is not to use px and for
    some reason em is more commonly used than ex.

    > I am an engineer, literally someone with a pocket protector and, at least
    > in
    > the past, a slide rule. While I may be a bit creative with respect to
    > things like bandwidth, response time and fringing capacitance I have
    > little
    > if any creativity of the sort needed to be a graphic designer. My web
    > site
    > is admittedly uninspired. I welcome any comments and greatly appreciate
    > your suggestions.


    Reminds me of myself ;)

    --
    Benjamin Niemann
    Email: pink at odahoda dot de
    WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
    Benjamin Niemann, Jun 8, 2006
    #10
  11. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Ed Mulroy blurted out atop a
    > comprehensive quote (and we know what that usually
    > indicates on usenet):


    Loose the editorial "we". You have not a clue of what it means.

    I have formed my replies in the same manner since the early days of Usenet.

    > ... So you discriminate against disabled visitors?
    > That's not very nice, ...
    > the web can accommodate them without fuss ...


    Yes, I deliberately do not try to help blind people see graphics and
    photographs. Please tell us how the web can make blind people see.

    I deliberately fail to support viewing mechanisms which lack the capability
    to view what I am presenting. Please tell us how the web can make their
    viewing mechanisms do what they are incapable of doing?

    You use the word "discriminate". Should you find yourself in need of work,
    consider George Bush' crew. They employ many Spin Doctors.

    > ... It doesn't look as if you're going to learn much from
    > this newsgroup.


    I have already learned much about HTML and CSS from the others who have
    kindly replied. From you I am learning about what some people are like.

    .. Ed

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Ed Mulroy blurted out atop a comprehensive quote
    > (and we know what that usually indicates on usenet):
    >
    >> > Recommendation is let the user decide where or not to open link in
    >> > new window.

    >>
    >> This is not a question of how one might choose to read a newspaper.

    >
    > The web rarely is. Readers have a much wider range of potential
    > choices, regardless of the author's wishes and intentions. Sure, not
    > all of them make those choices...
    >
    >> The purpose of the site is to present a vaction property to
    >> prospective tenants.

    >
    > I don't see what's so special about that, relative to anything else
    > you might be trying to sell to readers of your site.
    >
    >> A separate window is used for off-site links is so that the property
    >> site will remain on his screen.

    >
    > You can't know that. On screens of limited size, or where the reader
    > has chosen to run their browser in fullscreen, your new window will
    > overlay the one they were using, and some have no idea how to get
    > back.
    >
    >> Prospective tenants are not particularly computer literate. Once
    >> they leave a site a certain percentage of them will not be able to
    >> find it again.

    >
    > Exactly my point. So you're aiming to make their Back function
    > inoperative, so that their new window is stuck on the external site,
    > and they maybe can't find their way back to yours? Hmmm.
    >
    >> and deliberately without support for text-only, cell
    >> phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

    >
    > So you discriminate against disabled visitors? That's not very nice,
    > considering that the web can accommodate them without fuss, and
    > without causing any harm to your mainstream readers. Still, the
    > choice is yours (subject to applicable legislation).
    >
    > [...big snip...]
    >
    > It doesn't look as if you're going to learn much from this newsgroup.
    >
    > bye
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #11
  12. Ed Mulroy wrote:
    [snippage]
    > I have been trying to arrange for my pages to present essentially the
    > same across NS 7, IE 5.1, IE 6.* and Firefox.


    It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect design
    across browsers, because the visitors will only ever visit with one
    browser. Not like here among us developers and authors.

    > Looking at my site statistics right now shows IE at 80.0%, Firefox at
    > 14%, Opera 1.9% and Mozilla 1.5% (I take "Mozilla" to be Netscape).


    I would take "Mozilla" to be Mozilla.

