StOo wrote:
> please, point me in the right direction then :)
>
Sorry, I meant to mention other places you can consult.
There are definitely web design newsgroups, I just don't
participate in any of them to recommend any. However, I am
on the webdesign-L mailing list, which is actively occupied
by an array of different people on various levels. Info on
how to join is here:
http://www.webdesign-l.com/
> technically, yeah i am. not violationg the validator tho which is kinda what
> i was using as my yardstick.
>
The W3C Validator can only check for syntax errors, while
the W3C specs specify both syntax rules and concepts. It
can't check for HTML abuse.
> i didn't think of that.. the strict doctype probably changes a lot of the
> rendering techniques. heh.. maybe i'll switch back :)
>
Yes, browsers are suppose to interpret pages differently
depending on doctype.
> 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 :)
>
blaaah, nesting tables pass 2 levels is pure concentrated
evil :)
Seriously, since you already use a good amount of CSS, you
can take a few steps more and use some DIV tags and stylize
them with CSS to replace many of your next tables.
> they annoy me tho. :)
>
Well complain to the guy who wrote the W3C's CSS validator,
they are not CSS violations.
> 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!
>
hehe, maybe I need a cure too since I didn't realize the
mistake until the second time I read your email.
--
Alex <:3)~~
http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/
