24 replies [Last post]
Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

I have http://uruviel.com/public/semi-sites/toneelgroep-morgana1/ in the make as an assignment. I think the code is good except for the _height hacks . But I'd like to be sure.

Also I have this site which is now about a year old, it is in Dutch.
The CSS could get a major redo but I'm to lazy for that, if somebody has some quick fixes I'd like to hear them Smile
http://www.uruviel.com

Thanks

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
Guru

Re: New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Uruviel wrote:
I have http://uruviel.com/public/semi-sites/toneelgroep-morgana1/ in the make as an assignment.
Good job, but it is CREEPY. Smile

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 8 years 17 weeks ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

One thing I'd say about your new one is that I think it'd look more balanced if you had a similar margin and border at the bottom as you do at the top. Otherwise, looks good.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 8 years 4 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Now thats a new one on me no html tag, no body tag and no errors from html-tidy Shock

Must tell us how you achieved that.

Quite nice looking pages though.

Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

mindsoul
mindsoul's picture
Offline
Regular
italy
Last seen: 17 years 41 weeks ago
italy
Joined: 2005-04-26
Posts: 18
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

white text on black background it's very dificult to read.

choose some decent contrast, just think that the peaple are used to read black text on a white background.

Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Hugo wrote:
Now thats a new one on me no html tag, no body tag and no errors from html-tidy Shock

Must tell us how you achieved that.

Quite nice looking pages though.

Hugo.

The magic of SGML my friend ... the magic.
The w3c actually says that they are optional, the browser adds them to the DOM anyway. Same goes for not closing p elements. Saves a bit of bandwidth and confuses people. I like that Tongue

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 9 years 28 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

mindsoul wrote:
white text on black background it's very dificult to read. choose some decent contrast, just think that the peaple are used to read black text on a white background.

White on black is okay to read and has as much contrast as you can get, but I don't think that Trebuchet at the particular font size that I am seeing it at is easy to read at all. Verdana is very comfortable to read on the web (it was designed for the purpose) so perhaps you should consider using that face.

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 9 years 28 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Uruviel wrote:
The w3c actually says that they are optional, the browser adds them to the DOM anyway. Same goes for not closing p elements. Saves a bit of bandwidth and confuses people. I like that Tongue

This is indeed the case for HTML (I've just checked as this was a new one on me too), but not for XHTML which requires <html> <head> <title> and <body> tags to be used in the correct formation. XHTML also requires all tags to be closed. Given that we nearly all serve our XHTML pages as html/text without the xml prolog to keep IE happy, I don't think that most of us can kid ourselves that our pages are 100% standards compliant with the X(HT)ML ideals, but at least we do our best - that's my excuse anyway Laughing out loud

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 8 years 4 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Hmm, not magic really my friend, might work with DTD with no definition and may be in strict mode granted but doesn't work with definition and full URL. Can't see the point in confusing matters myself as for bandwidth saving neither here nor there really.

Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 41 weeks 2 days ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9683
Points: 819

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Shock Shock Shock

Good job; however, when the text is resized, the navbar encroaches on the main text.

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

antibland
antibland's picture
Offline
Leader
Pittsburgh
Last seen: 14 years 4 weeks ago
Pittsburgh
Joined: 2005-01-17
Posts: 603
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Uruviel,

You may want to cache the list images in your main nav. Even at broadband speeds, I'm getting a lag when mousing over a menu item for the very first time. I had a similar problem with my site and used a bit of JavaScript to cache the image. The problem seems to have gotten up and wandered away. In case you need it...

img1 = new Image();
img1.src = "/i/img.gif";
img2 = new Image();
img2.src = "/i/img_over_state.gif";

- Antibland

Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Hugo wrote:
Hmm, not magic really my friend, might work with DTD with no definition and may be in strict mode granted but doesn't work with definition and full URL. Can't see the point in confusing matters myself as for bandwidth saving neither here nor there really.

Hugo.

Could you clairify? the DTD refference in the doctype is utterly useless so I removed it. But trust me it works fine, and validates, perfectly with it. If that is what you meant. But I didn't really get what you meant...

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 9 years 28 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Leaving the URL out of an HTML 4.01 Strict doctype throws Mac_IE into quirks mode. Mac users that have chosen to stick with OS9 may well still be using IE5. See > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype

I don't want to get into a deep argument here because I'm not an expert in this field, but if you start leaving out doctype URLs and tags like <html> <head> and <body>, most people looking at your code will just assume that you're a complete novice, even if you're not, and even if you know your subject better than most. You call it having fun confusing people; I call it risking not being taken seriously by your peers and clients (if you sell websites). Just my opinion Smile

[Edit] ...have you looked at your site in Mac_IE by the way? Wink

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 41 weeks 2 days ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9683
Points: 819

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Just because it validates, doesn't mean it works.