    Your stats are pretty much what my sites see as well. However, I don't
    worry about what browser they bring, because my sites work in any
    browser, even those PDAs and cell phones and text browsers you
    mentioned, without any extra work. Even in Opera. :)

    For example, this one is mine: http://countryrode.com/

    Note that there are <table>s, but only where there is actual tabular
    data, such as the vehicles for sale, the models available, the store
    hours...

    At least half of that site comes directly from a database. The Events
    page is a table - in the database - but is not displayed with <table>.

    > It might be worth only supporting only IE and Firefox (Opera users
    > tend to be techies and should be used to handling compatibility
    > problems).


    Again, it is actually easier to design for *no* browser, rather than try
    to design for one or two. I don't really know how to do that.

    Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in the source,
    thus letting the search engines see the page content first, rather than
    wading through the menu first on each page.

    >> <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(

    >
    > I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.


    ...except tommy forgot to assign a background color to the pages, and I
    see my ugly default purple. <g> You have to be careful because not
    everyone will use white.

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Ed Mulroy

    Martin Jay Guest

    In message <TB%hg.151141$>,
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty <> writes
    >Ed Mulroy wrote:
    >>> <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(


    >> I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.


    >..except tommy forgot to assign a background color to the pages, and I
    >see my ugly default purple. <g> You have to be careful because not
    >everyone will use white.


    LOL. Not Tommy's fault, but mine. :(
    --
    Martin Jay
    Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
    Fax: +44 870 915 2124
    Martin Jay, Jun 8, 2006
    #13
  14. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    I just looked at your web pages and was interested in the backgrounds for
    the sub heads (Key Data, etc). They look nice but it took a bit of a double
    take to find the the urls of the backgrounds buried into the css files.

    I really like the photo - no, not the one with the hair, the photo with the
    cat's eyes.

    One thing puzzles me. Why do you use "body" as an id when the same word is
    an already defined token?

    .. Ed

    > Benjamin Niemann wrote in message
    > news:e69v75$qgm$...
    > ...
    > WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #14
  15. Martin Jay wrote:

    > In message <TB%hg.151141$>,
    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty <> writes
    >>Ed Mulroy wrote:
    >>>> <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(

    >
    >>> I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.

    >
    >> ..except tommy forgot to assign a background color to the pages, and
    >> I see my ugly default purple. <g> You have to be careful because
    >> not everyone will use white.

    >
    > LOL. Not Tommy's fault, but mine. :(


    Whoops! <g> How come you haven't added
    body { background: #fff; } yet?

    I prefer a slightly off-white background, like #dfdfdf but that wouldn't
    go well with the non-transparent backgrounds of your main images...

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 8, 2006
    #15
  16. Ed Mulroy wrote:

    > I just looked at your web pages and was interested in the backgrounds for
    > the sub heads (Key Data, etc). They look nice but it took a bit of a
    > double take to find the the urls of the backgrounds buried into the css
    > files.


    Well, I know the path and if I wanted to provide images for public usage,
    I'd place a direct link to it somewhere on my side...

    > I really like the photo - no, not the one with the hair, the photo with
    > the cat's eyes.


    The header image was "just playing with GIMP"... :)
    The other one "with the hair" is in fact the only good looking photo of
    myself. It is already 7-8 years old, but I have not changed much.

    > One thing puzzles me. Why do you use "body" as an id when the same word
    > is an already defined token?


    Technically this is no problem, IDs have their own namespace and they cannot
    collide with element names (or classes).
    Now that you name it, calling it "page" would be more appropriate. Perhaps I
    could even get rid of this DIV wrapper completely (I cannot claim to have
    mastered CSS myself ;) )

    --
    Benjamin Niemann
    Email: pink at odahoda dot de
    WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
    Benjamin Niemann, Jun 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Ed Mulroy

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "Ed Mulroy" <> wrote:

    > Unfortunately the float:left scheme does not properly present. When someone
    > narrows the window, one column drops to below the other instead of a
    > horizontal scroll bar appearing. I have not found anything in CSS which
    > when the screen is narrowed will put in a horizontal scroll bar instead of
    > hiding half of the page below the bottom of the screen.


