Florian Zeitz wrote:
quoted text
> dolphinling schrieb:
> 
>>Lourens Veen wrote:
>>
>>>So, comment, complain, rant, flame, suggest, and I'll try and
>>>incorporate as much as possible. I'm not entirely happy with the looks
>>>of the Projects list for example, so that'll probably be tweaked a bit
>>>anyway, but I'm open to suggestions on anything.
>>
>>Oh, good, I'm not a hardware person either, and this is what I'm good
>>at. :-)
>>
>>First off, ditch the XHTML, and go with HTML 4.01 strict. You're sending
>>it as text/html, so the XHTML doctype has no advantages.
>>
> 
> Yes besides XHTML being what is currently recommend and being much saner
> syntax wise, because it really sticks to XML syntax and has no wired
> corner cases where you need no closing tags, etc. You also don't have
> disadvatages using XHTML so I'd say keep it.

Recommended by who? Not me. ;) (and increasingly more standards 
advocates, too.)

Really, though, I just wanted to throw it out on the table. In the end I 
think it'll be dictated by whatever tools are being used to generate 
parts of the site. And as long as it's valid and conformant and 
semantic, either way will work all right.

quoted text
>>In the News section, get rid of the <a name="">s, and use ids instead.
>>Also, wrap each post in a <div class="newspost">. And get rid of the
>><hr>s, and instead use .newspost h2{border-bottom:2px grove #4189ff;} or
>>something like that.
>>
> 
> The only reason for not using name attribute is that it will be replaced
> with id in XHTML 2.0 (which is a good reason IMO), but not using it
> makes no sense if you really want to use HTML 4.01, could you please
> tell me why you want to move forward and backward at the same time?
> I totally agree that this hr-tag is definitely a layout thing and should
> be replaced with CSS.

id is perfectly valid HTML, and is considered best practice. <a 
name="">, while valid, is not considered best practice.

quoted text
>>And finally, get rid of the images directory. Put images in the folder
>>with the files they belong with, or if it belongs with many files, put
>>it in the deepest common folder.
>>
> 
> It is perfectly sane IMO to put them in a images sub-directory of the
> files they belong to or a images sub-directory of the deepest common
> folder, because that allows better sepperation of code and binary (I
> would also want to have a files sub-directory for downloads)

It breaks URL hierarchy structure, which is more important than 
"separation of code and binary", since URL structure is user-facing.

-- 
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
Open-graphics@duskglow.com
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)