Re: [WSG] Unwanted gaps between divs
At 05:14 on Tuesday, 16 Nov 2004, Nick Lo wrote:
By the way it can be solved by adding padding to it's container:
div#content { margin-left: 190px; margin-right: 200px; padding-top: 3pt;
}
However I'm still not clear why.
I'd imagine this might explain:
http://www.complexspiral.com/publications/uncollapsing-margins/
hth
;o)
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Avoiding image cut-off through CSS?
At 03:52 on Tuesday, 16 Nov 2004, Chris Stratford wrote: Wow, that is something I didn't realise existed! That is great! Thanks a lot Natalie! - Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Natalie Buxton wrote: Armit You can force a page break before an image using css. page-break-before: always; Natalie The downside of that is that *every* image will be at the head of a new page. FWIW User agents are supposed to avoid splitting images across pages by default. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Problems With Overflowing DIVs
Hi Guys, This is my first post here, i am gradually getting into web standards and CSS based design. But i am having problems with a simple layout at the moment. If you take a look at this page: http://www.burninthespotlight.com/topics/page1810666.html (this page has no design yet, i want it to function first) Basically you can see my problems, i have a main container (invisible) then i have a class (.ctpost) on each DIVwith the white coloured background. And inside that white coloured DIV i have 4 more DIVs, one on the left positioned relative with 0px top and 0px left positioning, and then 3 on the right also positioned relative (0px right 0px top), but with a margin of 175px left, so that it dont overlap the left div (which is 175px) Im struggling a bit to create such a simple layout. and i dont understand why my DIVs are overflowing their containter (white coloured bacgroud DIV) My Style sheet http://www.burninthespotlight.com/styles/layout3.css The styles used for this layout are all at the bottom of the CSS: *.memberdetails *(is for the left div with the details in) *.postdetails *(is the DIV with the post content) *.buttons *(is the DIV that holds the yahoo msn buttons etc...) *.postedon* (the date of the post holder) I used classes cause this is an auto generated page from my forum, and i cant tell each post to have a different ID ,otherwise i would have tonnes of IDs in my CSS. So i used a class. I think thats all, if someone could give me a hand, in fixing the overflow bug, that would be great. Or point me in the direction of a layout similar to what i am trying to create, that i could look at. Many Thanks! --- Josef Dunne Web Developer *w: *http://www.burninthespotlight.com Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=10255t=82 --- THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE YOU MUST NOT USE OR DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Problems With Overflowing DIVs
Hey Joey, On first inspection I think your problem is setting the width to 100%. The three overflowing divs within the ctpost have settings that have the width of the parent element and are then shifted 175px to the right, hence the overflow. Try just using margin-left: 175px (no need for the position, width or left settings) and see how that sits. Enjoy the ride, Damian In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Guys, This is my first post here, i am gradually getting into web standards and CSS based design. But i am having problems with a simple layout at the moment. If you take a look at this page: http://www.burninthespotlight.com/topics/page1810666.html (this page has no design yet, i want it to function first) Basically you can see my problems, i have a main container (invisible) then i have a class (.ctpost) on each DIVwith the white coloured background. And inside that white coloured DIV i have 4 more DIVs, one on the left positioned relative with 0px top and 0px left positioning, and then 3 on the right also positioned relative (0px right 0px top), but with a margin of 175px left, so that it dont overlap the left div (which is 175px) Im struggling a bit to create such a simple layout. and i dont understand why my DIVs are overflowing their containter (white coloured bacgroud DIV) My Style sheet http://www.burninthespotlight.com/styles/layout3.css The styles used for this layout are all at the bottom of the CSS: *.memberdetails *(is for the left div with the details in) *.postdetails *(is the DIV with the post content) *.buttons *(is the DIV that holds the yahoo msn buttons etc...) *.postedon* (the date of the post holder) I used classes cause this is an auto generated page from my forum, and i cant tell each post to have a different ID ,otherwise i would have tonnes of IDs in my CSS. So i used a class. I think thats all, if someone could give me a hand, in fixing the overflow bug, that would be great. Or point me in the direction of a layout similar to what i am trying to create, that i could look at. Many Thanks! --- Josef Dunne Web Developer *w: *http://www.burninthespotlight.com Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=10255t=82 --- THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE YOU MUST NOT USE OR DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Avoiding image cut-off through CSS?
It wont do that unless he puts the CSS in the img {}. You can do it
inline for a specific image, paragraph, whatever, or in a span
specifically for that purpose.
You dont have to specify it globally for all images.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:35 -, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The downside of that is that *every* image will be at the head of a new
page.
FWIW User agents are supposed to avoid splitting images across pages by
default.
