I don't like xhtml

XHTML is just HTML done properly (all closed tags and in lower case)

bja888.com has no DOC tag and has capital tags, are you trying to do it in strict or transitional ?

Busy's right. This isn't xhtml: There's no DTD, and some of the tags are uppercase. You seem to be using tables for layout... But let's not have that argument again, well actually this would be fine if you're using a Transitional DTD

[edit]
And this isn't allowed if you use a strict DTD either:
target="_blank"
[/edit]

No that isn't XHTML. To use an iframe you'd need to use XHTML transitional.

Reason to learn and use valid XHTML:
It won't let you make mistakes. Leave out one quote mark or one closing tag and watch what happens....it throws errors all over the page, and sometimes the page won't even display at all. Which is GOOD! It forces you to write good, clean, compliant code.

No that isn't the xhtml version online. The xhtml version in on my computer. It has simalar structure though. I nuderstand the rules of xhtml but dident know you can't use "_blank" any more.

From what I understand though... xhtml Isnt very friendly to hight values especially a %. I give it a 100% value and its 1px in IE and 200px in FireFox. Where as I want it to fill the page.

100% height doesn't make any sense anyway - 100% of what? Of the page or of the browser window?

I use "_blank" anyway sometimes. The people I work with have this thing with things opening in new windows Although the system we have now doesn't even have a doctype (outside of our control) so it doesn't matter as much.

Well, just like the current bja888.com the new one has no body content other than the Iframe. The menus are positioned. So I want it to be 100% of the window.

Why use an iframe at all?
why not use CSS and fix the side content

a height hack:

make a table 1000x1200 and place between body tags with all your content inside the table

now you can use height = 100% as it has something to go against, sadly your layout will look crap as it wont be browser friendly in dimensons.
Also if you use a fixed size table or sometimes div after that and then use a percentage width you may find the percentage is going off the fixed width rather than the orginal main table - reason why fixed and percentages should not be mixed.

well... I guess I will have to make the layout work page by page, do away with the whole Iframe idea Which means longer load time It would seem every little trick and technique I learned in html has been eliminated in xhtml. I like the new syntax rules but hate the poor positioning.

How does an iframe mean shorter load time? It still has to load all the content within the iframe.

I think his point is that the iframe page is loaded the first time it's requested then on subsequent pages the browser can use the sub-page from its cache.

If you use repeat content across pages the browser will alway have to download that page, including the repeated content again.

Useing the current technique I load about 100 lines less on each page. Hey, its the internet every second counts.

For what it's worth your site loaded pretty fast for me and I'm on dialup, so adding a couple for milli-seconds wont hurt

Well I know that version loads well. It looks like crap too. The new one will be nice though!

Dang Ive been working out on xhtml transitional, and its really quite difficult, ill be patient though...

XHTML transitional = basic tidy HTML
XHTML Strict = half selective HTML, half CSS *a decent strict site can not be done with (x)HTML alone*

Busy wrote: *a decent strict site can not be done with (x)HTML alone*

What does this mean exactly? That you have to use CSS (if so, I'm in agreement - just wanting to clarify)?

You could but IE mould never support it

If I ever get time/money I will seroiusly consider it. My current desktop focus is on a better clipboard tool.

You can alredy make your own markup language with xml i think.

Note I did say decent site

Why reinvent the wheel? CSS positioning works just fine.

Busy wrote: *should we tell anyone we actually agree?*

LOL - definately not!

I second that motion Renegade.

bja888 wrote: I do not agree. The biggest proublem I am haveing with css postioning is that you can define where an object should be relative to the parent object.

Absoulte postioning starts at the top right conrner of the screen and relative postioning just moves it from where it would normally be.

What more do you need ? Static leaves the element in the normal flow, Relative will move the element relative to the parent and absolute is out of the flow and exactly where you specify. Unless you want an absolutely positioned element that is relative to other elements, which would be a contradiction in terms.
Actually absolute is the top left corner of the browser viewport

bja888 wrote: There should also be a way to align one object to the left and the other one to the right in the same parent object.

There is.

float: left|right|none W3Schools

Right On Chris!

Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't absolute positioning, absolute to it's parent?

If it is contained in a parent div, if not absolute with resprect to the page...