[And]

I'm just after a bit of constructive criticism on the layout really. This is my fourth attempt in the last couple of weeks, and I do like it more than the others - so I thought I'd throw it open to the wolves.

I'm doing two versions at the moment, one using normal XHTML/CSS and another in XML/XSLT as a bit of practise. I'm going to be trying out a new blogging tool that's being written currently (by the same fella who wrote the webmail tool that BT use) once that's done and tested, it will be totally dynamic content wise - RSS heaven in fact .

Anyway, it's here:

http://andy.kk.users.btopenworld.com/index.htm

[andrewparker]

It doesn't validate for starters. No major problems - remember to close your tags!

[code:1:8c3936d818]<p>There isn't any yet, it's as much as I can do to write a couple of lines let
alone four pages of content. Though saying that, I've decide to blog - much
more managable and organised, and much easier to write for.
<h2>What's with those silly little pictures?</h2>[/code:1:8c3936d818]

The first <p> tag isn't closed. This happens a few times.

Check out errors here

Oh, and it's probably best to name your files with the .html extension, not .htm

[tomson]

It looks terrible on a mac running os9 - the content is all over the shop :cry:

[andrewparker]

If you're running it in a standards compliant browser it should be fine as the CSS validates. What browser are you using?

[oli]

[quote:c159a0b04e]best to name your files with the .html extension, not .htm[/quote:c159a0b04e] whys that andrew ?

[dan]

Mac OS X, looks poo in Internet Exploder... and a-ok in Opera, Safari and Nutscrape, same as usual then

[tomson]

explorer 5.1.4

[And]

[quote:4ef45e5fb9="andrewparker"]It doesn't validate for starters. No major problems - remember to close your tags!
[/quote:4ef45e5fb9]

Well spotted Andrew, I did validate it straight after I posted this thread, fixed that one anyway.

ops:

[And]

[quote:ca440defa5="dan"]Mac OS X, looks poo in Internet Exploder... and a-ok in Opera, Safari and Nutscrape, same as usual then [/quote:ca440defa5]

thanks for looking dan & tomson

I'm going to try and sort that when I do the Netscape 4 style sheet.

You wouldn't be able to post a small screen shot would you? I won't have access to a Mac until late next week (although I don't think it runs explorer anyhow)

[dan]

here's a shot on Mac OS 10.2 using Safari 1.0 Beta 2 (v73), Opera 6 displays the same

[img:7378ca4307]http://www.danedgar.co.uk/extras/akkOSxSafari.jpg[/img:7378ca4307]

here's a shot on Mac OS 10.2 using IE 5.2.2

[img:7378ca4307]http://www.danedgar.co.uk/extras/akkOSxIE.jpg[/img:7378ca4307]

I can give you higher quality screen shots if you'd like but I've tried to keep the size down

[And]

Cheers for that, I very much appreciate it, I've changed a couple of things with the text alignment to see if that works. If you would be so kind...

[Stickman]

[quote:f40f67fee9="oli"][quote:f40f67fee9]best to name your files with the .html extension, not .htm[/quote:f40f67fee9] whys that andrew ?[/quote:f40f67fee9]Its to do with the old 8.3 file-naming rule; 8 characters for the filename and 3 characters for the filetype.
Some older servers couldn't handle files ending with .html, .shtml etc as these broke that rule, but that was a while back and I don't think this applies anymore.
Still, .htm is just easier isn't it? Then you don't have to worry anyway and all your little files look all neat and tidy.

[dan]

Nope still the same wouldn't worry about it too much though... dumb ass IE

[oli]

[quote:d44bc7d664]Its to do with the old 8.3 file-naming rule[/quote:d44bc7d664] I knew that, I always use .htm - just wondering why .html is better?

[Stickman]

ops: Sorry - I read it the other way around (as though you were asking why we should use .htm instead of .html).

Right, erm... so Andrew, why is .html better than .htm then, eh?

[And]

I thought the same as you Stickman, compatibillity with old Windows servers is the reason why I'd use it, although I don't think it makes much difference now.


I much appreciate your help everyone regarding the web page, I'll leave the mac i.e. problems alone for the time being (at least until I've done the Nav 4 version)

Anymore comments on the layout would be welcome though

And

[andrewparker]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that one way was better than the other. I used to work on both a PC and a Mac. By default Dreamweaver saves files as .htm on a PC and .html on a Mac. I often encountered problems when working on sites where I had used both systems to build them. What I really meant was to standardize your extensions which I'm sure And has.

[andrewparker]

You've got two random </a> tags here -

[code:1:14fbef753f]
<p> <img
src="images/xhtml_valid.gif"
alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="15" width="80" /></a> </p>
[/code:1:14fbef753f]

and here:

[code:1:14fbef753f]
<p> <img
src="images/css_valid.gif"
alt="Valid CSS!" width="80" height="15"/>
</a> </p>
[/code:1:14fbef753f]

Remove them and your page will validate like it says it does......

[And]

Cheers Andrew, I've sorted that one aswell - I got a bit carried away with the delete key when I uploaded that page