--
Website Designer/Developer
www.nataliebuxton.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Problems With Overflowing DIVs
Hi Damian, Thanks for that info, i have ammended my CSS file as you said, and voila! http://www.burninthespotlight.com/topics/page1810666.html (Page with problem) http://www.burninthespotlight.com/styles/layout3.css (CSS File) It fixed some of the overflowing, only problem i have now, is that the .memberdetails DIV on the left (width 175px) is still overflowing (you can see this happening on posts with text that is shorter than the left member details DIV. i wondered what this could be? But thanks for your help, i seemed to have made it too complex at first! Oh well im enjoying the ride! Thanks Joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Joey, On first inspection I think your problem is setting the width to 100%. The three overflowing divs within the ctpost have settings that have the width of the parent element and are then shifted 175px to the right, hence the overflow. Try just using margin-left: 175px (no need for the position, width or left settings) and see how that sits. Enjoy the ride, Damian In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Guys, This is my first post here, i am gradually getting into web standards and CSS based design. But i am having problems with a simple layout at the moment. If you take a look at this page: http://www.burninthespotlight.com/topics/page1810666.html (this page has no design yet, i want it to function first) Basically you can see my problems, i have a main container (invisible) then i have a class (.ctpost) on each DIVwith the white coloured background. And inside that white coloured DIV i have 4 more DIVs, one on the left positioned relative with 0px top and 0px left positioning, and then 3 on the right also positioned relative (0px right 0px top), but with a margin of 175px left, so that it dont overlap the left div (which is 175px) Im struggling a bit to create such a simple layout. and i dont understand why my DIVs are overflowing their containter (white coloured bacgroud DIV) My Style sheet http://www.burninthespotlight.com/styles/layout3.css The styles used for this layout are all at the bottom of the CSS: *.memberdetails *(is for the left div with the details in) *.postdetails *(is the DIV with the post content) *.buttons *(is the DIV that holds the yahoo msn buttons etc...) *.postedon* (the date of the post holder) I used classes cause this is an auto generated page from my forum, and i cant tell each post to have a different ID ,otherwise i would have tonnes of IDs in my CSS. So i used a class. I think thats all, if someone could give me a hand, in fixing the overflow bug, that would be great. Or point me in the direction of a layout similar to what i am trying to create, that i could look at. Many Thanks! --- Josef Dunne Web Developer *w: *http://www.burninthespotlight.com Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=10255t=82 --- THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE YOU MUST NOT USE OR DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- --- Josef Dunne Web Developer *w: *http://www.burninthespotlight.com Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=10255t=82 --- THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE YOU MUST NOT USE OR DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Avoiding image cut-off through CSS?
At 11:30 on Tuesday, 16 Nov 2004, Natalie Buxton wrote:
It wont do that unless he puts the CSS in the img {}. You can do it
inline for a specific image, paragraph, whatever, or in a span
specifically for that purpose.
You dont have to specify it globally for all images.
sure, but then you have to know which ones will be split across the
printed page and I got the impression that this wasn't always clear.
I've run aground on this many times with dynamic or data driven sites
where content and image placement isn't known beforehand.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
[WSG] zoom, or text zoom?
Hi All, I joined this group a couple of weeks ago and already have learnt lots of stuff. But, like all new folk to xhtml/css, I'm struggling to accept some of it. I've used CSS for a couple of years now, but only recently have moved to full CSS (no tables etc). The thing that worries me most is accessibility - I love pixels as units of dimensions. In my ignorance/innocence, I used to sit complacent with a design, thinking that because I'd used pixels as my units it was safe from those people who wanted to view 'text size largest' or whatever, and that the innate construction of my site was safe. However, since I started to use Firefox (and Mozilla) I see that my designs can be wrecked in seconds by someone zooming the text size. (Which IE6 won't do). I love Firefox, but to my (learning) eye, this text zoom is BAD! No, I'm not being inconsiderate to folk with visual problems - Opera has a beautiful zoom feature which simply magnifies everything and keeps the design intact, so isn't that the way browsers should be going, instead of just acting on the text? Clearly, the use of ems is just a nightmare, esp when you have several images and have to guess what the em dimensions are, so what's wrong with 'complete zoom' instead of 'text zoom'? Let me stress, I'm emnot /em being arrogant or inconsiderate - I'm learning. I don't grasp the reasoning behind this and I can't find anything that explains the philosophy of this approach. So I'm asking the question. Thanks, Bob (McClelland) Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] zoom, or text zoom?
