|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 03/26/07 08:17
On Mar 26, 3:10 pm, Neredbojias <inva...@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:48:32 GMT cluthz scribed:
>
> > This is probably a very naive statement :) but when I look at websites
> > that have the best adherence to standards, they are always quite basic
> > websites that don't look as good as other ones.
>
> No, it isn't naive, but your attraction to certain sites may be subjective.
> Furthermore, standards-adhering sites can be just as "neat" as improperly-
> marked-up sites but often aren't because the webmasters in question lack
> the skills to make them so. Little John and Bergermutt not only gave you
> the correct answers, they provided important clues as well. You need to
> study and learn something in order to be proficient at it; this doesn't
> come magically overnight. I suggest you download the html 4.01 and css 2.1
> documentation, read it, and refer to it often as you construct your next,
> hopefully better, website.
>
I agree with this.
I am still getting the hang of CSS myself after useing Tables for
layout and find it's a lot easier to get things working in a better
way with CSS.
I also find that not placeing widths on items tends to help with
getting stuff to work.
I keep forgetting to add container div's though, which can mean that
stuff does not line up correctly, but I eventually work out what the
problem is. Although some layouts do very a bit with what you can
include.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|