Keep your fingers crossed for me!

by **frippz** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:47 pm

I'm about to apply for a 7 month internship at the OTHER media. A web designer bureau in London.

If I get it, I'll be working with what I love (besides espresso

); designing web sites. To be more specific, I will be specializing in XHTML and CSS coding.

So everyone keep your fingers crossed that they'll take me in!

by **lukas** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:43 pm

*fingers crossed*

by **Gouezeri** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:57 pm

Merde!

by **Steve** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:16 pm

Fingers crossed here.
Steve

by **simonp** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:49 pm

Good luck!

by **Joris** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:10 am

Fingers crossed here as well...

by **CakeBoy** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:37 am

Good luck mate!

by **zapty** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:29 am

Wishing you well in your endeavour and keeping fingers crossed...

by **Paws** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:17 am

Good luck!

by **mhuk** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:33 pm

Good Luck. Can you explain why one should use XHTML?

by **frippz** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:06 pm

mhuk wrote:Good Luck. Can you explain why one should use XHTML?

I find this article a good reference. Hopefully it will explain better than I could right now.

The case for XHTML

by **lukas** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:18 pm

Because it is possible to make "semantic xhtml", which is "understandable" by computers. Oh, and because it's a standard

I don't understand what "merde" means here. Gouezeri, why merde?

by **HughF** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:38 pm

frippz wrote:
mhuk wrote:Good Luck. Can you explain why one should use XHTML?

I find this article a good reference. Hopefully it will explain better than I could right now. :)

The case for XHTML

I'm convinced that XHTML is a "good thing" for new sites but not that it's important for existing sites unless you are already doing a major makeover. This might change if IE 7 supports XHTML properly and renders such pages quicker.
I'm concerned about the statement :
"XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml is not well supported for browser display at the moment." in an October 2003 W3C document I just found.
If you can't use that MIME type safely, there is no speed advantage in using XHTML and the other advantages are small.

I think the use of centralised CSS files is much more important for maintainability and my next work on any 5-year old sites will be to remove FONT tags now that CSS support in current browsers is much better (i.e. effing Netscape 4 has died).

I haven't turned off the XHTML messages in my HTML Validator though - I just don't worry too much about them for existing Web pages.

Don't forget that you (and I) will also have to worry about "pixel-independent" design (not just "liquid design") when higher-density displays (e.g. 200 pixels per inch) become widespread. The return of 640 x 480 displays (on better PDAs with just 3.5 inch screens) is beginning to make that a target density already.

Best of luck for the job!

Cheers,

Hugh

by **jameso** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:39 pm

I think it's a Norwich thing, Lukas. Either that, or London. Or, ... oh... - France!

Good luck Fripz (and thank you for giving XML a chance)

by **mhuk** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:22 pm

XML and XHTML are not the same (I haven't looked at your link yet).

XML is used to describe data and is not a web standard.

I'll be back...

Keep your fingers crossed for me!

Keep your fingers crossed for me!

Who is online