My new site design

[killerchutney]

Yes, i know that i only released the old one about a month ago, but I dont like it now, and i dont want any tables in the code. So here is my latest attempt, nowhere near finished, but you do get a feel for the layout. You can visit it here

[Merciless]

I can't explain why i like this site so much, i like the color scheme , and the banner and the font thats on it (don't know the name of the font) what program did you use to make this? and how did you manage it without tables?

-ReT

[killerchutney]

Thanks, I used Dreamweaver 8 to make it, and used extensive CSS and around 20 divs. If you want a CSS based layout, try the dynamic drive css library.

[Twey]

Yes, I like the layout too. It doesn't validate, though, and HTML Trans should rightly be dead and buried.

[BLiZZaRD]

Besides your distaste for 4.01 Trans.. what are some valid reasons for switching to strict?

Not trying to start a fight, but the transitional use has still to my bennefit, allowed for most all browsers to properly display my site.

Switching to valid strict means I have to redo 25% of my pages.

Not that I am completely against it, just haven't seen a just reason for it yet.


P.S. KC.. I do like the layout.. Great use of a black site, which is very hard to do these days. Nice Job.

[Twey]

Simply put, it's pointless having it there: browsers still tend to render the page in Quirks mode (or "almost standards" mode in the case of Gecko).

This is because HTML 4.01 Transitional is, as far as I can see, actually closer to HTML 3 than HTML 4, which is understandable given that the original purpose of HTML 4 Trans was to be a gap-filler between the two, allowing developers to gradually implement HTML 4 features whilst maintaining compatibility with HTML 3.

This means that pages using HTML 4 Transitional are roughly ten years out of date. HTML 4 was the up-and-coming thing in 1997, when I started web design. This was the period in which developers were intended to use Transitional: HTML 4 wasn't quite ready yet (it was formally released some time in 1998) and although browsers were starting to implement some of it, they weren't there yet, something like XHTML and CSS3 today.

[BLiZZaRD]

So do all browsers fully support strict today?

[Twey]

Yes, all of today's browsers fully support HTML 4.01 Strict, as far as I'm aware.

[killerchutney]

I used HTML 4.0 Transitional mainly because it came up with less errors in validation strict came up with loads of errors, such as align is not an attribute. and as far as I know, there is not an align attribute in CSS (according to dreamweaver)

[Twey]

There are no attributes in CSS. There are, however, margin and text-align properties, one or both of which can be used to implement the effect for which you had previously used <center>.

I used HTML 4.0 Transitional mainly because it came up with less errors in validation

The validator is only a superficial check. HTML Strict adheres to modern standards and good practices a lot better than Trans, explaining why it didn't care about the problems with your site so much.