New look: opinions please

[Tannin]

Most of you will be familiar with my site at www.redhill.net.au by now. Lord knows, it's been there long enough.

Well, I've made a reasonable start on updating the content after three or four years of minimal maintenence, but the time has come to drag the actual HTML code, kicking and screaming, into the current century.

Here is one of the old pages: www.redhill.net.au/hw-drives-a.html

And here it is with a half-finished version of the new code: www.redhill.net.au/testing-a.html Another example - old: www.redhill.net.au/hw-drives-i.html and new: www.redhill.net.au/testing-i.html

So I have two questions: first, is the new look any good? What can I do to improve it? Bear in mind that I hate Javascript and try to provide support for old browsers as well as new.

Second, what should I do to improve my code? (Be gentle with me - seeing as the site was originally coded back around 1995 or so and has only had minor hacks since then, I had never done anything with cascading style sheets until this time yesterday and don't really understand them yet.)

My priorities are code size and loading speed, ease of maintenence, cross-platform browser support, and visual appeal, more or less in that order. It's designed to look best in 1024 x 768, but be OK in 800 x 600 or 1200 x 1024 (haven't checked these properly on the new code yet). I'd like it to be usable at 1600 res, have stopped trying to support 640 x 480.

All opinions welcome.

 

[HellDiver]

You'll prolly beat me up, but I actually liked the old styling better... Some of the rearrangements in tables were nice (at least the layout's more logical, but I kind of liked the presence of table lines... Perhaps not in their original form (too many double-lines, etc), but nevertheless...

And BTW, what's with the data rate in Mbit/sec?

 

[Buck]

Tannin, you've been a busy man. I like the change in typestyle, it makes the site look much cleaner, and easier to read. The idea of removing the borders from your tables is not bad either, although I think it will work either way. Perhaps, using a border color that is only modestly different than the background color would be attractive.

I'll have to spend more time visiting the new pages, but I do like the work. Keep it up.

BR

 

[i]

I like them both ... old and new!

Are you looking for proof-readers?

"...that's close to 20 years of service from a device with a design live of no more than five years. "

"The company seemed to live on the edge of bankrupy most of the time..."

INSUFFICIENT RUPEES. TRANSACTION CANCELLED.

 

[James]

Yep, I like them both too, but the new is neater and therefore gets the nod. Nice job Tony.

 

[Tannin]

Funny you should say that, Helldiver, I rather liked the lines myself.

I originally laid out the site using Netscape/2 2.02. This was back in the days when Netscape had 80% market share, and practically no-one used IE. Since then I've only fiddled round the edges. And, in Netscape, the tables with lines looked good:

(Old page, Netscape/2 2.02, 1280 by 1024 resolution.)

Newer, but still old, Netscape versions make them look even better:

(Old page, Netscape/2 4.61 1280 by 1024 resolution.)

But different browsers render table borders in different ways. As you will have seen for yourself, only Netscape is intelligent about the table border color: IE and Opera both ignore the background color and just use white borders - which, on a dark page, looks horrible.

So, what about the BORDERCOLOR= tag? Why not set the table borders to the same tasteful shades of green that Netscape uses?

Because, while Netscape 4.x and above and Internet Explorer both support BORDERCOLOR, they produce wildly different shades from the exact same code, and only Explorer supports the BORDERCOLORLIGHT and BORDERCOLORDARK tags, which you can use to get that same nice chiseled 3D effect that the old Netscape gave you in the first place. Worse, Opera doesn't support BORDERCOLOR at all!

In short, you are quite right about the "too many double lines" problem. In Opera or IE it looks bad. Only the Netscape family (NS itself and Mozilla) look good with the page that way. And, let's face it, most users these days use Explorer: so the lines had to go.

I'm not happy with the completely lineless look either though. There is an answer, but it's a horrible kludge and I haven't figured out a way to make it practical yet. When I get home I'll post a screenshot of a mock-up page I made yesterday, and see if anyone can solve this riddle for me.

---------------------

Mbit/sec is the standard and proper way to quote internal data rates, HD. A drive head is, after all, a serial device.

 

[Tannin]

Alas, the newer browsers look horrible with their white table borders:

That's Opera 6.0 above.

And Internet Explorer 5.0 is much the same. Clearly, there had to be a better way. And this is what finally pushed me into braving the complexities of CSS.

