Some people noted some stuff, and I added my chips to the pile:

> Okay, so what exactly should I change to make it more cross-browser
> friendly / standards compliant? Are frames alright? Is CSS alright?
> Apparently (see below) the XML's hopeless.

Use HTML/CSS. Everything you need to know is on Assuming you
can get through the incredibly dense technical documentation.

> > Mozilla (or the Netscape derivative
> > for that matter) has, of course, no
> > problems with frames. However, [insert
> > fundamentalist counterargument here].
> > CSS floats can probably be used instead
> > of frames.
> Really? We never even discussed floats in my class. I know what the basic
> idea is, but  I'd have to stop and search for info on CSS to be able to
> them. I still don't understand what's wrong with frames, though.

Frames aren't totally evil. The main thing is that they're overused for
defining document structure. As well, they strain bandwidth, forcing a
browser to load multiple pages at once. While bandwidth isn't as much of an
issue today as it used to be, it is still something to consider. Another
good reason I can think of is that of someone visiting one of your child
pages. Without the frames, they may not be able to navigate. By having a CSS
float at the top or side of every page, you provide a menu that appears the
same in every page (pseudo-frame), but is available on every page. It's like
linking to a framed document with a particular child.

Plus, frames cause havoc on printing, linking, bookmarking, history
browsing, and so on. I maintain it's just easier to use CSS floats.

Info on CSS floats can be found in the standard. There's a fairly good CSS
tutorial on if you care to search for it.

> > I'd rather say "darn IE" since it's IE
> > which is not following standards, rather
> > than other browsers.
> I don't doubt it. I'm *no* Windows lover! (only a Windows user)

Good to hear. Incidentally, Mozilla Firebird is completely free and fairly
light-weight. is a good

> > Rather, you should keep with the standards.
> > They are there for a reason. Not so many
> > people use IE as you might think (not a
> > problem for me, Opera shows up the page
> > perfectly).
> Which standards? In particular, where did I break the standards? My web
> programming teacher never mentioned much about standards at all. He just
> showed us how to do a bunch of stuff (I loved the class, but he was a
> terrible teacher!). The one time he did mention various browsers I think
> said that IE had some 95% of the market, followed by Netscape with 5% and
> that there was a third European browser (he couldn't remember the name,
> a student mentioned it was Opera) with less than 1%. But I've known him to
> be wrong on several occasions before, so it wouldn't surprise me in this
> case either.

This is the problem with most people who teach web design: they don't know
the standards.

Incidentally, IE cannot have 95% of the browser market, because Windows
doesn't have 95% of the browser market. There's a lot of people out there
who use Linux, and therefore, Lynx (still the most lightweight browser I've
seen), Opera, Mozilla, Firebird, Konquerer, and probably some more I can't
think of. Standards are important to follow or else a page looks different
in all the different clients out there. And that's not a good thing.

> But a question: I do use IE b/c its what I have and its what I'm most
> familiar with. Its apparently also what many other people use, who don't
> have these other browsers (the exact %-age doesn't matter, I'm sure its a
> majority at any rate, even if a shrinking one). If I conform to these
> standards, (whatever they are) will I make the pages unreadable to IE? I
> would at least like to be able to read my own pages. Case in point: see
> below about XML. Use Firebird. It's better than IE
in almost every respect. (The one problem it has is slowness issues, because
IE cheats).

And no, you won't break IE. It just might not look as good as with a browser
that follows standards. If you really want, I can whip up an example, since
I have some handy pretty box code hanging around that doesn't look quite
right in IE, but looks great in Firebird.

> -sigh- So much for using XML. And I was so excited about using it, too. I
> guess I'll switch back to HTML after all. Maybe in another half-decade or
> two these kind of problems will be ironed out. :(

We can all hope. But HTML/CSS is the way to go.

> I say so too, nevertheless, IE's all I've got at the moment.

Again, try Firebird. </end

> ~Caleb...
> A Windows user who likes Linux better in theory, but can't get the GUI or
> Modem to work right with it. But that's a whole 'nother story...

I had a lot more luck getting Linux working when my school's Linux User
Group helped me set it up. Plus, being on a network helped, because Linux
(specifically, Debian )had no problems using my network card.

Mind, I still use Windows as my main box. My secondary computer is Linux.
That's mostly because of several things I still do in Windows that Linux
can't do quite as well yet. But I'm wavering.

There's a lot of good stuff out there, you just have to know where to look
to find it.