|
|
Posted by G.T. on 02/17/07 08:20
Eric Lindsay wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C1FB2C9D002873E9B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:04:48 -0600, Eric Lindsay wrote (in article
>> <NOwebmasterSPAM-2D3A82.23044816022007@freenews.iinet.net.au>):
>>
>>> Unacceptable product. Web site uses transitional HTML instead of Strict.
>>> Uses tables for layout of a non-table text. Getting the code to validate
>>> is one thing. Getting it to be acceptable is another. Can you point me to
>>> any page done with Freeway that doesn't have these problems?
>> Here is the result of validation of a Freeway Pro produced website.....
>>
>> This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
>
> Well, that was a lot better (I seem to recall that site being discussed
> previously).
>
>> In Freeway Pro one can choose whether the generated code will conform to
>> transitional or strict.
>
> Thanks for mentioning that. It certainly lifts Freeway a measure in my
> estimation.
>
>> The website can be found at
>>
>> <http://homepage.mac.com/taliesinsoft/Adams/>
>
> Alas, it is still a fixed pixel site. If I were to view it on my cell
> phone, I would have a lot of horizontal scrolling to do. I would be
> more impressed if it did change width.
>
> http://site.sheltersrus.com.au/galleryall.html
> Not a good example, as it may need a page refresh, and the script that
> produces it is ... incomplete (also it includes way too many photos and
> thus takes too long to load). Change the width of your browser window
> and see what happens.
>
Nice. Much preferrable over the fixed pixel sites. I wish I had time
to learn this stuff.
Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|