 

[Tannin]

So, here was the dilema: I wanted lines in the tables, but nice looking ones, and I wanted them to look the same in most browsers. Eventually, I figured out a way, and it not only looks the same in all browsers, it looks great.

Maybe it could use a light line around the outside of the table, maybe not. That's a detail that can be easily taken care of. Alas, the main part of the code to do the above is a kludge of truly monumental proportions:

<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=90% bgcolor=#006633 width=90%>
<tr><td>
<table border=0 nest=2 cellpadding=5 width=90%>
<tr><td>
<table border=0  CELLSPACING="1" nest=3 width=100% cellpadding=4 BGCOLOR="#006633">
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>[b]Performance[/b]</td><td bgcolor=#004422>1.39</td></tr>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>[b]Reliability[/b]</td><td bgcolor=#004422>AAX</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor=#004422>Data rate</td><td bgcolor=#004422>443 Mbit/sec</td></tr>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>Spin rate</td><td bgcolor=#004422>5400 RPM</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor=#004422>Seek time</td><td bgcolor=#004422>8.9ms</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor=#004422>Cache</td><td bgcolor=#004422>2MB</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor=#004422>Platter capacity</td><td bgcolor=#004422>40GB</td></tr>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>Interface</td><td bgcolor=#004422>ATA-100</td></tr>
</table>
</td><td width=* valign=top>
<table border=0  CELLSPACING="1" nest=3 width=100% cellpadding=4 BGCOLOR="#006633">
<tr><th  bgcolor=#004422 colspan=5>Availability</th></tr>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>SV2001H</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>20GB</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>1 GMR head</td><TD bgcolor=#004422><font color=#ffffff>current</font></td><td bgcolor=#004422>***</td></TR>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>SV4002H</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>40GB</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>2 GMR heads</td><TD bgcolor=#004422><font color=#ffffff>current</font></td><td bgcolor=#004422>***</td></TR>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>SV6003H</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>60GB</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>3 GMR heads</td><TD bgcolor=#004422><font color=#ffffff>current</font></td><td bgcolor=#004422>*</td></TR>
<TR><td bgcolor=#004422>SV8004H</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>80GB</TD><td bgcolor=#004422>4 GMR heads</td><TD bgcolor=#004422><font color=#ffffff>current</font></td><td bgcolor=#004422></td></TR>
</table>
</td></tr></TABLE>

(etc, etc)

Nice, clear, easy to maintain code? Not! For those too intelligent or too lazy to wade through that incomprehensible load of garbage coding - I do get sloppy when I'm buggerising about experimenting - the idea is quite simple:

1: Make a table and give it a dark background color.

2: Inside that table, make another one to contain the specs. Make that one light-coloured.

3: Make every single data field dark in colour. Individually. One at a time. 32 times for every drive, and there are over 100 different drives described. Then start on the CPUs. And don't forget the motherboards.

4: Consider the above, then give up.

There has to be a better way. It was looking for that better way that let me into doing this whole CSS thing yesterday. And while I think that CSS is the way to go, it doesn't seem to help with that particular problem. Not that I've figured out yet, anyway.

 

[HellDiver]

Without going into implementation considerations (after all, your original question went like this : "is the new look any good"!), the look presented in your post directly above (in case someone posts while I'm typing this, I'm talking about the post that starts with the words "So, here was the dilema:") is pretty good. Good luck with the CSS, though...

 

[Tannin]

Thanks HD. I figured out a better way to do it. Sort of kludgy in its own sweet way, and probably breaking all the rules of good coding, but what the hell - I always was a hardware guy, first, last and in-between too. Well, since I put my Z-80 out to pasture, anyway.

What I did was use the CSS to define all <TD> tags as having the dark green background, and then use classes to define the containing <TD> tags back to their proper colour. Saves about 100 * 30 = 3000 seperate edits. (OK, I could use global search and replace, but it still would result in horrible HTML.) (Not that this current version would win too many prizes, I don't think.) Anyway, its sort of arse-about, but it seems to work.

