Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
I know IE is a *huge* market leader, and I *do* make sure my sites work in IE... I agree fully with the design for compliant browsers first, then go back and fix IE* way of doing things. From my own personal experience I can tell you it is in fact easier that way. I think it's ill advised though to let that get confused with IE is an afterthought My experience is that clients have the make it look good on my AOL when I make internets from home mentality. Most don't understand standards and we can't expect them to. They bark back things like don't worry about that, we redesign every other year when you mention future proofing and just make sure it looks good is the mantra. Because of IE's *huge* market share, when the client says just make sure it looks good whether they know it or not, they are also adding in IE. After all, when they show it to three friends who show it to three friends the odds tell us they are all going to be using IE. My issue is with the simple, often tossed in there has to work in IE bit, that in my opinion falls way short of expressing the real world business importance of a site looking top notch in IE. If it's work for a client, It doesn't just have to simply work in IE, it's has to *shine*. At the very least a client site should never look any worse in IE then it does in a compliant browser. Does an element look off?, even a little bit?, fix it for IE even if that means it looks a little off in Moz when your done. Neato CSS trick fails in IE? Dump it, at that point it's nothing but bloat for the majority who won't see it (including your client). Someday MS will get on the ball (we hope), until then, if we want to make sites for the majority, we have to stop looking down our noses at IE as a bastard afterthought and start insisting from ourselves that our sites look and function brilliantly in IE, every time. Brian * 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] Hi I'm new here
Hi all, Is there a searchable archive of this list so I can sort of get my bearings since I'm new here? Rick Ps. Mads, are you here? ;-) * 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] Hi I'm new here
Public: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/ Login required: http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm Thanks Russ Hi all, Is there a searchable archive of this list so I can sort of get my bearings since I'm new here? Rick Ps. Mads, are you here? ;-) * 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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Thanks for the idea, Martin. That did the trick, although not in the #heading selector, but in the dl selector, which is the object that contains all those floated elements. The #heading is only the top component of the floated box. Thanks a lot, it's been niggling away at me for ages, that one. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of martin janner Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 3:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Lines on top - anyone see why? Michael Kear skrev: Thanks anyway. I guess no one has any ideas how I can make the lines go underneath the floated box on my page in IE. Try position:relative; on the floated box(#heading) / m a r t i n * 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] Tables are bad because...
Hi John I don't want to weigh into this argument of tables right or wrong - I think all the angles are being covered pretty well at the moment. But I read your post a couple of things jumped out at me. On the whole it's a good read I agree with a lot of what you are saying bit this section: But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. See, Andy Budd agrees with me. So rather than seeing something like at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok they see all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. ..kind of scared me a little. Could what you are saying be distilled into Don't raise controversial complicated issues in public because they might be misinterpreted by fools and used contrary to their original meaning? That's how I'm reading it. Andy, Dave Nick's comments will most likely be misunderstood or misrepresented by some, but I imagine they are going to help others. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree its about getting people to think about the issue and that has to be a good thing. However even this is beside the point. Andy has expressed an opinion, anyone and everyone is more than welcome to debate the ideas he's raised (as I know you have), but I thinks its rude to criticise the fact that he expressed the opinion in the first place. Argue the points but, please don't stifle the conversation itself. I'm not trying to pick a fight - I mean the above in the most respectful way. Cheers Mark * 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] Tables are bad because...
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 09:25, John Allsopp wrote: So rather than seeing something like at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok they see all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. One of the things that I find hard to believe in this whole debate is that tables are some how seen as a non standards based approach. Of course an argument could be made that tables only exist in the standard for legacy reasons, since dropping them would break the whole web. We know better than that, tables still have a place in the standard, by the same token what of the comments about floats and their original purpose, does the fact that we use them for other purposes make it wrong? Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favour of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelise web standards, I don't insist on people using them. But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. See, Andy Budd agrees with me. There is indeed people who may take Andy's words as an excuse to continue using nested tables as they see fit. But I think most people who read Andy's article understand its general flavour. The advantages to using modern markup and css are quite obvious to most people, esp. those who have an interest in new concepts. These concepts we pride ourselves on are ideal and given a perfect world would stand out alone as the one way, however in practise and mainly due to IE this is not the case, and its these factors that make it possible for a decent case to maybe working in a table here or there. This is the one single fact that I've taken from all this banter. I would also like to think that most people who use tables for layout are fully aware of the short comings of such a method and that they realise its a choice they've made that others may not have. The development process is not usually so clean cut and from my experience I realise that most developers face a multitude of different variables that can sway these decisions around in the wind. As I imagine you have seen John, its a difficult thing to try and explain to a seasoned table builder how there is another way, an even better way. The acceptance of this process given complete ignorance of the benefits is an uphill battle. The discovery of these ideals by the individual is the best solution. Look, I know you like tables and it seems easy now, but here read this, and get back to me hand them a good book on modern markup authoring techniques. If they see the light then great, otherwise .. well tough. The popular response to Andy's article that using the odd table without nesting them, is simple practical advice. I don't really think the odd table is that detrimental to our efforts of advocating web standards. Regards Chris Blown * 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] Tables are bad because...
Mark, On the whole it's a good read I agree with a lot of what you are saying bit this section: But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. See, Andy Budd agrees with me. So rather than seeing something like at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok they see all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. ..kind of scared me a little. Could what you are saying be distilled into Don't raise controversial complicated issues in public because they might be misinterpreted by fools and used contrary to their original meaning? That's how I'm reading it. There is an irony there that I am not entirely at liberty to discuss unfortunately. Probably the most important part of my response, certainly as I see it now is don't buy into the bogus notion of the web standards community being beset with holier than thou attitudes, and zealotry. One of Andy's 10 questions answers reinforced this by the use of words like fascist (a fascist is a pretty nasty thing BTW) to describe some people (easily misunderstood as everyone) in the web standards community who might be overly zealous about whether or not a site validates. Not that I think even these creatures abound, and are certainly not part of the hard core of the web standards community. Andy, Dave Nick's comments will most likely be misunderstood or misrepresented by some, but I imagine they are going to help others. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree its about getting people to think about the issue and that has to be a good thing. The problem is that all three, along with an increasing number of people who responded and replied to and wrote about the article used terms like reasonable and balanced and objective about it. But the article and its followups have rarely been any of these. It uses a lot of judgmental language (words like zealot, purist, demonize). However even this is beside the point. Andy has expressed an opinion, anyone and everyone is more than welcome to debate the ideas he's raised (as I know you have), but I thinks its rude to criticise the fact that he expressed the opinion in the first place. Argue the points but, please don't stifle the conversation itself. I think we all have a responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions and words. Andy has opened a can of worms with this article. Was it worth opening? The can is not so much people using or not tables, frankly that is pretty much irrelevant. Some people will, increasingly others won't. In 5 years time or less this will be as controversial as whether font tags should be deprecated. The can of worms for me is this growing meme that standards advocates and developers are zealots, purists, live in ivory towers, etc. etc. etc I think it is unwise for people of significant standing in the web development community to fuel those kinds of sentiments, even unwittingly. I'm not trying to pick a fight - I mean the above in the most respectful way. Mark, I guess I come across quite strongly, I tend not to beat about the bush. I certainly wasn't looking for a fight, but at the same time I was a bit cross with the subtext of the article. There are enough people out there waiting to beat up on standards advocates and the community. Let's not do it to ourselves. John John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * 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] Vertical Height Alignment Issues
Hi, I am running with the following issue. I am working on a 2 col design. Unlike other areas, both the content the right side bar is of rounded corners with a gap in between. My issue is there will always be more content. How do i align my vertical height position of the side bar to the co thanks. Narain R.L. Narayan +91-98401 08007 * 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] height problem
Hello. I am working on an e-commerce site. It is not tablesless. :) I have some problems in Mozilla and Firefox. Please go here: http://www.insoft.ro/imprimante/1 Scroll down and look at the column containing the left menu. There is some white space. Any ideas how i can fix it? So it reaches the bottom of the page? -- Web Developer SEO http://razvan.cpea.ro * 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] Problem with IE
Hi, I don't know if this question is appropriate to post here... but now I've done it. On this page http://www.pagemakers.dk/divtest/test.htmI have a problem viewing in IE 6. On the left side there is about 10-15 px space between #navcontainer and #footer and I can't figure out why. (CSS here http://www.pagemakers.dk/divtest/mouseriders.css) Could someone please have a look and maybewhat the solution might be... if there is one. I would really appreciate it. Thank you Kim
Re: [WSG] Hi I'm new here
Hello and welcome. -- Web Developer SEO http://razvan.cpea.ro * 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] Tables are bad because...
