Re: Why don't it work?

"dorayme" wrote in message news:dorayme-9BF49D.08374919022011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have found it particularly lively for "dead" HTML. I know, I
know, it's both amazing and disgusting at the same time. <g>

It might be a zombie...

I'm also webmaster for another group and they decided
to use:
http://sites.google.com/site/baltimoregreenforum/

Since you mention it, this live site does not validate but
that may be because of the hosting rather than anything
the author (you?) has positively done. Have not examined
it at all, the source is too crowded with js and the css too
googlified for me!

Everything is rather tightly controlled with their CMS. I did use their HTML editor to adjust the home page (which is also our monthly flyer). I copied it originally from an HTML (Rich Text) email, and some of the lines of text overlapped, so I added an extra line to space them better (but now the lines are too far apart). It's between these lines:

Environmental Legislation in the
Maryland General Assembly

Yeah, 700+ lines of HTML and JS is a lot to wade through. I like some of the comments in the CSS around line 114:

/* (midoringo) This fixes bug 1867401, seems like position: static fixes some */
/* IE RTL problem, but I don't know how exactly this fix the problem. */
#body .modal-dialog-title {
/* position: static; */
zoom: 1;
}

#body .sites-format-menu {
/* IE 6 hack - otherwise it renders the menu at 100% screen width for some
reason */
_width: 20em;
}

Just a stray remark: Text looks bad in various ways when
users use larger text than they you seem to be expecting
this is surely nothing to do with hosting but I don't know.
Looks like an inappropriate line-height has been set, as
well as other inappropriate restrictions.

Yes, and I don't know if it can be fixed. It probably has something to do with the CSS and I can only edit the portion of HTML starting around line 491. Even there it seems like it scanned the changes I made and "adjusted" them. It also complained about "unsafe code", which I think it considers as anything that has not been uploaded to their server.

Overall, their website builder is probably as good as need be for casual users, and it's probably easier (and safer) for amateurs to add and change content. I'm the webmaster, but the login has been given to our planning committee of a dozen people or so, and the idea was to allow them to have control of the content.

Paul

.

Relevant Pages