From: designer Clearly, the use of ems is just a nightmare, esp when you have several images and have to guess what the em dimensions are, Images should still be specified in pixels, imho, as pixel size is an intrinsic property of raster images. I'd posit (but admittedly it's my personal opinion, and I can see the opposite point as well) that the crummy look of badly resized images whose dimensions have been defined in relative units is far worse than having them at a static size when users make slight changes in text size. Of course, if the image contains crucial information, it should have appropriate ALT (and maybe even LONGDESC) attributes, or you may even consider not using an image at all (or a combination of CSS background image and normal text on top). This is really the area in which SVG would solve a lot of problems, if only it were better supported natively in browsers...(for geometric images anyway...you'd still have the same issue with raster images, of course) so what's wrong with 'complete zoom' instead of 'text zoom'? With page zoom it's very easy to end up with something that requires the user to scroll both horizontally and vertically. Particularly on small screens, this can become a pain when all the user wanted to do was to punch up the text size a notch or two because the designer chose some (to them) illegibly small size. Keep in mind that users will not generally blow up the text size to extraordinary amounts - if they need text that big, they'll more than likely need it that size for the rest of their OS, so they'd be using a small screen resolution to begin with, and/or employ screen magnifiers (either software or hardware solutions). Nonetheless, it's part of the constraints for designers working with the medium of the web that they should at least keep in mind that users may be changing their preferred text sizes. Sites should, within reason, be designed in a way that doesn't make them completely fall apart when this happens. Sizes of +/- 50-100% should still be handled reasonably gracefully. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] zoom, or text zoom?
The best way to work around this is to make a fluid layout. Somethings will always not fit with your design. But the user would be more than used to websites breaking if they constantly need massive text on screen... designer wrote: Hi All, I joined this group a couple of weeks ago and already have learnt lots of stuff. But, like all new folk to xhtml/css, I'm struggling to accept some of it. I've used CSS for a couple of years now, but only recently have moved to full CSS (no tables etc). The thing that worries me most is accessibility - I love pixels as units of dimensions. In my ignorance/innocence, I used to sit complacent with a design, thinking that because I'd used pixels as my units it was safe from those people who wanted to view 'text size largest' or whatever, and that the innate construction of my site was safe. However, since I started to use Firefox (and Mozilla) I see that my designs can be wrecked in seconds by someone zooming the text size. (Which IE6 won't do). I love Firefox, but to my (learning) eye, this text zoom is BAD! No, I'm not being inconsiderate to folk with visual problems - Opera has a beautiful zoom feature which simply magnifies everything and keeps the design intact, so isn't that the way browsers should be going, instead of just acting on the text? Clearly, the use of ems is just a nightmare, esp when you have several images and have to guess what the em dimensions are, so what's wrong with 'complete zoom' instead of 'text zoom'? Let me stress, I'm emnot /em being arrogant or inconsiderate - I'm learning. I don't grasp the reasoning behind this and I can't find anything that explains the philosophy of this approach. So I'm asking the question. Thanks, Bob (McClelland) Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] zoom, or text zoom?
designer wrote: I joined this group a couple of weeks ago and already have learnt lots of stuff. But, like all new folk to xhtml/css, I'm struggling to accept some of it. I've used CSS for a couple of years now, but only recently have moved to full CSS (no tables etc). The thing that worries me most is accessibility - I love pixels as units of dimensions. In my ignorance/innocence, I used to sit complacent with a design, thinking that because I'd used pixels as my units it was safe from those people who wanted to view 'text size largest' or whatever, and that the innate construction of my site was safe. However, since I started to use Firefox (and Mozilla) I see that my designs can be wrecked in seconds by someone zooming the text size. (Which IE6 won't do). I love Firefox, but to my (learning) eye, this text zoom is BAD! No, I'm not being inconsiderate to folk with visual Bad for designs that don't allow for it, good for people on high res displays who can't read text 1/4 the size of their default, and for everyone else for whom access supercedes prettiness. problems - Opera has a beautiful zoom feature which simply magnifies everything and keeps the design intact, so isn't that the way browsers should be going, instead of just acting on the text? Of course. Clearly, the use of ems is just a nightmare, esp when you have several images and have to guess what the em dimensions are, so what's wrong with 'complete zoom' instead of 'text zoom'? Nothing, except it hasn't been implemented yet. The drivers apparently felt text zoom was better than no zoom, and that's where it stands now. As Mozilla is open source, you're welcome to fix the bug, which is marked helpwanted: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4821 Let me stress, I'm emnot /em being arrogant or inconsiderate - I'm learning. I don't grasp the reasoning behind this and I can't find anything that explains the philosophy of this approach. So I'm asking the question. I haven't read that bug lately, but I imagine part of the problem is scaling up images doesn't work very well. Svg is supposed to change image scaling problems someday. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122092 In the meantime, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98971 might help. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Navigation inconsistent
Hi, I'm having rendering issues with the navigation at the following: http://working.ckimedia.com/index.php in firefox 1.0 MAC OS 10.2.8 all is well, in safari 1.0.3 the padding on the bottom border is inside the tabs. Would some one assist? ___ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] video standards?
I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [Re: [WSG] video standards?]
