 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what
>> they mean.
>
> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so
> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic
information. Not good...
Oh well, the page validates now.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevision com> wrote:
> Them: Don't use tables for layout purposes!
From the dawn of the WWW "they" have punctuated that HTML should not
be used for layout, only for content, that the layout should be separated
from the content. One argument which has always been given is that you
don't know the screen size of the user, and that some users might want
to view the page in a small hand-held device.
"They" were right. Hand-held devices capable of viewing web pages are
becoming more and more popular every day (cellphones, handheld game
consoles...) and people are browsing the WWW with them more and more
(and suffering from all those "this site requires at least a 800x600
resolution" sites).
People are still not paying attention. They still tell themselves that
nobody *really* browses the internet with a cellphone.
(What I find puzzling is that "they" preached separation of content
and layout from the dawn of the WWW, yet "they" hate CSS, which is exactly
what they wanted: Total separation of content and layout. I never really
understood why. It's exactly what they wanted. But no.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> One argument which has always been given is that you
> don't know the screen size of the user, and that some users might want
> to view the page in a small hand-held device.
My site is about high resolution 3D graphics and multimedia applications
mainly. It makes no sense to target hand-held devices, or blind people for
that matter in this case. Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which I
*know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.
Turns out lots of other people want their sites to look good too. Sure, many
avoid tables and style markup directly in the content, but they still use
loads of nested divs which have no purpose other than helping control the
look. What I'm saying is that I don't see how using tables is worse that
using all those leyout-specific nested divs.
> (What I find puzzling is that "they" preached separation of content
> and layout from the dawn of the WWW, yet "they" hate CSS
Who does that? I find that most people love CSS, including me... I just take
certain liberties, that's all, but I still would hate to design a site again
without the aid of CSS.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My site is about high resolution 3D graphics and multimedia applications
> mainly. It makes no sense to target hand-held devices, or blind people for
> that matter in this case. Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which
> I *know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.
And even if you do have a site that could be used by mobile devices, you
usually make a site dedicated for that device. I use mobile.msn.com (or
whatever it is) all the time on my phone to check my hotmail - it would be
totally absurd if it had all the same content as the main hotmail site, no
matter what layout was used.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which I
> *know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.
And you use a fixed-width layout?
Your website is around half the width of my screen resolution, leaving a
lot of wasted space on the sides. Enlarging the fonts breaks the layout
quite a bit, since your rounded boxes specify sizes in pixels instead of
ems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so
>> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
>
> Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic
> information. Not good...
No, you have to invert it; move the link *inside* the heading.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Enlarging the fonts breaks the layout
Enlarging *just* the fonts breaks pretty much anything. Try using a browser
that scales the whole page properly, it looks nice at 200% here and fills my
monitor perfectly!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>>> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so
>>> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
>>
>> Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic
>> information. Not good...
>
> No, you have to invert it; move the link *inside* the heading.
That would break the hover-effekt.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> That would break the hover-effekt.
Are you using the :hover pseudo-class? AFAIK it can be used on any
element (like the whole rounded box), not only a link.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:24:15 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom>
did spake, saying:
> Just an update:
>
> Transparent PNGs with drop shadows (and antialiasing) are now used and
> even
> work in IE 6. I also changed the background.
> http://runevision.com/temp/new_design_test.htm
Be aware of some of the flaws in AlphaImageLoader that may still be
lurking around. Memory hits, links not working when positioned over some
images, can't be treated like a background image, obviously won't
validate. Doesn't look like you've got any of these problems from my first
glance (bar css validation), but if something goes screwy in IE around one
of these it'd be the first thing I'd look at.
Oh BTW like the lined background, which scrolls smoothly TYVM.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