    I could not help noticing that your

    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/localdir.htm

    in spite of being in tables does exactly this?

    Never mind, there is a lot of stuff about fixing float drops.
    Perhaps the first thing to understand about stuff next to floats
    dropping is that quite apart from peculiarities of IE, it is
    natural and often desirable behaviour. Few folk like horiz
    scrolling, vertical is like breathing. Follow my meaning? It is a
    good thing in many ways. But if you don't want it, you don't have
    to have it, true it gets a bit more complicated now: Please take
    a look, at least for a start maybe, at

    http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=11

    and say what you think. Get down and dirty with the article and
    ask specific questions here if you have difficulty with any of
    it.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 8, 2006
    #17
  18. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    I appreciate the link to that site. I know it is XHTML instead of HTML but
    I should still be able to learn a lot from it. I also like the line:
    BMW - cheaper than a psychiatrist!

    Airplanes have the same calming advantages except that the bike actually IS
    cheaper!

    > ...It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect
    > design across browsers, because the visitors will only ever
    > visit with one...


    Yes, but there may be other issues. An example, but not a significant one,
    just one for both of which I recall the details of and which is easy to
    describe.

    Given this:
    <a name="some_name">Description</a>

    My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white background. For a:hover
    an underline and light blue background color appear.

    In IE "Description" always shows as navy text on white. In Firefox
    "Description" is underlined when you hover. I use that construct for
    titles, sub-headers separating logical groups. The underlining suggests to
    the user that he can click on the title to go somewhere.

    The Firefox behavior annoys me. You can say it doesn't matter but that's
    only that it doesn't matter for you :)

    Therefore I use this rather ugly construct instead:
    <a name="some_name"></a>Description

    Note that the rental site pages I've mentioned don't have this.

    > ... Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in
    > the source, ...


    Then I have "lucked out" as most of my pages have the menu after the content
    merely because it was easier to work on the content with the menu below.
    However the rental site does not. I'll change it.

    If you are curious, the other, non rental pages are all listed in the site
    map:
    http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/sitemap.htm

    .. Ed

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote in message
    > news:TB%hg.151141$...
    > ...
    > It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect design
    > across browsers, because the visitors will only ever visit with one
    > browser. Not like here among us developers and authors.
    >
    >> Looking at my site statistics right now shows IE at 80.0%, Firefox
    >> at 14%, Opera 1.9% and Mozilla 1.5% (I take "Mozilla" to be Netscape).

    >
    > I would take "Mozilla" to be Mozilla.
    >
    > Your stats are pretty much what my sites see as well. However, I
    > don't worry about what browser they bring, because my sites work
    > in any browser, even those PDAs and cell phones and text browsers
    > you mentioned, without any extra work. Even in Opera. :)
    >
    > For example, this one is mine: http://countryrode.com/
    >
    > Note that there are <table>s, but only where there is actual tabular
    > data, such as the vehicles for sale, the models available, the store
    > hours...
    >
    > At least half of that site comes directly from a database. The Events
    > page is a table - in the database - but is not displayed with <table>.
    >
    >> It might be worth only supporting only IE and Firefox (Opera users
    >> tend to be techies and should be used to handling compatibility
    >> problems).

    >
    > Again, it is actually easier to design for *no* browser, rather than
    > try to design for one or two. I don't really know how to do that.
    >
    > Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in the source,
    > thus letting the search engines see the page content first, rather than
    > wading through the menu first on each page.
    >
    >>> <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(

    >>
    >> I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.

    >
    > ..except tommy forgot to assign a background color to the pages, and I
    > see my ugly default purple. <g> You have to be careful because not
    > everyone will use white.
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #18
  19. Ed Mulroy

    Ed Mulroy Guest

    > I could not help noticing that your
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/localdir.htm
    > in spite of being in tables does exactly this?


