Sound In Cache-pages Doesn't Work Anymore...

[+°]

Believe it or not: I had to adapt this html several times in the past three years due to changes of the templates - there are some other cachers for whom I made some descriptions.

 

Anyway - it's whining over spoiled milk. I don't think that Jeremy will remove html-tidy so I won't explain why did certain things with the description.

 

For the css-user: central defined styles are cleaned up as well >> you'll have to define it within the specific tag.

[+The Leprechauns]

You haven't been doing this nearly as long as I, so you don't remember back when people were able to enter image links as cache and owner names. Looked really cool on the cache page. But, of course, when weekly notices came out, and the ability to download LOC files, it didn't work out so well.

.... or in Travel Bug Names.

[+fizzymagic]

Believe it or not: I had to adapt this html several times in the past three years due to changes of the templates - there are some other cachers for whom I made some descriptions.

That's the problem with your page in a nutshell.

 

<rant>

Well-written HTML should not require changes with template changes. Well-written cache descriptions should include all information necessary to find the cache in a form readable on a wide range of devices, from cell phones and PDAs to high-end computers.

 

I understand the desire some people have to completely customize the entire cache page. But it's not appropriate to do that for a site, such as geocaching.com, that hosts your descriptions for you, for free, and encapsulates your description into a well-defined page style.

 

You are always welcome to host your own cache page and link to it from the description on geocaching.com. Then you can go hog-wild and make it as ugly as you want.

</rant>

[robertlipe]

If the professor going through your paper and fixing grammatic errors changes the meaning of the paper, it was already broken and incomprehensible. Just becuase you could read it and understand what it meant didn't mean it was right.

 

To be blunt, if your page is substantially different after being made legal than it was before it was tidied, it was broken and incomprehensible to the world at large. Just because it looked OK on your desktop didn't mean it was right.

[+Glenn]

Along with the background images and whatever went the XHTML and Handicap compatibility, apparently.

 

For example, the BREAK<br /> and LISTING <ol></ol> & <li></li> tags(and more) have returned to their archaric HTML 4.0 format. What other tags are now M.I.A.,I wonder?

 

After you get done ranting, could you maybe make a crib sheet for me??? (seriously, what things won't work anymore, and whats the 'new' way to do it?)

Try this webpage.