<table class='spec' cellpadding=4 cellspacing=1>
<tr class="pr"><td>Performance</td><td>1.39</td><td>Reliability</td><td>AAX</td></tr>
<tr class="specs"><td>Data rate</td><td>443 Mbit/sec</td><td>Spin rate</td><td>5400 RPM</td></tr>
<tr class="specs"><td>Seek time</td><td>8.9ms</td><td>Buffer</td><td>2MB</td></tr>
<tr class="specs"><td>Platter capacity</td><td>40GB</td><td>Interface</td><td>ATA-100</td></tr>
<tr class="models"><td>SV2001H</TD><td>20GB</TD><td>1 GMR head</td><td>***</td></TR>
<tr class="models"><td>SV4002H</TD><td>40GB</TD><td>2 GMR heads</td></td><td>***</td></TR>
<tr class="models"><td>SV6003H</TD><td>60GB</TD><td>3 GMR heads</td><td>*</td></TR>
<tr class="models"><td>SV8004H</TD><td>80GB</TD><td>4 GMR heads</td><td></td></TR>
</table>

Results at: www.redhill.net.au/testing-h.html

(I changed back to the default font family - i.e., have not specified serif or sans-serif, so it's up to your browser preference settings which typeface you get.) (I think.)

Oh, and in doing that I broke the link bar at the bottom of the page. I'll fix that later.

 

[Tannin]

i: Thanks. Fixed now. (At least my local copy is, I won't FTP it up till I get the new layout bedded down.) Fixed one in the WD JB entry too. Ahh ... about the Rupees ... am I take it that you are an old-timer, i, and know where Kalock/JTS did their manufacturing then?

Buck & James: I keep dithering about the face. I changed it back to serif fonts this morning, now I think I like the new sans-serif better again. Ideally, it would be nice to have the old-world look of the Roman font on the Golden Oldies pages and the new, clean look on the modern stuff - but you can't go changing fonts half-way through things.

 

[Buck]

Buck & James: I keep dithering about the face. I changed it back to serif fonts this morning, now I think I like the new sans-serif better again. Ideally, it would be nice to have the old-world look of the Roman font on the Golden Oldies pages and the new, clean look on the modern stuff - but you can't go changing fonts half-way through things.

You can with the CSS CLASS tag. Define a .roman and .modern Class, then you'll be able to use that in conjunction with other tags, such as <FONT> or

. You seem to be doing very well with the whole CSS idea, if you need some samples, I'll be happy to send you a couple.

BR

 

[Tannin]

Oh, sorry Buck. I didn't mean from a technical point of view, I just meant from the point of view of having a reasonably consistent look and feel. Already the three main sections (drives, CPUs and main boards) have different colour schemes - adding different font faces would be a bit much, I think.

But I'm sure I'll need some help as I go along. Right now I'm deep into the second HDD page, doing the donkey work of switching the thing over to CSS. Once that's done, it wil be easy to fine-tune. I hope.

BTW - I really liked your clean, neat layout. Refreshing.

 

[Buck]

Keep the different color schemes for each category and use the same typestyle for each of those categories, except for the Golden Oldies. In the Golden Oldies section, create a look where the typestyle and color scheme match some type of nostalgic theme.

Thanks for the compliment, but my site lacks one of the most important items, serious content. I hope that will come soon.

 

[Tea]

OK, it's rough as guts, but I've revised the code behind, and hence the look, of part of the motherboard guide now: www.redhill.net.au/ib.html

Opinions on color schemes, layout and so on welcome.

Oh, did I mention already? The hard drive pages are now up. Much to do on them yet, but the bare bones are there. Thanks for your help guys.

 

[Bartender]

Tea,

The site is looking good. I like the blue combinations used for the Motherboard sections. However, the image: green-swash.gif does not fit particularly well into that pages color scheme. The color you spec out for the <A> tag would look better for this 'horizontal rule" or green-swash.gif image. Hence, it fits nicely into the Drives section, as the scheme is green.

 

[CougTek]

Opinions on color schemes, layout and so on welcome.

Well, it's...blue. What more can I say?

 

[Tea]

Woops! The green swash was indeed from the hard drives index, which I hacked to form the mainboard one. Forgot to change it. It's supposed to be orange. Fixed now. But would the very pale blue be better?

Actually, I wanted it to be gold. Blue and gold work really well together. I wasted a couple of hours the other night searching on Google for gold colored graphics that I could rip a background out of, got nowhere. I think I'll have to create one, which is a non-trivial task, as there is no actual color "gold". i.e., there is no combination of RGB values that produce the "color" we call "gold". Like all the metalic tints, it is made up of some yellowish hues mixed together in a particular pattern. So, to make a "gold" swash image, you need to buggerise about with a pixel editor.

