Help needed with my website HTML

I compared your html with a couple of pages on my site. One difference I see could be part of your problem. On the line 4 of your html code is the meta tag:

my site has use the tag:

You might try this character set to see if it makes any difference in the presentation of your pages.

 

I looked at several websites and if charset was defined it was always iso-8859-1

Different browsers will show things differently and are tolerant (or intolerant) of different coding errors. Additionally, things like javascript are sometimes dicey in how they are handled.

 

I don't know what you want the links to look like (ie what color) but the ones in the table are hardcoded to the same value as the default unvisited link. I think that is why they don't change to the visited color when you return.

I personally do not like the mess created by page generators, especially not the junk put out by Word or WordPro when you convert the doc to HTML.

One thing you'll notice on your page is that you use a total of 2 font face sets ("Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" and "Times New Roman, Times, serif"). For those not in the know, it is a list of fonts to use in order as a given client may not have the specified font. Although with these, they'll be there. The first set is used only in the table, the other set in every other link on the page. In fact: <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> shows up all over the place. Probably 30% of your page is unnecessary redundant tags. Does Dreamweaver support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)? If it thinks it REALLY needs to specify all this information for EVERY link, at least the source will be a lot smaller and easier to read. At the very least, the BODY could contain the defaults and be over-ridden only when necessary within the tags enclosed.

Look at this page: http://www.geocities.com/cvsc_us/CVO/cvo_2...004_results.htm You'll find these lines:
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import "../cvsc.css";
</style>
The style sheet is here: http://www.geocities.com/cvsc_us/cvsc.css

You wouldn't care to look at the junk Word put out to create the same thing. EVERY single tag had font and size specified and the file was HUGE.

 

To be as universally compatible as possible, eliminate the tags entirely. Not specifying anything will allow the browser to default to it's own settings instead... which almost always work.

With the exception of the home & navigation, my website is totally void of page settings... like charset.

 

Why? The purpose of the color change is to let people know they have already seen that page. There is a vlink attribute (visited link) in the Body tag, you could specify that as the same color as the others. Of course then all the later links would stay the same as well. If you REALLY want to get fancy, you could create images of the text you want to stay static, set the background for the table cell to that image and have no text in the Anchor (<A>) tag. But I wouldn't

The problem with browsers is they don't adhere to the standards. Some, like MS and Netscape had wars, adding in new tags that weren't in the spec and weren't supported by the other. Then they tried to get people to use the tags, making the pages useful only in their browser.

Only slightly, the source would still specify it on every GD line.
I agree with John. Generally, the less junk you put in, the more likely the page will work on all browsers and look similar.

 

I pulled up your site on my PC using Opera, IE, and Firefox; all 3 load with the same general appearance. The "followed link" color behavior seems to be related to how each browser handles caching and page refresh. Opera and IE use the followed link color as expected immediately after following the link and returning to the page while Firefox required a page refresh to show the followed link color. I also notice that each of the links at the top point to a tag on the same page as opposed to another site or different page within yours. This may explain why that table of links sometimes behaves a little differently.

I can't speak to behavior on a Mac but I might attribute to a higher degree of "Independent Spirit" for the Mac. :lol:

 

well i suppose not using dreamweaver at all is not a suggestion?

i used notepad for my website. and its basic html. with very little CSS, although i have taken most of that out. i put a few pages in just to see if i could do it.

 

Tony, I went to your site to see what you had produced with DreamWeaver and found that I can't get to the pages linked from the sidebar. This is with Mozilla. It works with IE. Looking at the source, I *think* it is because the <A> tags are outside the <TD> </TD> tags. <A> is not a legal attribute for <TABLE> or <TR> but is for <TD>. If so, this is another example of how tolerant different browsers are with coding errors. The page comes up with a status message of "Done but with errors on page" in IE.

 

No apology necessary. The earlier versions of Frontpage were just plain nasty.

But with the 2002 upgrade, it finally works pretty slick.

 

Good boy!

Won't tick me off, if it weren't for other people's sites, we'd all have a hell of a time figuring things out!

Heck I only tried to figure out the non working links because I'm A-R about fixing broken stuff. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be broken. Then it is called 'polishing'