From: Chris Blown [...] One of the things that I find hard to believe in this whole debate is that tables are some how seen as a non standards based approach. I see that view a lot from people who just discovered the beauty of CSS, and are going a bit mad in the fight to kill off tables, even when they're the appropriate markup to use (tabular data). Of course an argument could be made that tables only exist in the standard for legacy reasons, since dropping them would break the whole web. Well, for tabular data, there is *no* equivalent with the same semantic and structural properties of a well written, multi-row, multi-column table. Using divs and spans and stuff to recreate a table look without tables for tabular data shows a complete misunderstanding of what the actual purpose of the markup is all about. Yes, you may end up eliminating every single table, and get a nice glowing warm feeling...but you've effectively broken any relationship which was defined between the various headings and the data cells, turning well formatted tabular information into a meaningless mess... does the fact that we use them for other purposes make it wrong? Of course not. However, by the same reasoning, it doesn't make it right to pervert the element's original purpose, the same way that blockquote should not be perverted to get visual indentations, for instance...it doesn't make the actual blockquote element wrong, but it shouldn't be used in that way. It's the perversion of purpose that is wrong. The popular response to Andy's article that using the odd table without nesting them, is simple practical advice. I don't really think the odd table is that detrimental to our efforts of advocating web standards. Exactly. As long as the designers/developers are making the decision in full knowledge that there might be a better way to handle the situation without having to resort to tables, but that - due to time constraints, need for legacy browser support (in a visual/layout sense), work with multiple authors who may not be up to speed with table-less layout - in this particular situation using a table will do for now. Just going through this email, I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm in disagreement with you...I see that we're both coming from the same pragmatic approach. Just filling in the other side of the argument kind of thing... 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] Problem with IE
Hi Kim, Drop in a clipped backgroundgif of the same colourfor the nav container on the CSS to the same width - 170px - but a few hundred px deep without overflow and all be well. I see you're using non break spaces to pad the depth but that will always be a fudge because once the window is resized (narrowed) your copy block will force the footer down and you're back to square one. It's a pig to make divs expand to the footer. This is just one, simple and effective and lightweight (a few bytes), solution. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kim KruseSent: 19 May 2004 09:22To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WSG] Problem with IE Hi, I don't know if this question is appropriate to post here... but now I've done it. On this page http://www.pagemakers.dk/divtest/test.htmI have a problem viewing in IE 6. On the left side there is about 10-15 px space between #navcontainer and #footer and I can't figure out why. (CSS here http://www.pagemakers.dk/divtest/mouseriders.css) Could someone please have a look and maybewhat the solution might be... if there is one. I would really appreciate it. Thank you Kim
Re: [WSG] height problem
Hi Razvan I'd suggest the best option would be to make it a background image on the body tag. Your body tag is going to be your top level containing block so it will always stretch to the height of your content. relative height: properties are always going to be relative to your viewport or visible area. Heights are always going to be troublesome - see my post at http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/msg04815.html for a bit more information on this or the stack of height related posts we've had on the list recently at http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/. Cheers Mark * 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] Vertical Height Alignment Issues
Hi Please see the list guildines at http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm. If you want a solution to your problem the guidlines will explain what information you are going to need to provide in order to help us help you. Cheers Mark * 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] height problem
I'd suggest the best option would be to make it a background image on the body tag. Your body tag is going to be your top level containing block so it will always stretch to the height of your content. Maybe being pedantic, but the top level container would be the HTML element, and backgrounds that are meant to stretch to the entire window/viewport should be placed as style rules to it. Otherwise, it can happen that, if the content is too short, the background itself will only appear behind the content, resulting in even more white space at the bottom. (although I seem to recall that this problem only appears once you start sending XHTML strict with a proper XML mime type) 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] Vertical Height Alignment Issues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am running with the following issue. I am working on a 2 col design. Unlike other areas, both the content the right side bar is of rounded corners with a gap in between. My issue is there will always be more content. How do i align my vertical height position of the side bar to the co Check out http://www.positioniseverything.net/piefecta-rigid.html. While that is 3-col, not 2, you should be able to tweak it to fit you needs. * 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] Free W3C workshop...
You are invited to a free W3C workshop on the W3C's XForms and Semantic Web Services Activities to be held at the: Location: Room 470, Level 2, Building 10, University of Technology Sydney http://it.uts.edu.au/about/maps.html Time and Date: 23rd June 2004, 2:00pm to 5:00pm (includes afternoon tea), RSVP at: http://w3c.dstc.edu.au/events/sydworkshop_jun04.html Workshop Program == 2:00pm to 3:00pm - Semantic Web Services, Dr Jane Hunter Afternoon Tea 3:45pm to 4:45pm - New Generation of Web Forms - experience with XForms trials, Dr Zoran Milosevic 2pm - 3pm: Semantic Web Services Web services are transforming the Internet from a collection of information into a distributed computational device. They enable software applications to be distributed, accessed and executed via the Web. But current web service technologies (UDDI, WSDL, and SOAP) provide limited support for automating service discovery, service configuration and service composition (i.e., realizing complex workflows with Web services). In order to fully employ the potential of web services, they need to be appropriately described. Semantic Web Services combines Semantic Web technology with Web Service technology to enable automated and dynamic Web service discovery, execution and composition through new technologies such as OWL-S (Ontology Web Language for Services). This presentation will provide an overview of the Semantic Web Services vision, describe recent technological developments (such as OWL-S), and demonstrate potential applications of Semantic Web services through a number of case studies. 3:34pm - 4:45pm: New Generation of Web Forms - experience with XForms trials === Electronic forms on the Web provide user interface to data and services offered on the Web. By using Web forms users can interact with the enterprise applications and back-end systems linked to these forms. Web applications, e-government and e-commerce solutions have sparked the demand for better Web forms - supporting richer and more dynamic interactions than what is possible with existing HTML forms. XForms is new World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) specification that provides more intelligent support for Web forms to meet this demand. This is achieved by separating the data model of the form from their presentation format. Both the data and presentation models are described using XML. This design enables more efficient integration with backend systems and facilitates efficient exchange of XML data. The separation also makes it possible to have multiple presentation formats for the same data model, which enables repurposing, reuse and accessibility across different types of devices. This presentation: * provides an introduction to the XForms standard, and compares XForms to other approaches * describes our XForms pilot project, which was funded by NOIE ITOL grant * highlights our initial experience of using XForms in various business environments as part of the pilot project, including tools used and results achieved * will provide the attendees with background information that can be valuable when making decisions about their future strategy and adoption path regarding Web forms technologies * 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] Tables are bad because...