Original Message Subject: [WSG] video standards? From:brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:Tue, November 16, 2004 11:40 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? -- I think: windows media movie (.mpeg or .avi), quicktime movie (.mov), and realplayer movie (.rm?). Good question tho. later, Zulema · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ! ! b l u e w e b d e s i g n e r email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://zoblue.com/ weblog : http://blog.zoblue.com/ firefox : http://mozilla.org/products/firefox/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ is a player that handles (most) wmv movies and is available for a large number of platforms. I'm not a video expert, but heres my understanding of the market: 1. wmv files are a MS propriety implementation of MPEG4. 2. Generally the files are considerably smaller (up to 50%), but the compression comes at the expense of picture quality. 3. mov is the most widely supported format (by default, without needing to install additional software?). 4. realmedia are a sleazy deceptive corporation who should be avoided at all costs. ./tdw On 2004-11-17 6:40 AM, brian cummiskey wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? -- *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
--- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site check please - launched it finally!
Link? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:20:04 +1100, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a small issue on the home page with the hover state in firefox/win. On the link to the help page the hover state underline is pushing the content box and footer down by 1px creates a little visual jump on rollover. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
I dont know a whole lot about video stuff but I agree with Terrence and though Windows media is available for Mac OS, very few would install in let alone use it! .mov is a better way of going about surely. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:28:34 -0800 (PST), Edwin Horneij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Regards, Amit Karmakar http://karmakars.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ C On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 09:40 AM, brian cummiskey wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ___ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), and the software they recommend is $450. That's more than i'm getting paid for this job, and is just not profitable, nor logical, for me to spend more than my contract for something that the client doesn't want anyway. Pretty sure i'm going to stick with the wmv format, as per his request. It's his site. I recommended an mpg4 and avi/divx as an alternative format, but he only wants 1. His choice... and windows movie maker is a piece of cake to use :) With the link to the other software posted a few back, i think i will simply provice a link to get the software (like a get flash button) or something. I guess this will conclude this thread unless someone has something to change my clients mind and is practical (free? cheap? something like that) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Within QuickTime there are are many codecs available, including AVI, MPEGs 1 2 and MPEG 4, etc. This is what I've found (the hard way) when dealing with video: AVI is an old MS codec that they haven't supported in years that thrill Windows users because of the small file sizes. IMHO, the quality is terrible. Windows Media player is available for both Mac OS 9 and OSX and some of us Mac users secretly harbor this player, although we never display it on our hard drives! As Terrence said, the size issue is great, the quality can be good, if you know what you're doing. I've used QuickTime Pro and MPEG 4 with the most success with both audio and video across platforms. The sizes aren't bad, but it does require the user to have the latest QT 6 plug-in. Either format would work with some experimentation. As far as Linux is concerned, I haven't a clue. I don't know about the sleaze factor of Real, but I do know that special plug-ins are required in order to convert to Real. Besides, the Real interface is, let's face it, real bad... Flash is an alternative, but will require someone with a very good understanding of how to use the program as it can be a slow and tedious process. I've mixed QT with Flash for some good results. So much depends on what exactly is involved in the small video. If you're talking just video or audio/video and/or special effects etc. There is no easy, simple answer without knowing what exactly you need. And even then, there is no easy answer. Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
.mov is QuickTime and Windows users are as likely to download and install that as Mac users are to install Windows Media Player. And even if you use Windows Media Player, the issue of codecs remains - not all codecs are available for the Mac and some do not play at all or play the video with no audio. Camtasia is a case in point. In the absence of a common format, I always offer .wmv, .mov and .rm (Real Player). Offering the choice takes up very little bandwidth and at least you know that everyone can view your videos. You could sniff for the OS and serve accordingly, or you could allow users to choose. If you choose the latter, you need to specify which format works with which platforms as many users don't know. Hope this helps. On Wednesday, 17 November 2004 7:48 AM, Amit Karmakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont know a whole lot about video stuff but I agree with Terrence and though Windows media is available for Mac OS, very few would install in let alone use it! .mov is a better way of going about surely. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:28:34 -0800 (PST), Edwin Horneij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Regards, Amit Karmakar http://karmakars.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Brian, .mov is both platforms (don't know about Linux, but don't doubt it's there too) more so than .wmv. And iMovie is cheap and also a piece of cake to use, if not more so. ;) Also, to Chris's point, there are more people with Flash than anything else (both platforms included, again not up on Linux). Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), and the software they recommend is $450. That's more than i'm getting paid for this job, and is just not profitable, nor logical, for me to spend more than my contract for something that the client doesn't want anyway. Pretty sure i'm going to stick with the wmv format, as per his request. It's his site. I recommended an mpg4 and avi/divx as an alternative format, but he only wants 1. His choice... and windows movie maker is a piece of cake to use :) With the link to the other software posted a few back, i think i will simply provice a link to get the software (like a get flash button) or something. I guess this will conclude this thread unless someone has something to change my clients mind and is practical (free? cheap? something like that) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Well, I guess that was the end. C On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 01:40 PM, brian cummiskey wrote: Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), ___ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] legend formatting issues
Our new site uses fieldsets on all of our forms and I've always had a bit of a struggle with the lengths of legends. I've tried adding a width to the legend but the browsers seem to ignore the width declaration. I'm especially having problems with IE gasp/ which is forcing the div with the legend below another div instead of sitting next to it. Firefox doesn't constrain the width but lets it overlap when the font is made larger. So, any helpful advice for making a legend wrap if it gets too long? Thanks Ted www.csatravelprotection.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] legend formatting issues
Hi Ted, Just a quick comment on legends that are too long. Modern screen readers like JAWS voice the legend before every form input label within a fieldset. As a result, some screen reader users might get a bit annoyed with your form (and the site) if, for example, they have to hear a whole lot of words and then name, all those words again and then phone number, all those words yet again and then email, all those words YET AGAIN and then address etc - you get the idea. Roger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ted Drake Sent: Wednesday, 17 November 2004 9:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] legend formatting issues Our new site uses fieldsets on all of our forms and I've always had a bit of a struggle with the lengths of legends. I've tried adding a width to the legend but the browsers seem to ignore the width declaration. I'm especially having problems with IE gasp/ which is forcing the div with the legend below another div instead of sitting next to it. Firefox doesn't constrain the width but lets it overlap when the font is made larger. So, any helpful advice for making a legend wrap if it gets too long? Thanks Ted www.csatravelprotection.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] RE: legend formatting issues
So, I've been sitting here blaming my legend for the page falling apart and I think I need to apologize. I'm sorry legend, I may have been wrong. Do you forgive me? Well, that makes me feel better, but it doesn't solve my problem. I threw some borders on my divs and elements and discovered the sidebar div is growing as the text gets larger, but the maincontent div doesn't. I'm using a simple width:... on each. The maincontent is floated right, it is playing nicely. The sidebar is position:relative and has a margin of 509px to the right so that it could sit next to the floated div. My mind isn't grasping the conflict right now. Perhaps I should begin apologizing to the floats and inputs, lord knows they've been on the receiving end of some four-letter words. Ted -Original Message- From: Ted Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:46 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: legend formatting issues Our new site uses fieldsets on all of our forms and I've always had a bit of a struggle with the lengths of legends. I've tried adding a width to the legend but the browsers seem to ignore the width declaration. I'm especially having problems with IE gasp/ which is forcing the div with the legend below another div instead of sitting next to it. Firefox doesn't constrain the width but lets it overlap when the font is made larger. So, any helpful advice for making a legend wrap if it gets too long? Thanks Ted www.csatravelprotection.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Site-Check:
Hi WSG members, I've been working on my first -total webstandards- project for some time now. It's enteing it's final stage, now only content has to be applied to it. Would you be so kind to do a little site-check to see if it all works out ? I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC and I see no problems. But hey ;) I've tried to be as compliant as possible. Only have to recorde the contact forms, the app I uses produces crappy 4.01 html code. Tables for forms .. brr .. Anyway : The url - http://www.sportopolis.be Regards, Kristof ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] zoom, or text zoom?
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:51:58 -, designer wrote:
- Opera has a beautiful zoom feature which simply magnifies
everything and keeps the design intact, so isn't that the way
browsers should be going, instead of just acting on the text?
I love Opera, but it's not perfect. If you have a layer positioned
to the right, that layer expands to the left when zoomed, thus
squashing the middle.
Clearly, the use of ems is just a nightmare, esp when you have
several images and have to guess what the em dimensions are,
so what's wrong with
'complete zoom' instead of 'text zoom'?
As you noted, only IE stops users from zooming. I think that maybe
even IE for Mac allows pixel sizes to zoom.
Personally, I never really got the hang of table based design, and
quickly latched on to CSS. Like any technique, you have to play with
it a while to get the hang of it. The developer toolbar for Firefox
lets you edit the CSS and get immediate feedback. I find this
great for adjusting percents and ems.
Another suggestion I saw is to use pixels, which are easier to figure,
then use the star hack to give relative sizes to IE only, viz:
html,
body {font: normal 16px/1.5 Lucida, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;
}
* html,
* html body {font-size: 100%;
}
I think that once you accept that you cannot control the appearance
of a web page like a magazine page or brochure, it gives a freedom
that is fun to explore.
Life. Love. Peace.
