|
|
Posted by Jim S on 10/07/07 16:31
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-66E806.15165903102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I would tend to do something like this.
>>
>> <http://netweaver.com.au/jim/jimsPage.html>
>
> Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
> be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
> captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
> understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
I have tried your suggestion, but 'correct' tho' it may be, I find it
tiresome when updating pages, which I constantly do.
I use Expression Web (I can hear the sighs already) because it works for
me. For me, one of the faults with your layout is that I cannot 'see' it in
EW as it will look, without constantly flipping between a browser and back.
The fact that have asked for help in constructing my site to Strict
standards is mainly because I have the time, but partly because I was
goaded into it and partly because of the constant criticism that tables are
not meant to be used as placeholders for graphics.
Well that may be so, but it works for me and it validates (usually).
It is a simple site, but mine own.
If I make mistakes and the site looks wrong in your enormous display, it is
my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. I recommend the
resolution on the homepage and try to keep the pictures and setup so there
are no problems when viewing in 800 x 600 (unlike the one you suggested).
Thanks for now.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|