John Allsopp wrote: Andy, Hi John, I wasn't actually going too respond to your comments but considering your latest email, I thought it was probably a good idea. I actually wrote about half a dozen different replies to the article and posted none of them, other than my snarky comment on your blog, for which I apologize. No worries. I'm a big guy and can handle criticism. I didn't publish them because they were all a little, well, heated. I usually write, I hope, with a little levity, and wit, if on occasion it can be quite dry. I just couldn't in this case. Again, no worries. Like I said in the preface to my article, one of the reasons for publishing it was to play devils advocate. In all honesty I was expecting a much bigger and more heated backlash than the article actually got. As such I was fully prepared for a certain amount of negative criticism. I see where you are coming from, but really, I think it is up to those who honestly want to advocate for a non standards based approach to do so for themselves. Funnily, they usually end up looking like David Emberton's article. Another reason for publishing the article was to provide a more balanced view of the situation. My fear is that, without open and reasonable discussion about the realities of web standards development, people will start to believe the reactionary views of people like David Emberton. I'd prefer somebody who's struggling with CSS to read my article and think that it's OK to use the odd table in a transitional layout, rather than read David's article and decide that CSS layout just doesn't work! Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favor of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelize web standards, I don't insist on people using them. But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. See, Andy Budd agrees with me. Funny but I've just re-read the comments and I don't get that feeling at all. The general response seems to be that people are happy using CSS for most layout situations but will not discount simple, non nested tables if appropriate. I think if people do drop CSS layout and say See, Andy Budd agrees with me, then they have completely misunderstood the point of the article. I believe the concepts in the article are well written and logical, and that the purpose and conclusions are clear. It's true that I should have been a bit more specific by stating that I was only talking about CSS for positioning, but most people seem to have realise that. So rather than seeing something like at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok they see all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. From my experience, people can be really intimidated by CSS and labour under the belief that it's all or nothing. This isn't helped by the attitudes of some standards practitioners who's strict views on coding can really put people off using CSS for layout. People respond much better to an even handed approach, than a prescriptive one. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. Well I wouldn't say that they weighed in as this give the impression that their comments were rather heavy handed. Their comments seemed reasonable and held weight because they came from experienced web developers who have experienced some of the things I was talking about. And what was that context? Bluntly, using the words of the article, that people who advocate standards are zealots purists, live in Ivory towers (and so by implication, not the real world). They demonize tables, and so by implication the users of of tables, and they have a sense of superiority about their approach. This is the bit that made me sigh. This isn't objective, its only a slightly more subtle version of David Emberton's nonsense. I think most people would agree that there are *some* individuals who have a very purist and prescriptive approach to standards. There is also a lot of theoretical discussion about web standards going on at the moment. For people within the community, I'm sure all this all feels reasonable. We know that we are partaking in a theoretical discussion and that in reality, things are less black and white. However, if you are outside the community, this kind of attitude can feel extremely intimidating. I also think there are a number of web standards practitioners
RE: [WSG] Extending full height (was Problem with IE)
Kim wrote: I'm not sure I follow your suggestion. The problem is if I remove the pnbsp;/p the #navcontainer will be shorter that the content/sidebar meaning there will be a space between #navcontainer and #footer I uploaded the corrected version here Would it be possible to force the #navcontainer to stretch down to the #footer without the pnbsp;/p ? If so how? Kim, This another solution that doesn't require an image, I've put up the changes I made (without your images) in case I don't explain it too well. http://digiscape.net.au/test/mouseriders.htm I added the same background color you used on your left column to your container div, and made the content area and top menu have a white background The content div now has the black left side border (originally a right side border on navcontainer) and reduced the margins. I also added a clearing class to a br / at the bottom of the content. This allows your content to extend, and have the left hand column look like it extends all the way Regards Jason * 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] Tables are bad because... Web standards fascism
One of Andy's 10 questions answers reinforced this by the use of words like fascist (a fascist is a pretty nasty thing BTW) to describe some people (easily misunderstood as everyone) in the web standards community who might be overly zealous about whether or not a site validates. Not that I think even these creatures abound, and are certainly not part of the hard core of the web standards community. John, Andy has answered most of you comments eloquently, as always. However, I'd like to address the web standards fascism comment. The actual question was asked by me to Andy (so your criticism should be aimed at me). Do you think there is an element of web standards fascism in the web development community? Firstly, the term 'web standards fascists' was meant to be tongue in cheek. Secondly, the reason for the question was because a small section of the web community seemed to be attacking the Web Standards Awards for a period just after it began. Basically, any site that was nominated was attacked - and sometimes for extremely pedantic reasons. This sort of attitude is completely counter-productive. It can actually undermine the confidence of people who are just starting to feel good about moving towards web standards. I had already talked about this to Andy, so it seemed like a good question to be asking in public. Finally, I think your objection to the term is probably one of definition. So, here are my definitions for what they are worth: If you believe in standards, are passionate about them and want to convert others through co-operative behaviour then you could be considered to be an 'evangelist'. If you use web standards (or any knowledge for that matter) as a weapon against people, with the purpose of exposing them or making them feel bad then you could be called a 'web standards fascist'. This is a fine line as constructive criticism is always valuable, but destructive criticism is not. Am I sounding like a fortune cookie again? Russ * 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] Tables are bad because...