David
--
David Hucklesby, on 11/16/2004
http://www.hucklesby.com/
--
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Hugh Todd wrote: I had a listen Frank Casanova's talk, given recently at the CTIA Wireless IT Entertainment Conference in San Francisco ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/ctia2004/ ), and was impressed by the commitment Apple appears to be showing to open standards in video and audio media. Is this not something that fits with the Web Standards ethos? As far as I know, Most web standards people are against web standards containing RAND licences of patented tech. Eg, the idea that writing an HTML browser shouldn't require payment; that's it doesn't matter if you earn money from it; and that there's no usage charges. MPEG 4, as used in the current Quicktime rather than Sorenson, is patented and controlled by the MPEG-LA grou who have legal rights in the countries where they have patents. This has quite a good write up about under what circumstances they'll charge (mostly around usage it seems): http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx As I understand it open source implementations of MPEG 4, like XviD, implement things that in some countries are patented. Eg, Patented stuff in XviD 0.9.x was not legal in the US or Japan unless you settled with the licence holders. I haven't been on the list long so I hope this doesn't start a flamewar about proprietary Vs open, or using the software people have Vs. what's unpopular. I'm just trying to compare what I think the Web Standards ethos for licencing is Vs these video licences. And I don't mean to single out MPEG4 either, because MPEG 2, Sorensen, AVI (the container format), WMV, are patented and licenced similarly. I don't know much about MPEG1 licencing but I'd guess that it's the same if only because of the audio format. From a licencing standpoint I guess Ogg Theora, or the BBC's Dirac would be closest to web standards (free for anyone, allows commercial use, no usage charges). I'm not a lawyer but I looked into this kind of thing a while back when trying to come up with a suggestion for a government standard on video and audio, and there weren't many open and free standards around. .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Positioning text
Try z-index: http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_pos_z-index.asp Damian I am trying to get the graphic logo (CRF logo above) in my header to be positioned behind the grapic and between (CRF) and This is some text for testing purposes. Does anyone have any ideas? Thank you. HTML: http://www.choroideremia.org/New/CRFHeader.htm CSS: http://www.choroideremia.org/New/CRF_css1.css Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page: http://members.shaw.ca/dabneyadfm Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Hi, excepting the font size in the content, everything seems to be ok, at least with Opera 6.05 PC, an old version that always show something different and i usually use to the final standard check. The look is very cool. Manara Citando Kristof Rutten [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi WSG members, I've been working on my first -total webstandards- project for some time now. It's enteing it's final stage, now only content has to be applied to it. Would you be so kind to do a little site-check to see if it all works out ? I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC and I see no problems. But hey ;) I've tried to be as compliant as possible. Only have to recorde the contact forms, the app I uses produces crappy 4.01 html code. Tables for forms .. brr .. Anyway : The url - http://www.sportopolis.be Regards, Kristof ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Kristof Rutten wrote: Hi WSG members, I've been working on my first -total webstandards- project for some time now. It's enteing it's final stage, now only content has to be applied to it. Would you be so kind to do a little site-check to see if it all works out ? I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC and I see no problems. But hey ;) I've tried to be as compliant as possible. Only have to recorde the contact forms, the app I uses produces crappy 4.01 html code. Tables for forms .. brr .. Anyway : The url - http://www.sportopolis.be Regards, Kristof Kristof, Just a very quick view XP_SP2 at 1280 1024: Opera Horizontal page shift when h v menu items are clicked. Text zooms vertically and horizontally, producing a horizontal scrollbar. FF Horizontal page shift when h v menu items are clicked, although perhaps not as noticeable as in Opera. Text zooms vertically, breaking horizontal menu rather quickly. IE6 No shift when h v menu items are clicked. Text does *not* zoom. (x)html valid CSS- 2 easily correctable errors Best, David David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Hey Kristof, First up, it's looking clean, smart and fresh. Just some points that immediately spring to mind: - Nav: hard to read white text on light blue button background - List of links on the left: on IE/Win the buttons don't behave as you'd expect unless you hover over the text specifically. IMO the whole button should be 'hot'. Try setting the likks to display:block? - the Select a Club select menu is inaccessible. Under IE, if you try to use the select list by keyboard, it becomes very tedious very quickly. Also consider putting a label element around 'Fast Clubber' as well as a go button (or at least some cleverer javascript). - Consider using CSS rather than images for the red and blue button areas at the bottom left. It's hard enough to read as is. Good luck and hope it goes well... Regards, hank http://henrytapia.com/ - Original Message - From: Kristof Rutten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:54 AM Subject: [WSG] Site-Check: Hi WSG members, I've been