<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scito.nl/Wrong">http://www.scito.nl/Wrong</a><!-- m --> forum?
Well I can only read half the site and most the words I could read was "MSN"
I'm confused... 
At first, I was like, 'Wow, that can't be a CSS site.'
I check under the hood--'WOW, it is a CSS site!'.Originally posted by BuezaWebDev
At first, I was like, 'Wow, that can't be a CSS site.'
I check under the hood--'WOW, it is a CSS site!'.
Well, it is, and it's a step in the right direction, but it could go a long way still. It appears to be suffering from divitis and spanitis. I see a lot of major sites moving to CSS, which is good, but they could still go further by using even the tiniest bit of semantic code.If you break the layout down it's pretty simple. Two columns, one fluid width, one fixed. Then there are little boxes that are used with a title bar and then the main content section.
The design itself is very good and like Paul said, the code is a step in the right direction. I say well done to A. Willemsen and F. Hardijzer.
Well I can only read half the site and most the words I could read was "MSN"
I'm confused... At first, I was like, 'Wow, that can't be a CSS site.'I check under the hood--'WOW, it is a CSS site!'.Originally posted by BuezaWebDev
At first, I was like, 'Wow, that can't be a CSS site.'
I check under the hood--'WOW, it is a CSS site!'.
Well, it is, and it's a step in the right direction, but it could go a long way still. It appears to be suffering from divitis and spanitis. I see a lot of major sites moving to CSS, which is good, but they could still go further by using even the tiniest bit of semantic code.If you break the layout down it's pretty simple. Two columns, one fluid width, one fixed. Then there are little boxes that are used with a title bar and then the main content section.
The design itself is very good and like Paul said, the code is a step in the right direction. I say well done to A. Willemsen and F. Hardijzer.