Posted by nAnd0 on 09/04/05 01:14

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0509032128140.1596@ZORIN...
>
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, nAnd0 wrote:
>
>> "David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfcodd$6h$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Dump the table. Simplify your markup.
> [...]
>
> Looks like good advice to me (as usual from this respected poster, of
> course)
>
>> Thanks for the advice.. Im sure your recommendations are what I SHOULD
>> do, but unfortunetly I know little of html .. not to mention CSS and any
>> sort of present html coding standards.
>
> Perhaps the group would be better able to help if we knew how you got in
> this mess in the first place.

There is no mess! Simple issue which has already been solved with a little
table reconstruction.

>
> (Hunch:) if you extruded this HTML from some wannabe-WYSIWYG authoring
> tool, then the kind of variation between browsers that you're complaining

The majority of the code was hand written .. initial table dumped by
dreamweaver(homesite/coder mode). So no authoring tool is to blame, i could
have used notepad.

> of is frankly no big surprise, but I couldn't really recommend manually
> wading through the mess of dubious HTML that it has produced. It's going

mess of dubious HTML???? .. its freaking 32 lines of code.

> to waste a lot of your time and effort for some one-off result that might
> or might not work on the next page you have to deal with.
>
> My advice, for what it's worth, is that you'd do better to spend that time
> on looking into the kind of thing that David was recommending. There's a
> learning curve, sure, no mistake there, and not helped by the shortcomings
> of some current browsers, but it's the way things are going, and rates to
> get you ahead of the field.

Yes, I plan on learning CSS structuring.

>
> good luck

[Back to original message]