working on my first -total webstandards- project for some time now. It's enteing it's final stage, now only content has to be applied to it. Would you be so kind to do a little site-check to see if it all works out ? I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC and I see no problems. But hey ;) I've tried to be as compliant as possible. Only have to recorde the contact forms, the app I uses produces crappy 4.01 html code. Tables for forms .. brr .. Anyway : The url - http://www.sportopolis.be Regards, Kristof ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Matthew, You make some good points. However: 1) The MPEG-LA (Licensing Authority), as far as I know, is only the legal clearing-house for the MPEG-4 technology, which has been developed at the behest of a large number of the manufacturers and developers in the video market. No one person or company owns the technology. There is a patent pool. The upshot of this is that the technology is not public domain, but it is an ISO standard. In the same way that (now) Microsoft has submitted, and had accepted, a form of Windows Media 9 (VC 9) as *one* of the standards for the next generation of DVD. (It's important to note the distinction between the 'technology licence' that, say, Microsoft charges for Windows Media - at a very reasonable rate - and a 'patent licence', which is the sort of thing MPEG-LA takes care of on behalf of its patent holders, and will manage for VC 9 as well.) In an area in which advances have been made (and patented) by many people, such an arrangement is probably the best we can hope for, though it helps to have deployment companies like Apple going in to bat for us users to keep some sort of lid on costs. 2) Ideally there would be a 'free' standard, along the lines you suggest, and in keeping with the spirit of web standards. But as yet the sheer skill required to create such a thing *and* give it mass market distribution (with legally sourced content to drive its uptake) is not there. So the real world choices for us are: a) Go for a proprietary format, whether Windows Media, Real, QuickTime or Flash, simply because the players are installed on large numbers of machines. b) Go for a standards-based format even if, in some cases involving heavy usage, it involves (directly or indirectly) dealing with the gatekeepers, MPEG-LA. In this case, users will still need to have installed players able to recognise MPEG-4 files, and as far as I know these are Real and QuickTime only on PCs and Macs. -Hugh Todd Hugh Todd wrote: I had a listen Frank Casanova's talk, given recently at the CTIA Wireless IT Entertainment Conference in San Francisco ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/ctia2004/ ), and was impressed by the commitment Apple appears to be showing to open standards in video and audio media. Is this not something that fits with the Web Standards ethos? As far as I know, Most web standards people are against web standards containing RAND licences of patented tech. Eg, the idea that writing an HTML browser shouldn't require payment; that's it doesn't matter if you earn money from it; and that there's no usage charges. MPEG 4, as used in the current Quicktime rather than Sorenson, is patented and controlled by the MPEG-LA grou who have legal rights in the countries where they have patents. This has quite a good write up about under what circumstances they'll charge (mostly around usage it seems): http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx As I understand it open source implementations of MPEG 4, like XviD, implement things that in some countries are patented. Eg, Patented stuff in XviD 0.9.x was not legal in the US or Japan unless you settled with the licence holders. I haven't been on the list long so I hope this doesn't start a flamewar about proprietary Vs open, or using the software people have Vs. what's unpopular. I'm just trying to compare what I think the Web Standards ethos for licencing is Vs these video licences. And I don't mean to single out MPEG4 either, because MPEG 2, Sorensen, AVI (the container format), WMV, are patented and licenced similarly. I don't know much about MPEG1 licencing but I'd guess that it's the same if only because of the audio format. From a licencing standpoint I guess Ogg Theora, or the BBC's Dirac would be closest to web standards (free for anyone, allows commercial use, no usage charges). I'm not a lawyer but I looked into this kind of thing a while back when trying to come up with a suggestion for a government standard on video and audio, and there weren't many open and free standards around. .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Kristof Rutten wrote: http://www.sportopolis.be I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC and I see no problems. But hey ;) Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They probably won't be able to read any of your content or links without a cumbersome magnifier. By the time I zoom it enough to read (about 175%, to equal my Moz default), the top menu is overlapping the content that is supposed to be below it. 12px body is bad, bad, bad. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Hrmm, my Firefox default seting looks just fine to me. Felix, is yours set to abnormally low values? Francesco On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:58 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They probably won't be able to read any of your content or links without a cumbersome magnifier. By the time I zoom it enough to read (about 175%, to equal my Moz default), the top menu is overlapping the content that is supposed to be below it. Francesco Sanfilippo, Internet Developer --- Blackcoil Productions - http://blackcoil.com URL123 Link Service - http://url123.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] video standards?