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

roytheboy wrote:

[Edit] ...have you looked at your site in Mac_IE by the way? Wink

Yes but I also looked at the number of people still using Mac_IE ... if you see my point. There are many good alternatives for Mac IE even if you're on G3 or perhaps even an older machine. So I'm sorry about the few users who still use a 7-8 year old browser. But I ain't gonna put my time in those users.

thepineapplehead wrote:
Just because it validates, doesn't mean it works.

What will not work? I can access the elements that are not present in the markup, like the head, via the DOM so I can apply behavior.
And I can even style them with CSS. I don't see what will not work.
The DTD in the doctype is useless. And I even believe that the [del]WASP[/del]WHAT decided that HTML5 won't even have one.
Remember that HTML is an SGML language not an XML language like XHTML. I don't think that DTD's have any use in a SGML language.

roytheboy wrote:
most people looking at your code will just assume that you're a complete novice, even if you're not, and even if you know your subject better than most

Well most people should learn about what they are using as a language. If some novice thinks that he's using XHTML because he has a XHTML doctype then he's wrong. And perhaps people will think I'm a novice or am using incorect markup. Well I don't and they can look at it the way they want. If someone buys a website I'll follow the three-legged school (seperate Markup, Style and Behaviour) and use semantic markup(Although you can get in to philosophical debates of the semantics of the head an body element ) . That's more then I can say from most webdevelopers. I don't think that what I'm doing is wrong. I've used XHTML (well you'll never be able to use XHTML since IE doesn't understand the application/xhtml+xml mime) and I didn't see any advantage (I tried XForms and SVG... both were not significant enough to make the change to XHTML).

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 41 weeks 2 days ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9683
Points: 819

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Quote:
The DTD in the doctype is useless. And I even believe that the WASP decided that HTML5 won't even have one.
Remember that HTML is an SGML language not an XML language like XHTML. I don't think that DTD's have any use in a SGML language.

Stop being so naive; we hark on about the DTD for a reason, you know.

If it's not there, IE displays in Quirks Mode. End of story.

HTML5? What?

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

thepineapplehead wrote:

Stop being so naive; we hark on about the DTD for a reason, you know.

If it's not there, IE displays in Quirks Mode. End of story.

HTML5? What?

IE Mac displays it in Quirks. IE6 and 5(?) win still display it in standards mode.

HTML 5 (Or Web Applications as it is called currently) can be found here, still in draft just like CSS3 and XHTML2.0.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
Some info about it can be found here: http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/04/html5
I am not naive, just experimental and I haven't really heared any stunning arguments
against what I do yet.
The truth is that the need of a DTD in a webpage (not talking XML here) is based on nothing. We've grown used to it. But in fact no browser today has a DTD parser(in SGML rendering mode, no it is not even a real SGML parser since non excist today). The browser looks at the declaration and thinks 'hmm that's cool lets call that piece of code for rendering now' but it does not read the DTD.
So you might as well not use it. Since the doctype still trigers standard mode for the major browsers

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 8 years 4 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

I don't disagree with you that your document is valid and switches browsers into standards mode as it does all these things, there is no need for the url identifier and definition except if you wish your document to validate against a strict dtd for instance.

You sound as though you follow the Anne Vankesteren school of thought that a Doctype in html documents is only useful for switching browsers to standards mode rendering and there is a certain amount of truth in that.

Nonetheless my objection is to confusing matters in an already confused area, we have enough trouble getting across the importance of rendering in standards mode and of validating work, so leaving out things such as html and body tags can just cause further confusion for people for what I see as no good reason.

That all said you do clearly know your stuff.

TPH, Ureveil is far from naive he understands this complicated area pretty well, perhaps better than most of us. His Doctype does put IE into Standards Mode, he is arguing against the need for the definition and url , the DTD; not against the use of a Doctype be it public or system.

Hugo.

Edit: ah just seen your post above this one I was right then you are a devotee of the Anne Vankesteren school of thought , which is fair enough but I do find that he takes things a little too literally at times, but it's interesting reading, but not the whole story.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 9 years 28 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Uruviel - I am pleased that you joined this forum and I am pleased that you started this thread as you clearly know a lot about particular subjects. I want to make that clear so that you understand that I am after discussion, not argument. I learn a lot through this forum and in this case I have learnt a few things about HTML that I didn't know before, even though I only now code in XHTML so it matters little to me.

