Does this site use some kind of image replacement/substitution technique
for the headers?
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help:
PROTECTED] De la part de kevin mcmonagle
Envoyé : mercredi 28 mars 2007 14:04
À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Objet : Re: [WSG] New Yorker Redesign
Does this site use some kind of image replacement/substitution technique
for the headers
Speaking of redesigns, http://www.newyorker.com/ is looking very nice
these days. Not a table in sight.
It doesn't quite validate due to some (presumably back-end-error)
weirdness:
misc:exposeBean var=platform bean=platform/
but other than that it looks like a good standards-based website.
misc:exposeBean var=platform bean=platform/
Never a good look to expose your beans in public...
Apart from that it seems to be just url encoding issues - great to see more and
more large sites moving to standards based code
Paul
direction.
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com
- Original Message -
From: John Horner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:58 PM
Subject: [WSG] New Yorker Redesign
Speaking of redesigns, http://www.newyorker.com/ is looking very nice
these days
John Horner wrote:
Speaking of redesigns, http://www.newyorker.com/ is looking very nice
these days. Not a table in sight.
but other than that it looks like a good standards-based website.
Yes, well, sort of...still the need (for me) to go through the drill of
ignoring their
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Nice site. Looks like 1204x768 is becoming the new 800x600, but it's
something that is probably ahead of its time. Especially since two members
I work at a newspaper... we are heading that direction for our next site
design iteration Content area will
Yeah the new web design at my australian government place is also currently
involved in a redesign and it is made for a 1024 screen (funny seeing the web
managers still use 800)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 28/03/2007 10:43 am
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Nice site. Looks like 1204x768 is becoming