Like many Internet technologies it can be difficult, if not impossible, to go to a standard, particularly video which has matured enormously. If you have the resources to offer video in multiple formats (Real, Windows Media, Flash, etc) good for you (and nothing derogatory meant by that). I think Macromedia's Flash product has a lot going for it, particularly in the player penetration stakes. Anything that can make both publishing and viewing video content on the web can only be a good thing (unless it is more pr0n). The improvements MM made to Flash Player 7 (Macromedia Breeze, Flash Communication Server and Flash itself all benefited) are obvious. And the best is to come and all your audience need is the almost universally installed Flash Player - albeit newer and newer versions. But compared to how some of the players take over your system - Real in particular - Flash is an affordable compromise and generally cross platform compatible (Mobile devices will take a few years to catch up I think). If you can avoid being penned into a solution, particular when authoring video, there are many solutions that provide the provision of that video on the web. Peter Tilbrook ColdGen Internet Solutions Manager, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group 4/73 Tharwa Road Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620 AUSTRALIA WWW 1: http://www.coldgen.com/ WWW 2: http://www.actcfug.com/ Telephone: +61-2-6284-2727 Mobile: +61-0439-401-823 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 09:33, Damian Sweeney wrote: .mov is generally not available for Linux (with the exception of using Codeweavers wine ($$) to run Quicktime for Windows in Linux). The Linux mplayer plugin for Firefox [1] will play pretty much everything I have tested, though some of the M$ formats are a bit buggy ( due to reverse engineering ) The plugin is still in development and does hang sometimes. Having the one player for all formats is quite good. ( excluding flash of course, which also works fine under Linux ) All in all video streaming under Linux in Firefox is looking quite good. .mpg works well (as it does in Mac and Windows). Only some .wmv and .avi files will play (not sure what the distinguishing factor is) in most of the players available. A lot of different codecs exist for both wmv and avi. These file formats are just data envelopes that hold the data, the data itself can then be encoded using different codecs. eg. DivX, Xvid, mpeg4 etc. Real media stuff is available, but generally a pain as you have to install a proprietary binary player, so they aren't well supported by distributions which makes it difficult to upgrade. Linux also has the Helix and Real Player [2] for real one media formats Flash is available for Firefox in Linux, but once again there's the binary install issue. I don't see this as an issue? Having the source for everything under Linux would be nice, so that you could build flash into you own custom application, but for most Linux users the pre-built Flash plugin is fine and MM provide builds for most browsers. Opera under Linux for example can happily use the firefox flash plugin. Regards Chris Blown [1] http://mplayerplug-in.sourceforge.net [2] https://player.helixcommunity.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Peter, I think Macromedia's Flash product has a lot going for it, particularly in the player penetration stakes. Anything that can make both publishing and viewing video content on the web can only be a good thing (unless it is more pr0n). A good argument, though not a standards-based one! But compared to how some of the players take over your system - Real in particular - Flash is an affordable compromise and generally cross platform compatible (Mobile devices will take a few years to catch up I think). Which is where a standard like MPEG-4 (along with its latest incarnation, the rapidly-being-adopted H.264 -- a more recent revision of MPEG-4 ) with its scaleability all the way from HD down to mobile phones (with 3GPP - on GSM networks - and 3GPP2 - on CDMA networks) has an advantage over Flash. It is already a doddle to author for 3GPP and 3GPP2 in QuickTime Pro, with a simple export, and as H.264 gets included in the workflow over the next few months the scope of this technology will widen even further. In this way, standards remain standards, with their own evolutionary path, even as authoring solutions evolve around them, whether proprietary or not. Which is an approach that appeals to me, as someone committed to web standards. If you can avoid being penned into a solution, particular when authoring video, there are many solutions that provide the provision of that video on the web. Indeed, though some are more standard than others. :) -Hugh Todd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] DreamWeaver Template Left (or Right) Halo Nav in DW MX2004
ok maybe its just the way u said this but its gotta be the dumbest thing i have ever read [quote]I imagined MacroMedia would not turn out a template that did not work in all browsers on all platforms.[/quote] i mean come on if it makes u feel better to pass some blame then blame who it is that at fault and gee wouldnt u guess who it is? micro$oft imagine that the quote should be more like this I imagined Micro$oft would not turn out such crap that did not work right and doesnt follow the recommended validation standards but then again if they built something right then all the worlds crime would go away, everything would be green and fertile, everyone would be beautiful, there would be free super slurpee's for the everyone and there would be nothing but world peace. and we all know all that aint about to happen btw, a desect quick read http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5570803-1.html?tag=cnetfd.ld -- Original Message -- From: Will Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:35:29 +0300 I am running IE 6 on Win 2K Adv Server. This is an interesting wrinkle. I imagined MacroMedia would not turn out a template that did not work in all browsers on all platforms. I used a 1024x768 screen resolution and if I resize the IE6 window horizontally the capsule story section drops down below the PageNav section. It may not be obvious unless you play about a bit with the size of the IE window. I have a 17 screen and the difference is very large in the placement of the text. Will ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site-Check:
Francesco wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:58 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[about http://www.sportopolis.be]
Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They
probably won't be able to read any of your content or links without a
cumbersome magnifier.
By the time I zoom it enough to read (about 175%, to equal my Moz
default), the top menu is overlapping the content that is supposed to be
below it.
Hrmm, my Firefox default seting looks just fine to me. Felix, is yours
set to abnormally low values?
What does anyone's default have anything to do with anything?
http://www.sportopolis.be/_resources/screen.css contains 'body
{font-size: 12px;}'. That's a little over half the size of newsprint at
UXGA: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/pixelsize2.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/pixelsize.html which is about 21% of
my 26px default.
--
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