Who are all of these mad heavy-handed authoritarian web nuts that you're talking about? ;) From what I see there are different ways of putting over a point, each one usually as legitimate as the other and they all usually contribute to a stronger understanding of web standards for those new to the area and for those with more experience. Web designers tend not to be stupid people and if you can put forward an intelligent and logical argument, there's no need to sit on the fence. Being prescriptive is obviously a bad thing, but justified reasoning can be enlightening and inspiring. When I want to learn something, I want to know how to do it the right way and, usually, the best way. I know it's going to take me time to learn it, but I'd rather know what I'm ultimately aiming for rather than going for something that's not quite as good. I think most people would agree that there are *some* individuals who have a very purist and prescriptive approach to standards. Purist is ok, as long as it doesn't affect practicality. Prescriptive isn't ok, but even if an 'extreme' argument can be backed up with sound justification then it can only be a good thing. There is also a lot of theoretical discussion about web standards going on at the moment. For people within the community, I'm sure all this all feels reasonable. We know that we are partaking in a theoretical discussion and that in reality, things are less black and white. However, if you are outside the community, this kind of attitude can feel extremely intimidating. Or, if the full potential of web standards can be conveyed, inspiring. I agree that there is a big difference between the theoretical and the practical, but again, where are these people who put theory before practice? However some individuals can come across as dogmatic and prescriptive. Nobody likes being preached at or being told that their hard work is in vein because they used a table to lay out a form, or have a few minor validation issues. Agreed. Who's saying that though? Most comments I see are along the lines of this would be better if... rather than No you oik! Your work is WORTHLESS CRAP DAMN YOU! I think it does the community and the web standards cause a much greater disservice to stand dogmatically behind a set of beliefs, thus helping to reinforce the stereotypes even more. Don't stifle discussion or knock those who deviate from the party line. I'm all for pushing the standards boundaries, but we also need to accept and talk about the limitations involved. If we don't acknowledge and discuss the limitations as a community, you know that others will. Acknowledge limitations yes, but where there are real demonstratable advantages to be had they should be raved about; shouted from the tree tops rather than beating around the bush. Patrick Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 8:24 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote: Some of signs that is might slip are increasing computer literacy in the general public, increased awareness of Mozilla and Opera (media reports, Opera on mobile phones, etc.), and increased acceptance of Linux. We can aid this further by educating our friends, family, and clients. Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, which in turn lowers the learning curve required to switch. This is the big flaw in Mozilla and Opera right now -- they look and feel different, and people are afraid of change. sidenote My biggest gripe with Mozilla et al is that they don't use the Win/Mac standard GUI form elements and widgets, which not only cheapens the look (IMHO), but instantly causes the browser (and all the user's favourite web pages) to feel unfamiliar or foreign). /sidenote What they DO need to do is beat IE in regards to security, performance, preferences (cookies, scripting, security, etc), and yes, standards compliance, and sell the browser on these points. I've got some nice ideas on how Opera or Mozilla could be marketed to the masses, but I see reason to give those away for free :) --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] javascript form submission
Thanks I did not know that asp.net ran on linux. I will look at the URL you sent. Nancy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 9:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] _javascript_ form submission If you are an ASP coder and want to move to Linux then why not use ASP.NET? It will be a much easier learning curve than PHP. FYI: Many ASP.NET pages run on Mono [C# compiler for Linux] including web services, and many DotNet apps run without modification. The Mono website is http://mono.org. woric Original Message - Nancy Johnson wrote: Dear All,This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for formsubmission, but I want to find a _javascript_ and/or php versions of formsubmissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windowsbased server. I think PHP is the way to go, since it works on almost all servers out there, including Windows.
RE: [WSG] javascript form submission
mono.org appears to be something quite different. Try http://www.go-mono.com/ R. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Nancy JohnsonSent: 19 May 2004 14:35To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WSG] _javascript_ form submission Thanks I did not know that asp.net ran on linux. I will look at the URL you sent. Nancy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 9:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] _javascript_ form submission If you are an ASP coder and want to move to Linux then why not use ASP.NET? It will be a much easier learning curve than PHP. FYI: Many ASP.NET pages run on Mono [C# compiler for Linux] including web services, and many DotNet apps run without modification. The Mono website is http://mono.org. woric Original Message - Nancy Johnson wrote: Dear All,This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for formsubmission, but I want to find a _javascript_ and/or php versions of formsubmissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windowsbased server. I think PHP is the way to go, since it works on almost all servers out there, including Windows.
RE: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Title: RE: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' I feel that Mozilla is by a country mile the best browser available, but the guy you're replying to there is right in my opinion. The average web user doesn't comfortably adapt to new environments all that well. Jamie Mason: Design -Original Message- From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 May 2004 15:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ Have you seen opera 7.50? And opera on mobile phones is reality, not something will never do it. The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, Oh, please. I've swithced to FireFox (Firebird then) a year ago just because it looks, feels and behaves way better than IE. And even before the switch I've been using NetCaptor (commercial software), which added some features to IE. I got those for free with Mozilla. Which was the last version of Mozilla/Opera you have tried to use? Regards, Rimantas * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. An average user will not go to the trouble of downloading and installing another browser to replace the one they got with the OS - even if it has 25% better features. M$ will dominate the browser market for a while to come - fact. Robert Reed SiteStart www.sitestart.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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 11:59 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ Have you seen opera 7.50? And opera on mobile phones is reality, not something will never do it. The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, Oh, please. I've swithced to FireFox (Firebird then) a year ago just because it looks, feels and behaves way better than IE. And even before the switch I've been using NetCaptor (commercial software), which added some features to IE. I got those for free with Mozilla. Which was the last version of Mozilla/Opera you have tried to use? You're missing the point. If Opera and or Mozilla want to TAKE MARKET SHARE FROM HAPPY IE USERS, then they won't be able to do it by alienating the potential user with a brand new interface to learn. Essentially, this would of course be a backward step for Opera and Mozilla in some ways (giving up on some of their innovations and UI concepts) but the reality here is that for Opera and Mozilla to take a share of the IE market, they need to make the transition easy. Just like Explorer, but safer. Just like Explorer, but faster. Just like Explorer, but better. Just like Explorer, but secure. ... would all be a perfect concepts for a browser trying to steal people out of the IE market. Much more effective than: Opera. A whole new way to surf the web. Of course it'd still have to remain free, and they'll never be able to overcome the fact that IE will be bundled / integrated into Windows forever :) --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Robert Reed wrote: The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. An average user will not go to the trouble of downloading and installing another browser to replace the one they got with the OS - even if it has 25% better features. M$ will dominate the browser market for a while to come - fact. Maybe so, but if that's your short term goal, then it's time to give up on Web Standards. Wars are rarely won in a single battle. I think it would be a major victory for WS if IE drops to 80% over the next two years. There is no need to topple IE, just to put enough pressure to make MS accountable and to become compliant. Combine XP's lack of success in the corporate world and MS unwillingness to give MSIE users an upgrade path without an OS upgrade, and you'll begin to see a change. One more thing will be required: Web pages need to be better on compliant browsers. For people to switch there must be a tangible advantage to switching. For what ever reason, security has been a no-go. The learning curve to use a new browser, no matter how slight, is an obstacle. Since most people tend to be visually oriented to some degree, if it looks better, even just a little, there is a chance they'll relate to it.
RE: [WSG] Extending full height (was Problem with IE)
Nice one, mate. Cross browser compliant to boot. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Turnbull Sent: 19 May 2004 13:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Extending full height (was Problem with IE) Kim wrote: I'm not sure I follow your suggestion. The problem is if I remove the pnbsp;/p the #navcontainer will be shorter that the content/sidebar meaning there will be a space between #navcontainer and #footer I uploaded the corrected version here Would it be possible to force the #navcontainer to stretch down to the #footer without the pnbsp;/p ? If so how? Kim, This another solution that doesn't require an image, I've put up the changes I made (without your images) in case I don't explain it too well. http://digiscape.net.au/test/mouseriders.htm I added the same background color you used on your left column to your container div, and made the content area and top menu have a white background The content div now has the black left side border (originally a right side border on navcontainer) and reduced the margins. I also added a clearing class to a br / at the bottom of the content. This allows your content to extend, and have the left hand column look like it extends all the way Regards Jason * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
One more thing will be required: Web pages need to be better on compliant browsers. So in an effort to coax standards compliance out of MS we should all make sites look *beter* in non IE browsers? I've yet to run across a client who loves standards and MS arm twisting so much that they would allow anything other then IE to be the browser there site looks *better* in. It look us long enough to get clients to pay attention to the fact that the customer/user is king, and the king, like it or not, uses IE. We can't have it both ways. Either we are for the user or we are not. Keep that in mind the next time your pulling hair out tweaking a clients site for IE. Chances are better then good, that IE is the browser that is going to hit that site most today, tomorrow and the day after. Brian * 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] W3C Validater doesn't recognize XHTML
According to the W3C, my valid XHTML 1.1 page only validates to HTML 4.01 Strict. I'm checking for application/xhtml+xml in order to serve up the correct header and DOCTYPE, so apparently, their validater doesn't recognize that mime type! It would be nice to be able to use the logo, but if anyone checks, they'll be told the wrong thing. Where this becomes a big problem is if you promise a client valid XHTML 1.1 and the validater says otherwise... * 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] Help with Float
russ - maxdesign wrote: Floats are suppose to extend past bottom of a container. That statement is correct in this instance but might be slightly misleading. It would be better to say that the heights of floated items are ignored by the parent container, so there is a possibility they may poke out the bottom of the parent container. This 'poking out' is dependant on what other content is inside the container. Thank you; that's what I had meant. A third method is outlined in great detail here: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html While the programmer in me loves JavaScript, the Web pro in me hates it. I would recommend doing the sniffing for IE/Mac server side and only adding it if needed (I keep both sides happy that way). * 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] a z-index problem? maybe
This is a testing ground for me -- obviously. I am trying to implement the hover/pop-up menus as demonstrated in More Eric Meyers on CSS and I can't quite figure out how to get the pop-outs to appear on top of the center div, rather than disappearing behind it. The third level of nav can't be seen at all. Help, anyone? http://www.pcc.com/testing/clientwelcome.html -- Barbara Dozetos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physician's Computer CompanyMarketing Team 1 Main St., Ste 7 802-846-5532 Winooski, VT 05404 * 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] Help with Float
Quoting Sean Sullivan-Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am trying to float 3 columns next to each other. This appearas to be OK in IE6 but is broken in FireFox. The columns break out of the container in FireFox. There's now a new way to clear float containers without the need to use an extra clearing element. http://www.csscreator.com/attributes/containedfloat.php Tony * 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] W3C Validater doesn't recognize XHTML
noa wrote: The W3C validator does recognise application/xhtml+xml. The problem might be that you're not checking for the W3C's user agent string when you decide which browsers to send which MIME type to. The string is W3C_Validator. Checking for user agent doesn't make sense; there are too many browsers to check for each one and I would have to know what each one does. It makes much more sense to let the UA tell you which mime types it accepts, as it is suppose to do. Therefore, by not including application/xhtml+xml in the header, it's saying that it doesn't recognize it. * 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] Help with Float
Sorry, thought I took that clear:both out of there. My mistake.
As for the font sizes, that is what was specified in the original stylesheet and I
just copied from the col1 styles down to the end.
From: russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2004/05/19 Wed PM 04:54:50 EDT
To: Web Standards Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Help with Float
#col1 {
width: 253px;
height: auto;
border-right: 2px dotted #5D355E;
float: left;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
clear: both;
}
#col1 p, #col2 p, #col3 p {
font: 12px/16px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
margin: 0px;
padding: 5px 10px;
}
Mike,
There are two small problems with this example. You are applying the
clear:both to the #col1 div. This works well in some instances but will fail
if #col2 or #col3 have much longer content. By fail I mean that the other
divs will poke out the bottom of their parent container.
You can see this here:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/jobs/css/sullivan-daley.htm
Another point (getting picky here, so apologies) is that you are show pixel
sizes for your font-sizes inside the containers. This is not recommended by
the WAI as it is not good for browsers that do not support scaling of
content in pixels (like IE). A better option is to use percents or EM's. A
really good article on this is here:
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
Thanks
Russ
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Michael Rainey
Blog: http://raineym.dyndns.org/
Resume: http://mrainey.dyndns.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] back to basics
The voices are telling me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 5/18/2004 8:43 PM: So, yes, apos; is a better solution than the one I posted. Except that [censored] MSIE doesn't display the apostrophe. It gets it fine (as slapping ?xml version='1.0'? onto the top and renaming it to foo.xml demonstrates), but when it comes to displaying it, it can't be bothered. I toad you I'd subtract from the sum of human knowledge. Back to lurk. -- Rev. Bob Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * 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] W3C Validater doesn't recognize XHTML
The W3C validator does recognise application/xhtml+xml. The problem might be that you're not checking for the W3C's user agent string when you decide which browsers to send which MIME type to. The string is W3C_Validator. Mordechai Peller wrote: According to the W3C, my valid XHTML 1.1 page only validates to HTML 4.01 Strict. I'm checking for application/xhtml+xml in order to serve up the correct header and DOCTYPE, so apparently, their validater doesn't recognize that mime type! It would be nice to be able to use the logo, but if anyone checks, they'll be told the wrong thing. Where this becomes a big problem is if you promise a client valid XHTML 1.1 and the validater says otherwise... * 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] Help with Float
El mié, 19-05-2004 a las 21:43, Brian Foy escribió: Hi Sean, Looks like you have to clear those floats. Try adding a div with clear: both; just below the last column. Brian Or this nicer method (i don't know where i first read about this, excuse me if it was on this list :) Clearing without structural markup http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * 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: box at the bottom
Dear List! (read: Hi List-members!) I don't know if I introduced myself or not, as I'm reading for some time now. I consider myself as a web-designer (or real-hard-wanna-be, that is), speciality CSS-based design. Based in Berlin, Germany, I am completing Highschool in the evening, working during daytime and coding XHTML/CSS at night. Sometimes I sleep. Now I need your help, dear list-writers. Well, at first I thought I could solve this alone (without bothering you), but I just can't figure out how to achieve the following effect in a way, which every major browser can handle. (sorry, I don't have a picture of it) I want a type of three-col layout inside a wrapper. On the right-hand-side is a nav at the top, no big deal (a float or position:absolute does the trick). In the middle there is the content (no trick at all, I think). On the left-hand-side there shall be a support/credit box (validation icons, copyright, such things). THIS BOX shall be positioned at the bottom of the wrapper or the screen, whatever is cross-browser possible. Fixed positioning (to the screen) works fine in Opera, but IE (...you know it...). Is there a way to achieve it? I suppose there is. However, right now, my head's smoking Tex Avery-style out of the ears... I appreciate every hint. Thanks in advance! -- Matthias http://www.kronn.de * 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] Help with Float
Hi Sean, Looks like you have to clear those floats. Try adding a div with clear: both; just below the last column. Brian Sean Sullivan-Daley wrote: I am trying to float 3 columns next to each other. This appearas to be OK in IE6 but is broken in FireFox. The columns break out of the container in FireFox. Here is a link to the Files. http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/ http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/css/style2.css What am I doing wrong? -Sean * 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] height problem
Kim, you said, Would it be possible to force the #navcontainer to stretch down to the #footer without the pnbsp;/p ? If so how? No, there's no way to do this reliably. You should forget trying to do it. This is what Mark Stanton was getting at. Remove the background from your #navcontainer and put it in the background of the element behind it. Here's an article that explains what to do: http://alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/ All the best! -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] Tables are bad because...
The voices are telling me that Patrick Griffiths said on 5/19/2004 7:43 AM: Who are all of these mad heavy-handed authoritarian web nuts that you're talking about? ;) /me fires up Xnews, looks to see that comp.infosystems.www.authoring.* are still there. Yup. /me scratches head. :-p -- Rev. Bob Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * 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] Help with Float
Sean Sullivan-Daley wrote: I am trying to float 3 columns next to each other. This appearas to be OK in IE6 but is broken in FireFox. The columns break out of the container in FireFox. Here is a link to the Files. http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/ http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/css/style2.css What am I doing wrong? What you're doing wrong is that you are assume IE6 is getting it right. Floats are suppose to extend past bottom of a container. You could try adding br style=clear:both/. * 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] Help with Float
#col1 {
width: 253px;
height: auto;
border-right: 2px dotted #5D355E;
float: left;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
clear: both;
}
#col1 p, #col2 p, #col3 p {
font: 12px/16px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
margin: 0px;
padding: 5px 10px;
}
Mike,
There are two small problems with this example. You are applying the
clear:both to the #col1 div. This works well in some instances but will fail
if #col2 or #col3 have much longer content. By fail I mean that the other
divs will poke out the bottom of their parent container.
You can see this here:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/jobs/css/sullivan-daley.htm
Another point (getting picky here, so apologies) is that you are show pixel
sizes for your font-sizes inside the containers. This is not recommended by
the WAI as it is not good for browsers that do not support scaling of
content in pixels (like IE). A better option is to use percents or EM's. A
really good article on this is here:
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
Thanks
Russ
*
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] title question
I just came across something new for me. I just started working with this company and they are using jsp with Tomcat and Jaquar as the server environment. the pages are being built with Forte as the editor of choice. I tried, in all my accessibility lovingness to add title tags to some images on a page today and it is telling me that the title tag is not allowed by the dtd and it won't parse the page. here is our doctype !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; +When is a title tag not allowed on an image? Here's an older version of the page. Please don't scream at the tables layout. That's what my job is to do, make the next version of the site css based. http://www2.csatravelprotection.com/csa/do/csa/dispatcher?forward=asalescontactphc=bqbrq2y9xk770 This is the page before I began adding the title tags. Thanks Ted CSA Travel Protection * 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] W3C Validater doesn't recognize XHTML
Ryan Christie wrote: I assume you're using PHP Mordechai? If so, copypaste this -- based off Simon's script but altered for 1.1 DTD instead of 1.0Tran, with added sniffing:: Good guess. I had already made the mods to 1.1 and 4.01 Strict, as well as removed the lang error. Needing the sniffing just feels wrong, though. The validaters should be transmitting the correct header info, and not require to be circumvented. I was wondering, why is Opera on the list? I just check 7.23 without browser sniffing and it worked (even though it doesn't appear on the list of mime types). Thanks * 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] Help with Float
What you're doing wrong is that you are assume IE6 is getting it right. Floats are suppose to extend past bottom of a container. You could try adding br style=clear:both/. That statement is correct in this instance but might be slightly misleading. It would be better to say that the heights of floated items are ignored by the parent container, so there is a possibility they may poke out the bottom of the parent container. This 'poking out' is dependant on what other content is inside the container. There is a more detailed explanation here: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/floatsample.htm And here: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/clear.htm As Brain and Mordechai have said, you need to clear after the floats to force the container around the floated items. They have suggested two methods (clear:both inside a new empty div or in a br). A third method is outlined in great detail here: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html Russ * 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] height problem
Hi Hugh, Great article, thank you. The problem the problem is already solved though. Jason Turnbull was so helpful that he showed me and the solutions and it works great. Now I've new problem though... I wrapped the logo and an URL in an h1 tag, placed it right under the body tag and now FF is messing up. You're welcome to take a look http://www.pagemakers.dk/divtest/test.htm . Probably much easier than me trying to explain. I'm too tired to look anymore... tomorrow. Thanks Kim - Original Message - From: Hugh Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] height problem Kim, you said, Would it be possible to force the #navcontainer to stretch down to the #footer without the pnbsp;/p ? If so how? No, there's no way to do this reliably. You should forget trying to do it. This is what Mark Stanton was getting at. Remove the background from your #navcontainer and put it in the background of the element behind it. Here's an article that explains what to do: http://alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/ All the best! -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 * * 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] And now for something completely different :-)
Ok, something completely different but standards related. It's a rethink on about half of the presentation gave the the Sydney WSG meeting just before Christmas, and then at the first Melbourne WSG meeting a few weeks ago, http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/2004/05/plus_ca_change.html Hope people find it interesting, and feel free to spread the word :-) john John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * 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] Help with Float
Floats are tricky. Try this:
1) Drop your col2 div below the col3 in the HTML markup.
2) Use these values for the col# in the stylesheet:
#col1 {
width: 253px;
height: auto;
border-right: 2px dotted #5D355E;
float: left;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
clear: both;
}
#col2 {
width: 245px;
height: auto;
margin: 0 255px 0 255px;
padding: 0px;
}
#col3 {
width: 253px;
height: auto;
border-left: 2px dotted #5D355E;
float: right;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
}
#col1 p, #col2 p, #col3 p {
font: 12px/16px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
margin: 0px;
padding: 5px 10px;
}
It should work in IE and Mozilla/Firefox. I tested it and it works fine.
From: Sean Sullivan-Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2004/05/19 Wed PM 03:01:54 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Help with Float
I am trying to float 3 columns next to each other.
This appearas to be OK in IE6 but is broken in FireFox.
The columns break out of the container in FireFox.
Here is a link to the Files.
http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/
http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/css/style2.css
What am I doing wrong?
-Sean
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Michael Rainey
Blog: http://raineym.dyndns.org/
Resume: http://mrainey.dyndns.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] CSS: box at the bottom
Matthias wrote: I want a type of three-col layout inside a wrapper. On the right-hand-side is a nav at the top, no big deal (a float or position:absolute does the trick). In the middle there is the content (no trick at all, I think). On the left-hand-side there shall be a support/credit box (validation icons, copyright, such things). THIS BOX shall be positioned at the bottom of the wrapper or the screen, whatever is cross-browser possible. Fixed positioning (to the screen) works fine in Opera, but IE (...you know it...). I'm not sure, but you might find what you're looking for at http://www.brainjar.com/css/positioning/ or http://www.positioniseverything.net/piefecta-rigid.html. The p.i.e.example may take some digging and studying to find what you want. (I still haven't figured out how it's working, but then again, I haven't tried very hard either. So much for the free lunch.) * 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] height problem
Thanks Patrick Yes you are right about html being the top level container, but I guess I was thinking about visible area - I never realised that you could style the html. Will try this out for sure. Cheers Mark * 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: box at the bottom
Hi Ted!
Can you put the box inside the footer div and stick it to the right side?
Sorry, no. The credit-box should be above the footer. Or..
caution why=raw thinking
Would negative margins be the solutions? I once advocated them as a
general cure, but I don't know exactly, how high the box will grow. Maybe
it will be a fluid design, maybe not. It could work with a
fixed-pixel-design, but a flexible one?