Yes, I know about mime types and IE's lack of an XHTML parser, and the fact that most servers serve up html/text regardless of the meta tags in the head (if you use one) etc. - the fact that we are not actually serving up XHTML is a regular topic of conversation within this forum. I think most of us that code in XHTML (or not) work as closely as we can to the XHTML ideals so that we are as ready as we can be for future trends and standards. But I'd still be interested to hear your views on the way we should be coding and why. Are you suggesting that we should be sticking with HTML instead of crossing over to XHTML?

I accept that you can code your pages how you like, but I stand by my comments about how your work will be perceived by others.

I feel that you are wrong to ignore Mac_IE5 as my stats show a usage of about 1.5% (regardless of the number of alternatives which the vast majority of web users don't have a clue about) and in my opinion that's enough to warrant the time it takes to add a full doctype and a few extra tags.

I'm interested in your views because you think differently. What I want to do is to find out if you're sailing into the wind and certain disaster, or into the wind because it's the best route to take.

[edit] oops, cross-posted with above three posts (I must have missed the new page :roll: )

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 16 years 25 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

That's torn it. Crying

I regret I missed the start of this topic and I have to say that I am going through a major rewrite of a large (cross- browser but Mac not required ) site that was originally very much akin to SGML, although I may have slipped up and closed an element here and there.

I thought I had seen the light in another forum and started along the XHTML1.1 (fiddle with mimetype route), only to be brought back to reality by the very many erudite, honest, sincerely held albeit extremely forceful (I will brook no contradiction-type) opinions of some people on this forum.

Now before I scrap something I've been working on for quite some time and let the present site stand as a validating (yet no url Shock ) entity, I wonder if you could find the time to help me understand just how future proof it may be.

<aside>I would also be interested to know Uruviel (elf maid of the Galadhrim) why you asked for a site check on this particular forum because your CSS seems to be not far short of... um... immaculate a n d because of your pedigree in CSS and all things webby http://uruviel.stumbleupon.com/about/ Wink </aside>

Many thanks
Lorraine

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 9 years 28 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Lorraine - I don't think that HTML in any form represents the short- or long-term future of the web. Nor do I feel that XML and XSL is the way to go as it is just too much like hard work for anything other than specialist projects with complex data handling requirements.

I feel that XHTML provides the right balance of forced strictness and ease-of-use, and I feel that it is the main way that things are going to go in the near-future. I don't like any language that is too loose and forgiving (HTML 5 included) as I feel that this will encourage people to be sloppy in their work, which will then exasperate the problem of poor coding and everything that comes with that to blight the web.

XHTML is a strict markup language that has plenty of room for growth, so I feel that we should all be pulling together behind it and pray that M$ decide to fully support it in IE7. And that is what I think is going to happen, so that is why I am 'going with the flow' in this direction, regardless of the fact that my work is still being handled by browsers as HTML.

Having said all that, I recognise that I know very little of depth about the issues, and that others do, so I am happy for people to shoot me down or show support, as they see fit. I welcome the opinions of people like Uruviel and Hugo as they seem to know far more about the subject than I do.

At the end of the day, I try to 'read' what's likely to happen in the future and gear up for it now. That way I can stay ahead of the game and not get caught with my trousers down so to speak.

Fire away people - through discussion will come clarity and wisdom Smile

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 16 years 25 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

roytheboy wrote:
show support, as they see fit

I support.

I have put a lot of resources into following your and Hugo's advice but I did ask the OP for some assurance/information about future-proofing before holding fire. A second or even third opinion, if you will.

Maybe my post was too obtuse... read between the lines. Where, in this thread asking for a site check, has the original poster replied to anything other than the (x)html confusion? What about text resizing, or any of the usual site check comments? Zilch! What if Hugo had not noticed the absence of URL etc? Would that have spoiled the fun?

Uruviel, please prove me wrong. I'd hate to think all this time had been wasted.
EDIT for typo

drhowarddrfine
Offline
Leader
Last seen: 13 years 10 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2005-05-21
Posts: 764
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

I don't recall Wasp being anything other than a support group. The WHAT group just splintered off the W3C group but isn't any "official" standards group. I wouldn't consider HTML5 anything but someone's wish list, or maybe even "grump" list.

