Help Request about 4.01 Strict

Ed Mulroy · Jun 8, 2006

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

Chaddy2222 · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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.

Jonathan N. Little · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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.

Martin Jay · Jun 8, 2006

Ed Mulroy said:
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:

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

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

Benjamin Niemann · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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.

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.

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.

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

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

Alan J. Flavell · Jun 8, 2006

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

... 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 · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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.

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...).

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...

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

Ed Mulroy · Jun 8, 2006

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Beauregard T. Shagnasty · Jun 8, 2006

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 said:
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.

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.

Martin Jay · Jun 8, 2006

..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.

Ed Mulroy · Jun 8, 2006

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

Beauregard T. Shagnasty · Jun 8, 2006

Martin said:
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...

Benjamin Niemann · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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

)

dorayme · Jun 8, 2006

Ed Mulroy said:
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.

Ed Mulroy · Jun 8, 2006

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

Ed Mulroy · Jun 8, 2006

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

Beauregard T. Shagnasty · Jun 8, 2006

Ed said:
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.

[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

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

...and nothing to click on.

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... said:
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.

Help with code	0	Jun 12, 2022
4.01 strict weirdness	5	Dec 29, 2010
Help with Visual Lightbox: Scripts	2	May 3, 2023
Help with my responsive home page	2	Dec 14, 2022
<map> and Strict 4.01	7	Dec 28, 2006
Image not filling a table table (html4 strict)	21	Aug 11, 2008
CSS for HTML 4.01 Strict	9	Dec 15, 2004
Form in Html 4.01 strict and CSS	55	Jan 24, 2004

Help Request about 4.01 Strict

Ed Mulroy

Chaddy2222

Jonathan N. Little

Martin Jay

Ed Mulroy

Benjamin Niemann

Ed Mulroy

Alan J. Flavell

Ed Mulroy

Benjamin Niemann

Ed Mulroy

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Martin Jay

Ed Mulroy

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Benjamin Niemann

dorayme

Ed Mulroy

Ed Mulroy

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads