Re: [WSG] IE 7.0 "Details Begin to Leak"
Let the rain of hellfire begin! Though in the past, all they do is weave more deceit and under-deliver on release. I read that "MS decides to introduce more bugs into IE7, and fix none from IE6". Joy. Nick Lo wrote: "Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it plans to support CSS2 with IE 7.0. Developers have been clamoring for Microsoft to update its CSS support to support the latest W3C standards for years. But Microsoft is leaning toward adding some additional CSS2 support to IE 7.0, but not embracing the standard in its entirety, partners say." ** 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] Css Floating Image
Looks appropriate in Firefox as well. What browser are you seeing the
issue with?
Diona
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 20:48 -0800, Jalenack wrote:
> Hi MM,
>
> I tested your page in safari quickly...The image is floating
> correctly. Is the image being taller than the text messing your
> problem?
>
> There are many techniques to clearing your floats so that they won't
> overflow like that. The simplest of which:
>
> applying overflow: auto to the #wrapper rule.
>
> Here are some links:
>
> http://www.sitepoint.com/blog-post-view?id=238086
> http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
>
> Hope this helps. If I'm getting at the wrong problem, write back with
> a screenshot link or something...
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:54:29 -0500, M M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am having problems floating an image in a div cell using css.
> > I want to have the whole page centered and static width. Then styling on
> > the wrapper div, with the image floating so that text will line up next to
> > it. Right now the problem is a gap under the image.
> >
> > See the code below, its the whole page with css.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > MM
> >
> > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
> >
> > CSS layout test
> >
> >
> > body{text-align: center;}
> > #wrapper{
> > text-align: left;
> > border: 1px solid #00;
> > width: 700px;
> > }
> > #box{
> > float: left;
> > background-color: #FF;
> > border: 1px solid #3300FF;
> > }
> > #text{background-color: #00FF00;}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > this text should float to the right of the
> > image
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> > **
> > 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] Css Floating Image
Hi MM,
I tested your page in safari quickly...The image is floating
correctly. Is the image being taller than the text messing your
problem?
There are many techniques to clearing your floats so that they won't
overflow like that. The simplest of which:
applying overflow: auto to the #wrapper rule.
Here are some links:
http://www.sitepoint.com/blog-post-view?id=238086
http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
Hope this helps. If I'm getting at the wrong problem, write back with
a screenshot link or something...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:54:29 -0500, M M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am having problems floating an image in a div cell using css.
> I want to have the whole page centered and static width. Then styling on
> the wrapper div, with the image floating so that text will line up next to
> it. Right now the problem is a gap under the image.
>
> See the code below, its the whole page with css.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> MM
>
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
>
> CSS layout test
>
>
> body{text-align: center;}
> #wrapper{
> text-align: left;
> border: 1px solid #00;
> width: 700px;
> }
> #box{
> float: left;
> background-color: #FF;
> border: 1px solid #3300FF;
> }
> #text{background-color: #00FF00;}
>
>
>
>
>
>
> this text should float to the right of the image
>
>
>
> _
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
> **
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
--
Andrew Sutherland
Jalenack.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] Css Floating Image
I am having problems floating an image in a div cell using css. I want to have the whole page centered and static width. Then styling on the wrapper div, with the image floating so that text will line up next to it. Right now the problem is a gap under the image. See the code below, its the whole page with css. Thanks in advance. MM http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> CSS layout test
body{text-align: center;} #wrapper{ text-align: left; border: 1px solid #00; width: 700px; } #box{ float: left; background-color: #FF; border: 1px solid #3300FF; } #text{background-color: #00FF00;}
this text should float to the right of the image _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ** 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] IE 7.0 "Details Begin to Leak"
That article also says it will contain "transparent Portable Network Graphics (PNG) support", which is something I know I've been waiting for. On 16/3/2005, "Nick Lo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it >plans to support CSS2 with IE 7.0. Developers have been clamoring for >Microsoft to update its CSS support to support the latest W3C standards >for years. But Microsoft is leaning toward adding some additional CSS2 >support to IE 7.0, but not embracing the standard in its entirety, >partners say." > >http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776290,00.asp > >** >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] IE 7.0 "Details Begin to Leak"
"Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it plans to support CSS2 with IE 7.0. Developers have been clamoring for Microsoft to update its CSS support to support the latest W3C standards for years. But Microsoft is leaning toward adding some additional CSS2 support to IE 7.0, but not embracing the standard in its entirety, partners say." http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776290,00.asp ** 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] Browser [Firefox & IE] & Navbar issues
Thanks John! .Cheers, Jenny On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:33:20 -0500, John D Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jenny- > Welcome to the group! And welcome to the game of validation. . . > > Before attempting to fix your layout problems, ensure that both your > XHTML and CSS validate by testing them here: > > (X)HTML: http://validator.w3.org/ > CSS: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ > > After having done that, see if anything changes (you have enough errors > that it likely will make a difference). And then a word of advice that > may seem counterintuitive at first: Code your pages FIRST to your most > compliant browser on hand (Firefox), and then "fix" as necessary for IE > and others. Reason is, you want to first be sure that you're using the > rules correctly, so that you are effectively coding for > forward-compatibility. Then apply hacks and patches as necessary to get > older browsers to place nice, until one day they're obsolete and you > simply can remove the hacks altogether. . . > > HTH, > John > > > On Mar 9, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Jenny Francois wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I'm new to the group. I'm having some coding issues on a site I'm > > creating. > > > > I'm using horizontal menus within a 2 column template. > > > > Here is the direct link to the page: > > > > http://www.aekituesday.com/interviews/index.html > > > > How can I get this to display correctly in both IE & Firefox? > > > > Also, I'm experiencing sidebar issues. In IE it looks great. The > > sidebar is in perfect place but in Firefox it's not. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Thanks, > > Jenny > > == > > Jenny Francois > > http://aekituesday.blogspot.com > > IM: aeki79 > > ** > > 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 > ** > > -- == Jenny Francois http://www.aekituesday.com IM: aeki79 ** 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] Asterisks in W3C spec
In answer to your question, Sigurd - the asterisk indicates that that attribute is required for that elements (as opposed to optional). For example, if you use the you MUST include a SRC and an ALT attribute for it to be valid. Cheers :o) Richard - Original Message - From: "Sigurd Magnusson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec I keep seeing asterisks in the W3C spec but cannot see a glossary anywhere. As an example, with the img element in xhtml 1.1, the attributes 'src' and 'alt' are both marked with an asterisk. Why? http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_imagemodul e (I realise img is marked to be deprecated in xhtml2, but I feel adoption for that will require new browsers to come out and gain market share, as the object tag has a huge set of problems) Finally, is there a commentary somewhere about the use of longdesc vs alt vs title (e.g. on images, on images where they are the sole content of links, etc). There seems to be a bit of information here and there, and obviously I can use common sense, but was wondering if there was some high-calibre writing out there, spelling out the different browser support and an overall conclusion? Siggy ** 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] Asterisks in W3C spec
The link works if you make sure that the "ml#alt" part is added to the link (it seems to break right after ".ht") dawn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Gloria AntonelliSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:26 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec I tried Laura's link and it was not found. Do you have an updated link for her site? Then there is always Laura's mega resource:http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#alt Gloria AntonelliSigurd Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow. Some serious bedtime reading. Cheers.Siggy- Original Message - From: "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Web Standards Group" Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:35 PMSubject: Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec> Here are some:>> Joe Clark's serialised book (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc)> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html>> Writing good ALT text (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc)> http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=28>> The alt and title attributes (covers alt and title but not longdesc, from> memory)> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/>> Then there is always Laura's mega resource:> http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.ht> ml#alt>> HTH> Russ Finally, is there a commentary somewhere about the use of longdesc vs alt >> vs>> title (e.g. on images, on images where they are the sole content of >> links,>> etc). There seems to be a bit of information here and there, and >> obviously I>> can use common sense, but was wondering if there was some high-calibre>> writing out there, spelling out the different browser support and an >> overall>> conclusion?>> **> 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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list & getting help** Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec
I tried Laura's link and it was not found. Do you have an updated link for her site? Then there is always Laura's mega resource:http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#alt Gloria AntonelliSigurd Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow. Some serious bedtime reading. Cheers.Siggy- Original Message - From: "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Web Standards Group" Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:35 PMSubject: Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec> Here are some:>> Joe Clark's serialised book (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc)> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html>> Writing good ALT text (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc)> http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=28>> The alt and title attributes (covers alt and title but not longdesc, from> memory)> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/>> Then there is always Laura's mega resource:> http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.ht> ml#alt>> HTH> Russ Finally, is there a commentary somewhere about the use of longdesc vs alt >> vs>> title (e.g. on images, on images where they are the sole content of >> links,>> etc). There seems to be a bit of information here and there, and >> obviously I>> can use common sense, but was wondering if there was some high-calibre>> writing out there, spelling out the different browser support and an >> overall>> conclusion?>> **> 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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list & getting help** Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: [WSG] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Thanks, Sounds like a good idea, plus it saves me the headache of validating their css. Alan Trick Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Alan, Both and are "bad". How about BBtags this: [important] [highlight] [note] [misc] then you use this markup: .. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a instead of a and have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do via classes and external/internal css. The only other place I've used it is when I want to randomly generate a background-image or something, but that probably better doen with internal css Alan Trick Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Alan, I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the "style" is not flagged "deprecated" but that can change. Here is what the spec says: Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Alan Trick ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Hi Alan, Both and are "bad". How about BBtags this: [important] [highlight] [note] [misc] then you use this markup: .. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: > I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it > semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a style='color:#f00'> instead of a and > have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow > something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do > via classes and external/internal css. > The only other place I've used it is when I want to randomly generate a > background-image or something, but that probably better doen with > internal css > Alan Trick > > Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: > >> Hi Alan, >> >> >> I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? >> >> It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's >> part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly >> discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide >> acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the >> "style" is not flagged "deprecated" but that can change. Here is what >> the spec says: >> >> Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of >> the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content >> developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content >> intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support >> the use of in-line styles. >> Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html >> >> >> If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. >> >> Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? >> >> Regards, >> -Vlad >> http://xstandard.com >> >> >> Alan Trick wrote: >> >> >>> I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml >>> 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what >>> do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always >>> make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. >>> Alan Trick >>> > > ** > 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:49:00 -, Alan Trick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a instead of a and have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do via classes and external/internal css. Note this similarity: This kind of markup is deprecated since HTML4. -- regards, Kornel Lesiński ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a instead of a and have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do via classes and external/internal css. The only other place I've used it is when I want to randomly generate a background-image or something, but that probably better doen with internal css Alan Trick Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Alan, I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the "style" is not flagged "deprecated" but that can change. Here is what the spec says: Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Alan Trick ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Hi Alan, >>I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated >>in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be >>obolete? It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the "style" is not flagged "deprecated" but that can change. Here is what the spec says: Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html >>If so, what do they expect us to do for inline >>styles because it doesn't always make sense >>to have everything in an external style sheet. Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: > I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. > Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they > expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense > to have everything in an external style sheet. > Alan Trick > ** > 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Alan Trick wrote: I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Well, unless they deprecate this also: /**/ ...I'll keep page-specific styles in the page head. Makes more sense no matter what DTD I code in accordance to, since it's a real, compact, stylesheet that follows the page. Sidenote: I've observed some buggy behavior with inline-styles, as they are sometimes ignored if I use a stylesheet switcher. This may cause positioning-errors and alike, with no cross-browser predictability. Styles in the head are working reliable though. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Alan Trick ** 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] Asterisks in W3C spec
Wow. Some serious bedtime reading. Cheers. Siggy - Original Message - From: "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Web Standards Group" Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec Here are some: Joe Clark's serialised book (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc) http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html Writing good ALT text (covers all three - title, alt and longdesc) http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=28 The alt and title attributes (covers alt and title but not longdesc, from memory) http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/ Then there is always Laura's mega resource: http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.ht ml#alt HTH Russ Finally, is there a commentary somewhere about the use of longdesc vs alt vs title (e.g. on images, on images where they are the sole content of links, etc). There seems to be a bit of information here and there, and obviously I can use common sense, but was wondering if there was some high-calibre writing out there, spelling out the different browser support and an overall conclusion? ** 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 **
