Version 2.0 online

[Richard]

www.somestuff.batcave.net

Working the way I want it to finally.
Outside of no alt tags, and the errors generated by the host script, it
validates.
Works only with JS turned on for now.

 

[Oli Filth]

www.somestuff.batcave.net

Working the way I want it to finally.
Outside of no alt tags, and the errors generated by the host script, it
validates.

You could fix all these errors in about two minutes, and then you could
actually truthfully say that your page validates for once.

Works only with JS turned on for now.

For a very strange definition of "works". "automobiles" shows a plane,
and only "planes" and "trains" work. Even then, the menu highlighting
doesn't reflect what's actually selected. And the "planes" text changes
size when you hover over it, causing oscillation in IE, and the whole
menu to jump about in FF.

 

[Richard]

You could fix all these errors in about two minutes, and then you could
actually truthfully say that your page validates for once.

I am not about to touch the code generated by the host.
The alt tags will eventually be put in.

For a very strange definition of "works". "automobiles" shows a plane,
and only "planes" and "trains" work.

Yep. That is what I have at the moment.

Even then, the menu highlighting
doesn't reflect what's actually selected. And the "planes" text changes
size when you hover over it, causing oscillation in IE, and the whole
menu to jump about in FF.

I checked in both IE and FF and see no oscillations as you describe.
And there is no "jumping about" in FF either.
Nice bashing job.

 

[Oli Filth]

I am not about to touch the code generated by the host.
The alt tags will eventually be put in.

It's not the host code. It's the counter code.

I checked in both IE and FF and see no oscillations as you describe.
And there is no "jumping about" in FF either.

In Firefox, the "Planes" text changes font (from Verdana to Arial, I
believe) as you move the mouse over it, so it changes height, so the
rest of the menu below it moves down by a couple of pixels, and back up
when you take the mouse off.

In IE, it's possible to place the mouse pointer at a certain point over
the "Planes" text so that when the font changes and the letters get
narrower, the mouse is no longer over the text at all, so it reverts
back to the original font and gets wider again, so it's under the mouse
again, so it gets narrower, and so on. An oscillation.

Nice bashing job.

If you don't want "bashing", then don't post weekly progress on a
half-arsed attempt at a website on an HTML newsgroup. Criticism can be
constructive, you know.

 

[Richard]

It's not the host code. It's the counter code.

In Firefox, the "Planes" text changes font (from Verdana to Arial, I
believe) as you move the mouse over it, so it changes height, so the
rest of the menu below it moves down by a couple of pixels, and back up
when you take the mouse off.

In IE, it's possible to place the mouse pointer at a certain point over
the "Planes" text so that when the font changes and the letters get
narrower, the mouse is no longer over the text at all, so it reverts
back to the original font and gets wider again, so it's under the mouse
again, so it gets narrower, and so on. An oscillation.

Minor nuisance corrected in the style sheet.

If you don't want "bashing", then don't post weekly progress on a
half-arsed attempt at a website on an HTML newsgroup. Criticism can be
constructive, you know.

There is criticism, and there is bashing.
When someone comes in looking for help about tables, you guys love to bash
them around.
Note the group name, alt.html. If the subject has to do with html, then you
should not be bashing somebody because you don't like what they're doing.

 

[Michael Winter]

Richard wrote:

[snip]

Please learn to trim quoted material.

When someone comes in looking for help about tables, you guys love
to bash them around.

I think in this case, I can safely say of behalf of everyone[1] that
nobody would "bash" a poster if they ask for help with regard to tables.

Now firmly back to my own opinion...

However, if they state (or imply) that they're using a table to lay
out a document when there is no need to (probably 99% of cases), they
will be *advised* that that is not what tables should be used to do
and they should learn how to apply CSS to achieve the same effect.

If the subject has to do with html, then you should not be bashing
somebody because you don't like what they're doing.

If they are using HTML incorrectly, they should expect to be told so.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but Usenet is a
place for discussion. It is not a help desk. Moreover, being told
something one might not want to read might actually be more help that
it first appears.

By the way, your CSS doesn't validate (namely a colour value without
the preceding hash [#]). You also use points to define text size and
specify Verdana as a preferred font family.

Mike


[1] I know that isn't usually a good thing to do, but I can't imagine
why any reasonable person would want to object, effectively saying
that they would purposefully /attack/ a poster for element abuse. Well
if so, I apologise for thinking better of you.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Richard scribbled in the mud:

I am not about to touch the code generated by the host.
The alt tags will eventually be put in.

Validates for me.
http://tinyurl.com/3qenb

 

[ghoulxr]

Minor nuisance corrected in the style sheet.





There is criticism, and there is bashing.
When someone comes in looking for help about tables, you guys love to bash
them around.
Note the group name, alt.html. If the subject has to do with html, then
you should not be bashing somebody because you don't like what they're
doing.

how about bashing pedophiles. Do the regulars in this group like taking
bullshit advice froma known pedo scumbag?