    I must not have checked that with Firefox. There was no Firefox when it was
    first made so it was probably checked with IE and Netscape. Both it and
    restmap.htm are doing the same thing under Firefox. Thanks for the "heads
    up". I need to look at it again and try to fix it.

    > http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=11
    >
    > ... Get down and dirty with the article and
    > ask specific questions here if you have difficulty with any of
    > it.


    Thank you!

    At first glance none of the cases are exactly this case so I'm going to have
    to go back and read it at length.

    .. Ed

    > dorayme wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> ... I have not found anything in CSS which when the screen
    >> is narrowed will put in a horizontal scroll bar instead of
    >> hiding half of the page below the bottom of the screen.

    >
    > I could not help noticing that your
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/localdir.htm
    > in spite of being in tables does exactly this?
    >
    > Never mind, there is a lot of stuff about fixing float drops.
    > Perhaps the first thing to understand about stuff next to floats
    > dropping is that quite apart from peculiarities of IE, it is
    > natural and often desirable behaviour. Few folk like horiz
    > scrolling, vertical is like breathing. Follow my meaning? It is a
    > good thing in many ways. But if you don't want it, you don't have
    > to have it, true it gets a bit more complicated now: Please take
    > a look, at least for a start maybe, at
    >
    > http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=11
    >
    > and say what you think. Get down and dirty with the article and
    > ask specific questions here if you have difficulty with any of
    > it.
    Ed Mulroy, Jun 8, 2006
    #19
  20. Ed Mulroy wrote:

    > I appreciate the link to that site. I know it is XHTML instead of
    > HTML but I should still be able to learn a lot from it. I also like
    > the line: BMW - cheaper than a psychiatrist!


    There is very little difference in writing the code between the two; the
    pages are laid out the same.

    >> ...It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect
    >> design across browsers, because the visitors will only ever
    >> visit with one...


    [Rather than copy my post up here, why not just go down there, and reply
    interleaved with mine, as I'm doing here, and not requote the whole
    thing?]

    > Yes, but there may be other issues. An example, but not a significant one,
    > just one for both of which I recall the details of and which is easy to
    > describe.
    >
    > Given this:
    > <a name="some_name">Description</a>
    >
    > My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white background. For a:hover
    > an underline and light blue background color appear.
    >
    > In IE "Description" always shows as navy text on white. In Firefox
    > "Description" is underlined when you hover. I use that construct for
    > titles, sub-headers separating logical groups. The underlining suggests to
    > the user that he can click on the title to go somewhere.


    Perhaps you need: text-decoration: none; in your hover style? I'm
    about to leave the house, so don't have time for a deeper dig.

    > The Firefox behavior annoys me. You can say it doesn't matter but that's
    > only that it doesn't matter for you :)


    Then change it. S'far as I know, IE and all the rest treat an <a> hover
    the same.

    > Therefore I use this rather ugly construct instead:
    > <a name="some_name"></a>Description


    ...and nothing to click on.

    >> ... Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in the
    >> source, ...

    >
    > Then I have "lucked out" as most of my pages have the menu after the
    > content merely because it was easier to work on the content with the
    > menu below. However the rental site does not. I'll change it.


    Really easy where there aren't table cells to deal with... <g>

    > If you are curious, the other, non rental pages are all listed in the
    > site map:
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/sitemap.htm


    Yep, already saw that, though didn't delve too far.

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian Birtle
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,992
    John Saunders
    Oct 16, 2003
  2. Owen Mortensen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    3,126
    Owen Mortensen
    Mar 13, 2006
  3. e n | c k m a

    HTML Strict Help Please!

    e n | c k m a, Jul 22, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    368
    e n | c k m a
    Jul 22, 2003
  4. Brendan

    Need help with strict XHTML

    Brendan, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    388
    Brendan
    Nov 3, 2003
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    329
Loading...

Share This Page