Could you guys take a look at:<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html">http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
and possibly tell me what's wrong with the coding or something because in Netscape the alignment of the navigation image on top shifts a little. I can't figure out why. <br />
<br />
Thanks guys in advance!<br />
<br />
-James<!--content-->No obvious coding errors when it is validated to HTML 4.01 - see: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional&ss=">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http: ... tional&ss=</a><!-- m --> [ Go on, add some ALT="" attributes for disabled people to navigate your site ].<br />
<br />
<br />
What may be a part of the problem is that you have used the DOCTYPE:<br />
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2//en"><br />
which throws up one extra error when validated:<br />
<br />
>> ..img src=http://www.htmlforums.com/archive/index.php/"images/line.gif" width="100%" height="13"><br />
>> Error: character "%" is not allowed in the value of attribute "WIDTH".<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a part of the problem? See: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sagecommunications.org%2Fdraft%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=HTML+3.2&ss=">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ML+3.2&ss=</a><!-- m --> .<br />
<br />
Try this as the DOCTYPE, and see if the problem changes:<br />
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><!--content-->Well, I inserted the new doctype and still no change. I tried changing percentages to constants, but no change. <br />
<br />
I am going to fiddle around with a few more things.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<!--content-->Did you upload the changed version. The web site still contains the original one?<!--content-->Now it's changed. At the time, I was just testing it on my hard drive and it still didn't solve the problem.<!--content-->
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html">http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
and possibly tell me what's wrong with the coding or something because in Netscape the alignment of the navigation image on top shifts a little. I can't figure out why. <br />
<br />
Thanks guys in advance!<br />
<br />
-James<!--content-->No obvious coding errors when it is validated to HTML 4.01 - see: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.sagecommunications.org/draft/index.html&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional&ss=">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http: ... tional&ss=</a><!-- m --> [ Go on, add some ALT="" attributes for disabled people to navigate your site ].<br />
<br />
<br />
What may be a part of the problem is that you have used the DOCTYPE:<br />
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2//en"><br />
which throws up one extra error when validated:<br />
<br />
>> ..img src=http://www.htmlforums.com/archive/index.php/"images/line.gif" width="100%" height="13"><br />
>> Error: character "%" is not allowed in the value of attribute "WIDTH".<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a part of the problem? See: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sagecommunications.org%2Fdraft%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=HTML+3.2&ss=">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ML+3.2&ss=</a><!-- m --> .<br />
<br />
Try this as the DOCTYPE, and see if the problem changes:<br />
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><!--content-->Well, I inserted the new doctype and still no change. I tried changing percentages to constants, but no change. <br />
<br />
I am going to fiddle around with a few more things.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<!--content-->Did you upload the changed version. The web site still contains the original one?<!--content-->Now it's changed. At the time, I was just testing it on my hard drive and it still didn't solve the problem.<!--content-->