If I do that, then I had sure better like the result, because it will take quite a few hours!

 

[Tea]

This seems to be turning into a habit. What happened to my day? I wasted it playing with just one page, that's what happened to it. Sigh.

Anyway, the result is at www.redhill.net.au/test.html

I think I like the overall layout - a bit radical for me but what the hell - but I'm damned if I can figure what colour to make the links. They need to be visibly different to the body text (at least I think they do, so that people can find them, I mean) but the page is already so damned busy that an extra colour seems like madness.

Duhh.... Where do I go now?

(P.S. There are some duplicated images. I'll fix that later.)

 

[Buck]

Nice change in layout Tannin. Although, the lime-green and red colors used for links and mouseovers does not match the page. I would also switch back to san-serif type.

If you are looking for something similar to gold, visit: http://www.mittelsmann.net
...the frontpage is littered with items that are scans of real gold.

BR

 

[NRG = mc²]

Very nice - only thing that jars the eye (maybe) is the title text - its a little jagged. Anything smoother you can use? (perhaps make it into a graphic with antialiased text but might not be worth it (should be small in 256 colour PNG..)

 

[timwhit]

Caution:
Because you are running a very high screen resolution, most of these pages will not display correctly on your system.
The Red Hill Guides contain a lot of illustrations and many tables, which are laid out for the most common screen widths: 1024 and 1280. The guides are usable at 1152 by 864 but may give you strange and unpleasant results. We recommend that you take a moment to adjust your screen properties.

What is this? Is there anyway that you could have a different html code for different resolutions? It probably wouldn't take that much more work. It would be worth it wouldn't it Tannin? (Plus we all know you don't have anything better to be doing with your time.)

 

[NRG = mc²]

Oh well heres the script required to autodetect resolutions and redirect to appropriate pages (happened to be using it right now)

<script language="JavaScript1.2">
<!--

/*
Screen Size Redirect script (By Robert @ http://members.tripod.com/technological_tinker/)
Submitted to Dynamicdrive.com to feature script in archive
For full source, usage terms, and 100's more DHTML scripts, visit http://dynamicdrive.com
*/


if (screen.width==800||screen.height==600) //if 800x600
window.location.replace("http://www.address_for_800_res_here")

else if (screen.width==640||screen.height==480) //if 640x480
window.location.replace("http://www.address_for_640_res_here")

else if (screen.width==1024||screen.height==768) //if 1024x768
window.location.replace("http://www.address_for_1024_res_here")

else //if all else
window.location.replace("http://www.address_for_other_res_here")

//-->
</script>

 

[Tea]

Ahh, thankyou Tim!

I had: "if (screen.width>minwidth)" where it was supposed to be: "if (screen.width>maxwidth)" Fixed now. At least the real one is fixed now: www.redhill.net.au/ig.html

You should only get that message at low res (well, a variation of that message) - i.e., 800 x 600 or 640 x 480, and at real high res - 1600 and up.

It would be really, really nice to have different code for different resolutions! However, it would mean re-coding a lot of pages. Once my shift to CSS is complete, I'll look at it again.

 

[Tea]

I'd prefer not to use graphics for the headlines, NRG. Only if there is no other way. But how do I find a nice large font that everyone already has? Another one to research.

But first, I better go do some work.

 

[Handruin]

Tony,

Does your web server support php? If so you can manage your site much easier by editing one "header" file and including it into every page. This way if you decide to make a change to your javascript, or if there is a mistake, all you need to do is fix one little file and...poof, they are all fixed.

<?php

$phpbb_root_path = './';

include($phpbb_root_path . 'includes/yourfile.php')

?>

 

[Buck]

redhill.net might become more dynamic then expected. I recall Tannin resolutely refusing to use scripts (e.g. java, asp, php). However, the virtues of such alternatives are beginning to gain acceptance - first it was simple CSS, next javascript, and soon php. Stubbornly, Tony enters the modern age of programming.

BR

 

[James]

Anyway, the result is at www.redhill.net.au/test.html

Funny how you use images of two banknotes that no longer exist.

For a demonstration of how to use blocks of colour in an attractive way without it becoming too busy, go to www.marthastewart.com. No, really. They used to have their sections in different colours, now it all seems to be greens - which is a pity. Anyway, you get the idea.