IE7 is 10 years behind the standards or wrong.
But it works in IE!
IE is a cancer on the web -- Paul Thurott

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 8 years 4 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Lorraine wrote:
had not noticed the absence of URL etc? Would that have spoiled the fun?


The point of my first post Lorraine. I was interested to see if the thread would go in the direction that I suspected was the original intent.

As for second or third opinions well they will follow the thoughts of Anne van Kesteren, as this is the reference that the poster is largely quoting from, and who does have some interesting views on weighty subjects, but for my money is far too polemical for his own good with sweeping statements such as Doctype is no use other than to switch browsers into standards mode.

For all the very interesting commentary on his site it's tends to be overly theoretical at times.

Maybe the issue of Doctypes and DTD's still needs further debate, I feel as though we have covered it in some detail in one or two threads recently and had laid the beast to rest.

It may be a useful exercise to locate all the topics on the subject here and copy and condense them into one new thread and start the debate over afresh ?

Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

Uruviel
Offline
newbie
the Netherlands
Last seen: 17 years 30 weeks ago
the Netherlands
Joined: 2005-07-11
Posts: 7
Points: 0

New site and quite old site to be reviewed

Lorraine wrote:

Uruviel, please prove me wrong. I'd hate to think all this time had been wasted.

Well if you check the uri of the in development version of the website I'm currently making (http://uruviel.com/public/semi-sites/toneelgroep-morgana1/) You'll see that I changed the font and somewhat sorted out the resizing problems (i have a complete fix but it breaks a couple of other things) as mentioned here on the forum. I also preloaded the hover image of the bullet as mentioned here (and changed major parts of the code to draw the bullet). So to address your concerns I most certainly did something with the comments here. Just in a more silent way then I did with the discussion about the markup. Yet I want to talk the people who gave me those tips since I'm far from a perfect designer.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
I don't recall Wasp being anything other than a support group. The WHAT group just splintered off the W3C group but isn't any "official" standards group. I wouldn't consider HTML5 anything but someone's wish list, or maybe even "grump" list.

That is correct on most parts. But I do see future in HTML5(Web applications) since major players like Apple and Mozilla already give support to their ideas- or the other way around Wink - think of the canvas element.
I always have the feeling that people believe that the w3c is some holy group. But we are still talking companies here (I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft adds XAML to the w3c list). And what really matters browser implementation (as happend with the marquee and blink elements) or the fact that its acnowledged as a standard?
The moment major browser players will implement Web Application or Web Forms and people start using it the w3c is no longer in any position to say 'hey guys it's not valid!'. Anyway HTML5 is on my whislist (although I really like the new semantics of XHTML5 better then those of HTML5 <nav> VS. <section role="navigation" /> and the <nl> element) even if if it will never see daylight.

To answer the concerns of a couple of people about the future proofness of HTML (and with that my obscure code).
I'll start of with perhap a litle joke, if still so many people put time in making their site IE mac compatible I'm sure that most browser vendors would not throw away years and years of experience with HTML parsing and I assume that all the major browser will support HTML for a very long time.

But there are 'risks' with using HTML. One of the major things is that XHTML has the ability to add other XML languages to it's markup; Like SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics). New XML languages for all kinds of things are in full development. Right now none really are used by people, except for some enthousiasts. But should such XML language ever take off then HTML lacks the ability to implement it in a correct way. Note that XForms (one of a couple of standards supposed to replace the current HTML forms) is also unsupported by HTML and I see great future in XForms since it would need much less scripting and would be perfect for having an XML back-end.
HTML has a future, but perhaps not as rich as that of XHTML.
But also take in mind that XHTML was never designed to replace HTML.

I do feel to point out one more thing before I end this post. XML and the web: RSS and Atom. We all have seen what XML language can do it gave us Feeds. But that was not because XML was a more stricter language. Most feeds don't even validate (mostly due to incorrect entities) so even a true xml language like RSS and Atom (which usually - and hopefully - are spitted out by a database) do not validate. What are the chances then that some HTML derived language like XHTML will be used in the strict way it was intended?
XML is used because it allows you to create your own markup language. And the draconian error handeling is just something forgotten by developers (not by the designers of the standards ofcourse, hence the DTD). XML is great for databases or information storage but not for anything the end user will actually see. Just because of the lazyness of developers.

(It is ok to move all unrelated to my first post to another topic, and even start over. Yet I think that most things have been said here)

[edit]Indeed I follow some of Anne his ideas. But calling me a devotee is perhaps a bit too much. It is no blind religion or something in that order; his ideas make sense and I agree with the better part of them. Yet still think for myself[/edit]