Printable View
Search did not provide clue -- so can someone give direction?
Trying to update my dentist's awful garbage clutter code by replicating features on existing site. He has a link to his FACEBOOK page, which works on his site. I copied the link code to Facebook icon on demo site, and it does not work.
What am I missing?
could you possible provide us with the code for the link, or the url of the page?Quote:
Originally Posted by auntnini
Thanks for response Bernie1227. But I was thinking "complicated" when it was a simple typo I just now saw.
========================
I tried copying both what displayed in location bar = http://www.facebook.com/pages/Willia...D/291205609460
and code on page (from http://www.wsddds.com)
The demo site is not yet uploaded online. Could working locally affect the Facebook link?Code:<a target="_blank" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-York-NY/William-Schlesinger-DDS-MAGD-ABGD/291205609460"> <img border="0" src="images/facebook-icon.jpg" width="81" height="20"></a>
Oh! YUCK! Typo HERF not HREF!Code:<a herf="http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-York-NY/William-Schlesinger-DDS-MAGD-ABGD/291205609460" title="follow Dr. William Schlesinger on Facebook" target="_blank"><img src="miscImages/facebook.png" width="24" height="24" alt="facebook Icon" class="floatright"> </a>
When I first viewed source and saw the depreicated, inaccessible, garbage code on my dentoist's site, I got so upset and angry that I replicated the <TABLE> layout using CSS to clean it up. See that demo at http://www.ppbloch.com/demo/wsdds.html. But my dentist had no clue to what I was talking about. At that time, viewing numerous dentists' web sites showed similar lack of Web standards and indicated a hot potential market for web developers.
My dentist finally seems to be considering cleaner coding for his site. Also currently, there seems an awakening at such sites as http://www.pinerundental.com/ (developed by http://www.tntdental.com/) and http://www.nydentalpartners.com/ (developed by http://www.solution21.com/). They are all looking too much alike and are not "responsive" in sizing.
Don't worry auntnini, herf can effect the best of us :p
I know what you're talking about unfortunately, as ive had my fair share of trying to clean up rubbish code. If you really want to see a horribly structured website, have a look at this, the whole site is made out of tables, and all up it's got roughly 70 different XHTML 1.0 strict errors going by W3C, and over 1000 CSS warnings.
It seems in the last two days, that website has been refurbished:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...alidator%2F1.3
http://www.bom.gov.au: This document was successfully checked as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Although, it still needs updating to HTML5 and it's biggest problem is it's charset is still set as iso-8859-1
It still has 23 Errors, 5 warnings to solve for that.
And it has 22 errors and 243 warnings for CSS3.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...rning=&lang=en
Well as far as the HTML goes, it wouldnt be that hard to get it to validate as XHTML 1.0 strict, as you could get rid of the large majority of the errors simply by closing tags and putting tags in lower case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApacheTech