Templates restructured

I have restructured my templates for this site. The old ones used way too many `

`’s and ``’s, which cluttered up the HTML — these elements are today’s equivalent of the tables in the 90’s. I decided to start from zero and only add those elements that I think are necessary. As a result, the new pages are smaller, which should make them faster for you.
To make things easier for me, I decided to use another Document Type Definition. This site is now `XHTML 1.0 Strict`, instead of `XHTML 1.1`. To me it feels a little bit like a loss, since I liked it that my site was on the forefront of web technology, but the hassle is simple too big. The biggest problem is that a lot of JavaScripts won’t work, and my knowledge is not enough to fix these things myself.
I also took the opportunity to activate the TypeKey service for those people who want to use it. It is not required; I only see it as a means for showing to the readers that it was really you who wrote this comment. As an alternative you can still use OpenPGP to certify your comments.
There are still some things not going quite as I wanted to, and the quickly adjusted stylesheet makes this site look even worse than before in Internet Explorer, but I will be working on those. If you notice any strange behaviour or mistake, please let me know.

7 thoughts on “Templates restructured”

  1. About the breadcrumbs and copyright notice: the font-size is better in IE, i.e. a little larger than in Moz/Opera – friendlier to the eyes! Yes I now, I can resize the fonts myself, but…
    Oh, and this comment should be signed by Typekey. At least I hope so, as I got an Internal server error every time I tried to register, but as I’ve just signed in and am returned to your commentspage, I assume it’s OK!

  2. Don’t worry Sebastiaan, I asked for your comments so you’re safe! Of course if you really feel like you have to make it up with me, I won’t stop you…
    Let’s go through your remarks one by one. First of all, I only changed the templates and not the style. Therefore I doubt that it is a lot calmer than the earlier design. The buttons have always been funny in IE, and the fonts of the breadcrumbs and copyright notice did not change for months.
    I indeed removed (or better: did not put back) a lot of tags in the head section. These tags made it possible to navigate the site using the browser’s link toolbar. Since many people are still using old browsers without a link toolbar — they don’t realize what they are missing — I decided that it was not worth the burden.
    In my opinion the previous/next navigation is better at the bottom. I hate it to have to scroll to the top again after reading a page.
    And finally the sidebar showing under the text is due to a bug in IE, for which I still have to add a hack.

  3. A lot of changes, and a lot less clutter of the enormous amoun of stuff that used to “live” between your HEAD-tags! Furthermore I think it now is a lot calmer than the earlier design. The contentnnavigation at the bottom I think isn’t quite as useful as it used to be (on the top). And the current story is not available, or isn’t shown in the content-navigation (only prev story| |next story). The buttons on top are really funny in IE. They jump around like jello that is shiwering in the cold! And your sidebar ends up below the content instead of next to it! And I think the fonts of the “breadcrumbs” and the copyright notice are *VERY SMALL*.
    Phoa, that was a lot of critique, sorry ;-). I’ll make it up to you antoher day!

  4. There is nothing wrong with document.write, only that it is something specific for HTML, and not for XML. Essentially related – it deals with having the document object in a page served as application/xhtml+xml inherit from HTMLDocument, instead of XMLDocument. Inheriting from HTMLDocument also includes inheriting the document.write() method.
    See this bug (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111514)

  5. document.write is quite evil, so I’m not sure what is wrong with that. Using the DOM you can achieve the same and more. Maybe it is time to ask some question about it on a forum?

  6. I have seen WordPress, and I have been impressed by it. Still I stay with MT, since at this moment I don’t have the time to play around and learn a new system. Time is also the reason why I am back on XHTML 1.0.
    It is exactly the content-type that breaks scripts; things like document.write don’t work. And you know that when you change the content-type, you also need to change the DTD.

  7. Anne silently mentions WordPress which makes it possible to rebuild everyday, every minute.
    I could understand a DTD switch, but content-type, why? And it is ‘JavaScript’ not ‘Java’ scripts.

Comments are closed.