 

[James]

Ah! Try the text links at the bottom of the page (Magazine Subscriptions | Catalog Requests | About MSO | Career Opportunities | Investor Relations etc.) - these sections are still in slightly different colours. It used to be better - more colour variation. The design as it stands is a bit same-y now, which is disappointing.

 

[Pradeep]

You've got a bit of work to do Tony before you get to this high standard.

http://www.autoweb.co.nz/PTS.htm#WRECKING

 

[NRG = mc²]

LOL hey, at least they got a domain name and its not a geocities account... damn popup banners make me sick!

 

[Tea]

Thanks for all the thoughts, guys. I'll start with Doug's idea: to use php to include files. I'm not actually sure where I'd use that, Doug. Perhaps something will occur to me down the track a little, but at present I can't think of anything much that gets included without change in multiple files. Oh, there is the link bar at the bottom and that kind of thing, but every one is a little bit different, so an include function wouldn't help. (Would it?) In any case, my latest version of that, thanks to CSS, is getting very tight and easy to edit now.

I have no idea if the server supports php, but I'm sure it could be arranged if need be. But isn't the usual way of doing this to use CGI scripts? (Not that I know anything at all about CGI, I'm just curious.)

Now, Javascript. I suppose you are all saying "wow - look at stodgy old Tannin - he's playing with Javascript! Didn't know the old fart had it in him!"

Well, he doesn't have it in him. Tannin despises Java and all its motely, pox-ridden relatives. And on this one point, my decrepit elder brother and I are in full agreement. The tiny, tiny amount of Javascript on the page has actually been there for maybe four years or so - and the fact that nobody noticed it until Tannin buggered up his edit just the other day pleases both of us. Tannin always says that if there is enough Javascript on a page to notice that it's there, then there is too much.

The two tiny bits of Javascript are:

(a) the screen resolution warning message that Tim noticed - that appears just on the two index pages, nowhere else, because I figure you are going to see one or other of those two pages on your way into the site and once you've seen the message you don't want to be nagged about it.

and (b) the tiny fragment that gives the automatic "last updated" at the foot of every page:

<script> <!-- 
var LastModDate = new Date(document.lastModified);
document.write("Last updated: "+LastModDate+".")
//  --> </script>

I can't find a way to make it any shorter than that. There must be rules in Javascript about line breaks, because when I try to put it all on a single line (to make it even easier to edit the text around it) it doesn't work - interestingly, different browsers stop working with it at different places, but (I think) the version above works with all. (Well Navigator 4.08 says:

Last updated: Mon Mar 31 22:28:36 GMT+1100 (AUS Eastern Daylight Time) 1902.

but what do we expect of Netscape anyway?

This brings me to another issue (a very minor one, admittedly). I frigged around for ages a few weeks ago trying to figure a way to have it just say: Last updated Tuesday 12th March 2001 or Last update: 12/03/02 without all that extra GMT crap. And no matter what I tried, one browser or another would break on it. (Not counting NS 4.08 - I was using browser detection to work around Netscape's Y2K bug.) Most commonly, I got something like "Last updated: 12/03/1" in Opera - note the absent leading zero - or, if I coded around this, "Last updated: 12/03/001" in Explorer. And I was damned if I'd paste in 17 lines of code just to work around all those incompatible browser versions.

I hit Google and filched six or eight different bits of ready made date reporting code, and the only ones that seemed to work were way too long to be acceptable to a Java-hating family like us.

In the end, we just said "bugger it" (that's Australian for ... er ... you probably don't need me to translate) "We'll just use the plain vanilla document.lastModified, raw and unadulterated." And now that I've got used to it, I rather like it.

Seeing as I seem to be in unstructured rant mode, what the hell, I'll continue. The trouble with bloody Java is that it's based on all those conventions C programmers learn at their mothers' breasts. (If C programers have mothers, that is - it's something of an open question, I believe.) Whereas we grew up on a real programming language: Modula-2. And Javascript don't look anything like Modula-2. Or Pascal, which would be near enough.

(Actually, that's a lie. We really grew up on a very early, pre-GW, pre-IBM PC Microsoft ROM BASIC, on FORTRAN (God help us), and then on lots and lots of Z-80 assembler. But anyone can suffer through an unhappy childhood (and believe me, if you ain't met FORTRAN you ain't suffered), and when we met Modula-2 it was first love. Especially as it interfaced so beautifully with assembler modules - you could just hand-code the speed and code size critical bits, and do the rest in a nice, structured, civilised language.)

