Looks nice, not much more to say about it
nothing new in download section but loads of old stuff is back!
the downloads page still looks shitty (i wonder if people actually go there anymore)
peter said the site’s not completely done yet
It better not be done yet! It’s still using a horrible table-based lay-out.
A week ago I took the time to convert the main page into a standards-compliant one: http://users.skynet.be/fa258499/peapri/peapri.html
Great Job on the new layout, It needed a makeover and this works great, can’t wait till the download section is finnished. another note is that Amusement Park still has the description of Day of love when you go to the individual description.
[ 10-12-2006, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: ms308680 ]
you know benoit, i have been thinking quite a bit abot your w3-compliant deal recently…honestly, it’s not going to kill if it’s not w3 compliant is it?
many govt sites aren’t w3-compliant (such as the fbi one), and both google or youtube aren’t either so i think that says something…hell, even my fucking blog isn’t w3-compliant and i didn’t even design the layout myself
ADD:
and honestly, the only way that would force everybody to go compliant is if all browsers stop supporting old html functions, and you know very well that this will be quite unlikely to happen
[ 10-13-2006, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Lamuness - BBS Admin ]
Yeah right, just because the majority of web sites aren’t standards compliant doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, right? Many web sites aren’t designed to web standards because the most popular web browser is IE, which supports proprietary standards. Many don’t even know that other browsers exist. So they go “Hey, if it works in IE, it’s good, right?”
For your information, the top web designers design according to web standards. Also, standards-compliancy affects how a web site is placed in search results on Google. It also makes a web site much easier and less time-consuming to maintain, and is good for accessibility.
Are you going to tell me that standards aren’t needed? Do you even know that we can all use the Internet because it’s based on open standards? The TCP/IP protocol is an open standard created by ARPANET.
Web standards are about cross-compatibility between browsers. Would you like it if you got denied entry to a web site just because you don’t use their browser of choice? Would you like it when a web site is rendered unreadable because it supports proprietary standards? Firefox has more than 10% of browser market share. Are you going to tell me that it’s okay for a business to deny 10% of its customers?
More information:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you
Please don’t talk about things you obviously don’t know enough about.
to answer something above look below
Even if all of this hadn’t been brought up here before, he probably still knew what you are talking about. He is saying that even given all of that’s true, what REALLY is the problem if it’s not 100% standards-compliant? Why is it such a big deal if the page doesn’t render quite correctly? He is calling for a larger perspective.
For example, public health codes. Public health codes are so complicated that it is literally impossible for most places to comply 100% with EVERYTHING. In fact the inspection stickers all restaraunts are legally bound to display do not state “fully compliant”; they state ‘this facility was inspected and found to be in substantial compliance’.
Some HTML is more clean than others. Just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better than much of the crappy coding that’s out there.
Furthermore you’re going off a little bit harshly, don’t you think?
for your information, peter is a mac person so it’s very likely that he is not an IE person and prolly use safari instead. i myself am mainly a firefox user too
and correct me if i am wrong, but the link benoit provided mainly talks about DEBUGGING and asking for help regarding such? i think it’s a totally different issue between “page cant load/debugging” and “100% w3 compliant” and i think benoit is going slightly off-topic with his link, but anyways…
nandemonai, you are correct as to what i am trying to imply. and i guess its okay if benoit goes all his way on being harsh since we are all aware of how firm he stands on his beliefs. at the same time, benoit is right in that i am no expert on this, but i didn’t say w3 is stupid, and trying to bring the fact that a good deal of websites (no idea if it is a majority), even popular ones, aren’t 100% w3-compliant, and it’s making me scratching my head on why it’s so important/necessary and looking for some enlightment, thats all.