I could go with
#footer { margin-left:25% } and
#credit-box { width:25%; float:right; },
roughly speaking. For some reason I smell difficulties here... I'll go try
tomorrow, it is rather late for me now.
However, interessting thought you led me to, Ted. Thanks for that.
/caution
Currently, I've put the validation (among others) links into the footer.
To satisfy my eye, there are no icons or graphics, just 9px text, hardly
big enough to give credit to anyone but screen-readers, Netscape 4 and
Google.
--
Matthias http://www.kronn.de
*
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] title question
I tried, in all my accessibility lovingness to add title tags to some images on a page today and it is telling me that the title tag is not allowed by the dtd and it won't parse the page. I'm assuming that you are talking about the title= attribute rather than the title tag? I tried the link you provided got a session timeout error. Can you double check it and provide one that works so I can look into the problem for you? Cheers Mark * 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] Extra border/padding on a checkbox
I wonder how yahoo was able to do it. Checkboxes in mail.yahoo.com do not contain this extra padding/border -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Menzel Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Extra border/padding on a checkbox I am trying to get rid of the extra border/ padding on a checkbox in an IE browser. A checkbox is a UI element and, as such, is under the control of the Browser (and/or operating system) to render. It isn't under the control of CSS/HTML. A checkbox on a Mac will probably look different to one on Windows or Linux. So - even if one browser lets you do it on one operating system that is not likely to be the case across the board. Gary Menzel Web Development Manager IT Operations Brisbane -+- ABN AMRO Morgans Limited Level 29, 123 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 PH: 07 333 44 828 FX: 07 3834 0828 To unsubscribe from this email please forward this email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition includes reading, printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in reliance on the information. If you have received this email in error, we request you contact ABN AMRO Morgans Limited immediately by returning the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy the original. We will refund any reasonable costs associated with notifying ABN AMRO Morgans. This email is confidential and may contain privileged client information. ABN AMRO Morgans has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all its communications, including electronic communications, but accepts no liability for materials transmitted. Materials may also be transmitted without the knowledge of ABN AMRO Morgans. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited its directors and employees do not accept liability for the results of any actions taken or not on the basis of the information in this report. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited and its associates hold or may hold securities in the companies/trusts mentioned herein. Any recommendation is made on the basis of our research of the investment and may not suit the specific requirements of clients. Assessments of suitability to an individual?s portfolio can only be made after an examination of the particular client?s investments, financial circumstances and requirements. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited (ABN 49 010 669 726 AFSL 235410) A Participant of ASX Group * 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] title question [Virus checkedAU]
This email is to be read subject to the disclaimer below. Hi Ted, It would be useful to post the code you are working on - or the validator results. An initial guess at the problem would be that it is an error (missed bracket/unclosed tag) before the img tag that is causing the problem. The error messages from the validator can be a bit cryptic at times. Regards, Mark Lynch Development Manager - Business Innovation Online Ernst Young - Australia http://www.eyware.com/ http://www.eyonline.com/ Direct: +612 9248 4038 Fax: +612 9248 4073 Mobile: +61 421 050 695 Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tection.com cc: Sent by: Subject: [WSG] title question [Virus checkedAU] [EMAIL PROTECTED] up.org 20/05/2004 08:53 AM Please respond to wsg I just came across something new for me. I just started working with this company and they are using jsp with Tomcat and Jaquar as the server environment. the pages are being built with Forte as the editor of choice. I tried, in all my accessibility lovingness to add title tags to some images on a page today and it is telling me that the title tag is not allowed by the dtd and it won't parse the page. here is our doctype !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; +When is a title tag not allowed on an image? Here's an older version of the page. Please don't scream at the tables layout. That's what my job is to do, make the next version of the site css based. http://www2.csatravelprotection.com/csa/do/csa/dispatcher?forward=asalescontactphc=bqbrq2y9xk770 This is the page before I began adding the title tags. Thanks Ted CSA Travel Protection * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * NOTICE - This communication contains information which is confidential and the copyright of Ernst Young or a third party. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone Ernst Young on 1800 655 717 immediately. If you are the intended recipient of this communication you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without the authority of Ernst Young. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Ernst Young. Except as required at law, Ernst Young does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Liability limited by the Accountants Scheme, approved under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) * 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] And now for something completely different :-)
John, Anyone at Apple reading this? I'd imagine that if the web engine is already installed on Windows computers with iTunes (like all HP machines from June this year), all that would be needed would be a tiny download of a Safari GUI. (I imagine this because I'm not a programmer!) -Hugh Todd http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/2004/05/plus_ca_change.html Hope people find it interesting, and feel free to spread the word :-) * 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] height problem
Kim, Jason's solution is an excellent one. I regretted my dogmatic statement (that you should not try) the moment I saw it. The background-image solution is better for a more complex background graphic for your column. -Hugh Great article, thank you. The problem the problem is already solved though. Jason Turnbull was so helpful that he showed me and the solutions and it works great. * 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] title question
Ted Drake wrote: I just came across something new for me. I just started working with this company and they are using jsp with Tomcat and Jaquar as the server environment. the pages are being built with Forte as the editor of choice. I tried, in all my accessibility lovingness to add title tags to some images on a page today and it is telling me that the title tag is not allowed by the dtd and it won't parse the page. here is our doctype !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; +When is a title tag not allowed on an image? You're right, it is allowed. I'm not sure, but I think I spotted the cause. If you look at the attibute list you'll notice there's no title: !ATTLIST IMG %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events -- src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed -- alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description -- longdesc%URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description (complements alt) -- nameCDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting -- height %Length; #IMPLIED -- override height -- width %Length; #IMPLIED -- override width -- usemap %URI; #IMPLIED -- use client-side image map -- ismap (ismap)#IMPLIED -- use server-side image map -- align %IAlign; #IMPLIED -- vertical or horizontal alignment -- border %Pixels; #IMPLIED -- link border width -- hspace %Pixels; #IMPLIED -- horizontal gutter -- vspace %Pixels; #IMPLIED -- vertical gutter -- However, the fists attribute listed is %attrs; which, as the comment indicates, refers to %coreattrs, %i18n, and %events. You need to go to %coreattrs; before you find the title attribute. So the problem is your software is lazy. I hope this helped (but I get the feeling it didn't). I guess it's time for a nasty email to the publisher. * 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] And now for something completely different :-)
Hugh, Anyone at Apple reading this? I'd imagine that if the web engine is already installed on Windows computers with iTunes (like all HP machines from June this year), all that would be needed would be a tiny download of a Safari GUI. (I imagine this because I'm not a programmer!) you are largely right it would be a small download, with the engine already installed this is probably getting a little OT :-/ but iTunes actually implements a lot of the Mac OS X UI on windows. If they were being strategic about this my guess is that they would wait until there were say 50 million installed iTunes, then go for it with that large installed user base. I am sure they have thought about it, just not sure what they do think about it. I am pretty sure what MS might think about it :-) john John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * 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] height problem
Mark Stanton wrote: Thanks Patrick Yes you are right about html being the top level container, but I guess I was thinking about visible area - I never realised that you could style the html. Will try this out for sure. I recall reading somewhere that you can style the title element. You of course will need to start by changing the display property to something other than none. * 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] height problem
