Some of the worst HTML I've seen has been written by tools. Apparently the authors of such tools couldn't fathom that anyone would ever look at and hand-edit the glorious markup produced by, say, MS Word, so they didn't consider readability, brevity, or in some cases correctness to be important. Is that the sort of thing you're dealing with here? Or did someone actually hand-craft this HTML?
It looks hand-written to me, but it may be from a tool I don't recognize the output of. What indenting there is looks like a combination of what a sloppy program would be likely to generate and what someone might do by hand, and it doesn't have a comment identifying a tool. Also, don't most of the tools for generating HTML include a DOCTYPE header? This file doesn't have one.
I once made the obervation that, if one wishes to provide an HTML version of one's resume, and HTML is listed as a skill therein, then simply exporting the Word doc to HTML and leaving it that way is a Really Bad Idea. :-)
(which, of course, pretty much means you have to maintain both versions of your resume in parallel.)
Agreed on the Really Bad Idea! For similar reasons, I know managers of documentation groups who look at incoming Word resumes to see if the person correctly used styles and whatnot or just hacked the individual paragraphs/headings/etc. Never send source that you'd be embarrassed to have your prospective manager look at.
You don't have to maintain two versions, though. Word can import HTML, so you can just keep your source in HTML and import into Word as needed. Single-sourced documents can't get out of sync as easily, and text sources are easier to manage. (For example, diff is available.)
When I'm job-hunting I go one extra step: I send PDF, not Word. That way I'm insulated from the formatting flakiness that sometimes comes with different versions of Word (e.g. your pagination looked just fine when you sent it, but that's not what he sees). But I'm a technical writer; I'm expected to think of things like this. Most programmer resumes I've seen haven't come as PDF and it hasn't hurt them much. :-)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Scarier thought -- my customer says that his customer (whose business the site is for) also edits the site.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(which, of course, pretty much means you have to maintain both versions of your resume in parallel.)
(no subject)
You don't have to maintain two versions, though. Word can import HTML, so you can just keep your source in HTML and import into Word as needed. Single-sourced documents can't get out of sync as easily, and text sources are easier to manage. (For example, diff is available.)
When I'm job-hunting I go one extra step: I send PDF, not Word. That way I'm insulated from the formatting flakiness that sometimes comes with different versions of Word (e.g. your pagination looked just fine when you sent it, but that's not what he sees). But I'm a technical writer; I'm expected to think of things like this. Most programmer resumes I've seen haven't come as PDF and it hasn't hurt them much. :-)