“easier to maintain” is dependent on the person who made the site (most likely peter) in my opinion, and that is totally a subjective thing. i admit that i am no professional web designer, and i do not take part in designing this site at all, but i believe that as long as all codes are nicely indented and nested and documented, and displays fine in common browsers BESIDES IE (such as firefox and netscape), i think that’s all its needed.
and to quote one of the responses on benoit’s link:
i honestly dont mind if the validator tells me about errors; it can be helpful if you make a mistake in coding/debugging. however, it really depends on what type of error and if the error is significant/necessary enough to overlook. it’s kinda like receiving criticisms from various people and some you feel that is unnecessary to change. anyways just my 2 cents
and oddly enough, benoit, that link you provided can’t be verified by w3’s validator 
and so is disney.com fyi…hmmm
well, perhaps benoit doesnt care about the fbi or disney sites, and i am trying my best not to mock him here, but his “fixed” peapri page also didn’t pass validation, although it’s only one error
[ 10-13-2006, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Lamuness - BBS Admin ]
I explained this larger perspective, and that’s open standards and cross-browser compatibility.
You can’t compare that kind of code with standards applying to digital data.
I am aware of that, which is why it’s so odd that the web site is made for IE.
The way you wrote that previous post certainly seemed to imply that you thought it was silly. “it’s not going to kill”, “fucking blog”
I don’t think so. As the linked article explains, it’s much easier to work with valid code than tag soup. Separation of content and style (CSS) also makes maintenance easier.
The problem with this is that you can’t test in every existing browser and every version of them. Never mind future browser versions or even browsers with new rendering engines. Non-standard code can break your page or crash the browser.
Sensible design and separation of content and style also makes a lot of sense.
Odd indeed.
I am aware of that error, but since I’m not Peach Princess’ webmaster, I don’t know to what page/script the e-mail should be fed, and thus can’t fill in the form’s action attribute. By the way, it was exactly because of this missing attribute that signing up for news letters didn’t work.
I always get worked up when someone ‘challenges’ something that I believe in strongly with bad points that suggest he/she doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. Basically, I get angry at what I perceive as ignorance. I know it’s a bad habit.
I believe you are incorrect. This seems to me to actually be the perfect example. Both codes are so complicated it is extremely difficult to be in full compliance. There are harmless transgressions, and then there are major problems.
I agree that imperfect HTML can cause problems; however, not every mistake can cause problems. Some are innocuous.
I’m gonna stay out of the entire compliance argument. I sense nothing but heartache will come from that. 
The new Peach Princess site layout looks great IMHO. Great color selection and everything seems more professional than ever.
Makes me wanna redo my site now. :eek:
The HTML standard is not complicated at all. Where did you get that idea?
Public health codes are management issues, while being in compliance with the HTML standard only requires changing some data in a file.
The structured, semantically rich version of the main page is ready:
http://users.skynet.be/fa258499/peapri/home.html
Watch how I will turn that into the original lay-out with the power of CSS. 
Wow, I don’t feel quite so beat-up anymore about Benoit cracking down on my site so harshly…
I’ve looked at both pages Benoit and it appears the offical Peach Princess page looks better. It has boarders and such while your version has none.
I think you goofed, the css isn’t loading…
Of course the CSS isn’t loading. It’s not there yet. I’ll add it when it’s ready. I did say that the page itself was, and that I will (future tense) apply CSS to it.
The CSS is there now!
I completed the lay-out, though since there were problems with it from a design point of view (not enough space for text), I went ahead and changed it slightly to match the newer lay-out that I saw when accessing Peach Princess this evening. I didn’t change the content of the first featured game, though, which was Virgin Roster on the site.
The only thing that I haven’t gotten to work yet is to get those three boxes to be the same height.
Apparently I caught the webmaster during his work, as when I refreshed the page recently, the lay-out for the featured games had changed again. I don’t think it fits well with the rest as I saw it then.
The reason I first posted only the HTML page was so that you would see it before it got any CSS, to show you how powerful it is. 
Since we were speaking of proofreading in the other thread…
“Hello again from Peach Princess! It’s time for another update on our excellent PC dating-sim games form Japan!”
Also, AnimaMundi still has the red Preorder now! text on it in the listings of games by other makers. And the title is misspelled ‘Animundi’, which keeps it from being findable via the site’s search engine…
[ 10-17-2006, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: papillon ]