Well I learnt today on my ever steepening learning curve that even though this CSS malarky is supposed to simplify complete alterations of websites, you can completely hack up your whole effort if you work hard enough and you should save backups everywhere just in case it goes wrong.
As the subject title says I deleted tags without checking each time I did something so in the end even though it looked right on the website, the editor was having none of it.
I managed to trim the main page of the site from 99k to 34k with improves the load time obviously.
I still haven't dared tackle the tables problem with my site. If anyone has any idea how to alter my page to keep it looking similar but load in sections, I would be terribly greatful. Cheers.

Well it might look nearly exactly the same but I've put a load of effort into my site loading by partitions and conforming to standards.
PHEW!

Yes, much better...

CSS would simplify re-designs ONLY if it was done right the first time... getting it right the FIRST time is the hardest part.

1 question, your 'updates', they go on till last November. Why don't you archive them (into a separate page) and just keep the 'updates' since 2 weeks ago (or since the last 3 posts). That should cut down quite a chunk off your filesize!

Also, avoid using so much whitespace! Don't use tabs, and spaces unnecessarily in your indenting and html.

__________________
J de Silva
Learning Journal | GIDForums™ | GIDNetwork™ | GIDWebhosts™ | GIDSearch™

Thanks for the feedback JDS and it has really been a matter of laziness more than anything else and the fact that some of the files at the bottom were necessary until after our exam period, so anyway, yes 2 weeks has a nice ring to it and as for the white space.... there is three reasons for that a)a program did it for me b)I've been lazy about cleaning that up but most importantly c)Its helping me at the moment see what I'm doing to spot the structure patterns etc.
However, if there is a neater and (smaller) way to do it then I may go towards that.
Cheers
jrobbio

Ultimately, you should strive to compress your html.

Here's some info from a test I just did, moments ago (the page is viewtopic365.php from this board)...

Putting the url and tweaking my compression settings here's what it returned (prepare to be shocked):

No compression = 58k
With compression = 8k

http://leknor.com/code/gziped.php

__________________
J de Silva
Learning Journal | GIDForums™ | GIDNetwork™ | GIDWebhosts™ | GIDSearch™

Well what do you know, I may have just found myself a very neat freeware html compression tool from http://www.webattack.com/get/htmlcompress.shtml

I may not be able to work that well with a compressed version but that isn't a problem for uploading is it. I can just have two seperate sets of files to do the job, one to work with and the other for the web.
Cheers JDS although I'm glad I didn't have to do that.
ps. it reduced my page from 36,429 to 22,782 (37%) and my css from 5,760 to 4,499(21%). That's a 43k to 27k drop and saying that yesterday at some point it was 99k well what can you say.

Well, what can I say... you had one helluva productive day!

__________________
J de Silva
Learning Journal | GIDForums™ | GIDNetwork™ | GIDWebhosts™ | GIDSearch™

I am not sure if anyone is interested in this but here goes.
I found that the compressor that I commented on was good apart from the fact it cocked up my javascript even though I tried to disable it (I may have done it wrong). It was however good at compressing css files and html that didn't have javascript in it.
I found another proggy at http://www.serpik.com/ahc/ called Absolute html compressor. This from what I have seen is top notch but cannot do css. From the list of awards and the statement that it does not corrupt html like other optimisers is a good thing I guess. I suggest using a bit of both if your interested.