> BTW, this isn't a Netscape 6 newsgroup, although kinda close
> since Netscape 6 is based on Mozilla, and this is a Mozilla
> newsgroup. However, this place isn't for web
> developers/designers either, unless you uncover a layout
> bug, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
please, point me in the right direction then :)
> First of all, you're using a strict HTML doctype but you
> have tables nested like crazy. You can't use tables for
> layout with the strict doctype, you can only use CSS for
> that. If you want to continue using tables for layout, use
> the transitional/loose doctype if you want to continue using
> tables for layout. Tables are suppose to be used to present
> data in a tabular format, and this is enforced with the
> strict doctype, so you're already breaking standards
technically, yeah i am. not violationg the validator tho which is kinda what
i was using as my yardstick.
> Switching to the transitional/loose doctype seems to cause
> your page to render as you like in Mozilla.
i didn't think of that.. the strict doctype probably changes a lot of the
rendering techniques. heh.. maybe i'll switch back :)
> If you want the webmail login table centered, use a DIV tag
> and assign the CSS to center it from there. The DIV tag will
> treat the table as an inline element instead of a block
> element, since text-align only affects inline stuff (this is
> something that IE5 interprets incorrectly).
ahhhhh. thanks for explaining that.
> This has nothing to do what you asked for but I can't help
> but notice these things:
>
> You have a hell of a lot of tables nested into each other,
> which is putting a lot of bloat and complexity to your page
> that I think could be trimmed down.
bah.. nested tables are the way forward ;)
yeah i know, i like nesting tables. it's probably a bad habit but it's one i
find hard to break..
i *would* do a complete redesign geared towards standards compliance but
until i get my new CPU next week my only ASP server is my host and i hate
having to upload to see changes.. developing a whole site like that would be
a nightmare. also it takes time and effort and i'm lazy :)
> You use "background-color: transparent" all over the place.
> I know that the W3C's CSS validator mentions this as a
> "warning," but it isn't necessary since by default they are
> transparent. "Warnings" are not violations in CSS compliance.
they annoy me tho. :)
> You also have a lot of styles that are repeated all over
> your HTML that could be assigned as classes, this would trim
> down a lot on your file.
i was going to get round to that.. i know all the links have the same style
and it should be classed but i just hadn't brought myself to do the search
and replace yet.. i was hoping to get the other stuff sorted first. :)
> ROFL, did you realize that you spelled "Oprah" when you
> meant "Opera"? Or did the talkshow queen decided to break
> into the browser business recently? ;)
>
> --
> Alex <:3)~~
> http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/
lolol.. damn.. i need to watch less TV.. or buy a dictionary.. or even read
the Opera icon on my desktop.. one of the three is the cure!
stoo..