(When Tannin moved over to the PC world and looked at that segmented architecture stuff, not to mention Intel's horrible, impossible to remember nemonics, he just said "Forget it! From here on in, I'm a hardware man. Hand me that screwdriver." I told him that we ought to just stick with the Z-80.)

So WTF am I doing playing with Javascript?

Slumming. That's what it is. Slumming.

 

[Tea]

I chose them deliberately, of course, James. I liked the old one dollar note. Also, it appears again only larger on the "how to buy from Red Hill" page, which is mainly there to discourage idiots emailing in to say they want to buy a (inset almost anything here, usually long out of production and worthless, such as a larger COAST cache RAM module for a Pentium 120, or else absurdly expensive and difficult to ship) and can I ship it to their home in Texas?

Fair dinkum, you wouldn't believe how many fools used to email me for prices from the USA. So I liked the old $1 note for that page too, as, just maybe, they would see the funny money with the pictures of the kangaroos on it and stop to wonder if it really made any sense to email someone in Australia looking to buy something made in California when you live in San Diego. (Did I spell that right? Whatever.)

Nice link you gave, James. Yes, very good use of colour: tastful, different, looks great. Don't like the white background on the subsiduary pages though - but I always hated bright backgrounds, especially white. Too hard on the eyes.

And Pradeep. What can I say? That is just the most splendiferous, magnificent, beautifully restrained and tasteful page I have ever laid my eyes on. If I live to be 100 I'll never manage to get quite that delicate and refined look about my pages.

Thank God.

 

[Mercutio]

As a C programmer - although I like to pretend that I'm not, but it's basically what my college degree is in - I'd just like to say that I do, in fact, have a mother. She's a dingbat, and at times I wonder if I was adopted, but a mother nonetheless.

And java and javascript really don't have anything in common but a name. They're totally different things. Not related at all, except maybe for a few syntax elements (and if that makes languages related, then Perl and C must be as well).

 

[flagreen]

Speaking of RedHill.net, I emailed them a while back asking if I could buy one of those pretty pictures on their site with the Kangaroo and the numbers on it. Rude people - they never even bothered to answer.

 

[Handruin]

Here is my example of includes use:

http://s2s.storageforum.net

I'm working on a page for a friend using this site until his site is ready. Anyway, this site uses includes for the header, the footer, the left and right menus, and also for the information in the center.

With this, I can dynamically create the content based on the links clicked. If you click on "rules" on the left menu, you will notice the only item to change on the page is the middle. Every other part of the page was built using the same content as the "home" page. This way I only have to edit one file, and then remaining pages will be updated also.

The page is not finished yet, and the rules page is too long. (I’m going to break it into sections) I also need to write in some error checking into the code as I can break it pretty easy.

So this is my example of where include files can be handy. It might not apply to your site, but you could use it to generate meta tags at the top of each of your pages. This way you won't have to rewrite all your pages down the road if/when you decide to change something.

I was also going to suggest using the JavaScript below, but it seems as though you already are.

<script>
document.write("<Font class=main1l>" + "Last update: "+ "</font>" +document.lastModified);
</script>

Only problem I have with it is that the last update changes every time you reload the page when you use include files. :roll:

 

[Buck]

Any recommended shtml & php editors that have a tab for doing a quick view of the page plus one that color-codes the syntax like PHPedit v0.6?

BR

 

[Tea]

Buck, have you tried editplus? http://www.editplus.com I love it! Not sure about SHTML - how is this different (from a text editor's point of view) from plain HTML? I don't know what I'd do without Editplus.

 

[Buck]

Buck, have you tried editplus? http://www.editplus.com I love it! Not sure about SHTML - how is this different (from a text editor's point of view) from plain HTML? I don't know what I'd do without Editplus.

I'll give that a try. I've used InterDev for a long time, but it doesn't understand the php extension, so it doesn't color-code any syntax. The free PHPEdit software doesn't have a view window. I've downloaded EditPlus and it seems pretty nice. Thanks for the tip.

By the way, http://www.hlmcompany.com is finally getting some content - baby steps I tell you, baby steps. Terribly time consuming too, but I do like using an include for my navigation bar.

BR

 

[James]

You've got a bit of work to do Tony before you get to this high standard.

http://www.autoweb.co.nz/PTS.htm#WRECKING

I've always like this one myself :

http://www.ecnet.net/users/gas52r0/Jay/