From: Mordechai Peller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I recall reading somewhere that you can style the title element. Interestingly enough, I was playing with that the other night... http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/details.php?id=34 Works best in Firefox / Gecko based browsers at the moment... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk N.X+i nZv+hymjl.f.wq(b(,)azX)i
[WSG] [OT] I want to keep the entered data in NN:form after history.go(-1)
[OT] I want to keep the entered data in NN:form after history.go(-1) I am racking my brains over the simplest thing, its not web standards as in CSS but its about browser compatibility. Using Netscape if I fill in the form submit it and get to an error page then click back or a link with history.back() or history.go(-1) the data I entered in the form is not maintained. Google manage to maintain it. I seem to remember a fix for this, but cant locate it now. Anyone have any thoughts. GC mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.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] IE hiding text
I'm working on http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/index.php?id=456 - it's going to be our intranet. Looking at it in Firefox, it looks fine, but in IE the menu on the left appears but is then overwritten by the background image on the container div. Does any one have any suggestions? gary smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] IE hiding text
On 5/19/04 7:43 PM Gary Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I'm working on http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/index.php?id=456 - it's going to be our intranet. Looking at it in Firefox, it looks fine, but in IE the menu on the left appears but is then overwritten by the background image on the container div. No suggestion, but on Mac IE 5.2.x the bottom line of text in the wide blue box is not displayed i.e. the blue box isn't long enough vertically to display the text. Rick * 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 hiding text
Hey there Gary, there's just a small problem withthe way your structring your background image for the left hand column. For help go here:Faux columns - by Dan Cederhomhttp://www.alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/ btw - your images and colours look very familiar. A lot likea site I posted to the group for feedback a while back: http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/index_01.html If you're going to use the same guff - at least change the name of the images to protect the innocent: http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/fileadmin/metTempl/foot_terms_of_use.gif http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/i/foot_terms_of_use.gif Benvolio --+Ben WebsterConversant Studios[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.conversantstudios.com.au - Original Message - From: "Gary Greer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:43 PM Subject: [WSG] IE hiding text I'm working on http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/index.php?id=456 - it's going to be our intranet. Looking at it in Firefox, it looks fine, but in IE the menu on the left appears but is then overwritten by the background image on the container div. Does any one have any suggestions? gary
Re: [WSG] IE hiding text
accusation of plagiarism dealt with off list. Feel free to contact me if you want more details. gg Ben Webster wrote: Hey there Gary, there's just a small problem with the way your structring your background image for the left hand column. For help go here: Faux columns - by Dan Cederhom http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/ btw - your images and colours look very familiar. A lot like a site I posted to the group for feedback a while back: http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/index_01.html If you're going to use the same guff - at least change the name of the images to protect the innocent: http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/fileadmin/metTempl/foot_terms_of_use.gif http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/i/foot_terms_of_use.gif Benvolio --+ Ben Webster Conversant Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.conversantstudios.com.au http://www.conversantstudios.com.au - Original Message - From: Gary Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:43 PM Subject: [WSG] IE hiding text I'm working on http://metropolis.muprivate.edu.au/index.php?id=456 - it's going to be our intranet. Looking at it in Firefox, it looks fine, but in IE the menu on the left appears but is then overwritten by the background image on the container div. Does any one have any suggestions? gary smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] Vertical Height Alignment Issues
Thanks Peller for the link. I did had a look. but my problem is a bit different. I am not using flat floated menus. If it is flat than i can put a similar bg color or graphics to level the bottom alignment along with the footer. My problem is a bit different. The content the sidebar or both separate rounded cornor containters. I hope you have seen Macromedia's product page. or chk this link http://www.macromedia.com/software/flex/ and look for the right side link bar moves all the way down exactly to meet the content's bottom page. I want replicate something similar too. How now i can align the bottom edge for my content the right side bar. I have just gone thru the source code of that page, but couldn't figure out how it is being aligned. any ideas.. Narain * 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] Tables are bad because... Crazy idea for validation.
At some stage, but that does look different to what I recall. Certainly a step in the right direction. On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 14:22, Mark Stanton wrote: Hi Chris Have you tried turning on verbose output? This can be done by going to the extended interface at http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html or by changing verbose=0 to verbose=1 in the URL. Cheers Mark * 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] should I track down this problem?
Curious how others would approach this? I've just finished a simple site that is perfect in WIN - NN 7, IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 MAC - Safari 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.4, IE 5.2 And a friend looks it in on Mac IE 5 and finds a big problem. My question is, do you draw the line or not? Do I spend more time time trying to track down this one dumb version number browser's problem, or do I just say it's not worth it? Whatddya think? Peter x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] should I track down this problem?
On 5/19/04 9:56 PM Universal Head [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I've just finished a simple site that is perfect in WIN - NN 7, IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 MAC - Safari 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.4, IE 5.2 And a friend looks it in on Mac IE 5 and finds a big problem. My question is, do you draw the line or not? Do I spend more time time trying to track down this one dumb version number browser's problem, or do I just say it's not worth it? For me it would depend on what the problem is and whether there's a known fix or workaround, keeping to standards of course! :-) Perhaps a tweak of the design could bypass the problem (whatever it is) entirely? Rick * 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] should I track down this problem?
Hi Peter, I've just finished a simple site that is perfect in WIN - NN 7, IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 MAC - Safari 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.4, IE 5.2 And a friend looks it in on Mac IE 5 and finds a big problem. My question is, do you draw the line or not? Do I spend more time time trying to track down this one dumb version number browser's problem, or do I just say it's not worth it? I thought I had a train wreck on a site in IE5Mac a while back - but it turns out there's a major bug with clearing floats, and as soon as I put in separate divs to clear the other elements, it started looking fine. So until you find the bug, don't despair! K. -- Kay Smoljak Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/ Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 * 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] should I track down this problem?
On 20/05/2004, at 2:56 PM, Universal Head wrote: Curious how others would approach this? I've just finished a simple site that is perfect in WIN - NN 7, IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 MAC - Safari 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.4, IE 5.2 And a friend looks it in on Mac IE 5 and finds a big problem. IE 5 and 5.1 are pretty buggy compared to 5.2+. My question is, do you draw the line or not? Do I spend more time time trying to track down this one dumb version number browser's problem, or do I just say it's not worth it? If the site is currently unusable with older version of IE 5 Mac, then you have to do SOMETHING. My advice would be to hide the stylesheet completely from IE 5.2 via server-side scripting if at all possible, or perhaps hide it from all IE browsers via a MacIE hiding hack if server-side isn't feasible. The ROI (return on investment) is virtually nil for you to track down and attempt to solve these bugs in a browser that is very outdated, discontinued, and a very small % of users (my guess is 0.10.5% -- unless you're targeting a Mac-oriented audience with older OS 9 machines!). Do what you can, but don't loose sleep over it -- just make sure the content is accessible primarily. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] should I track down this problem?
It's probably something to do with that as one of the two problems is a standard horizontal list nav stuffing up. It does make the navigation virtually unusable I must admit. But what can you do? My point to posting was, how many specific version numbers can one check in anyway? Having it work well in all those browsers and then having some obscure bug in an obscure browser make it go pear-shaped - well, it would be impossible to check it in every version number of every browser that ever lived. If only they had expiry dates! I mean, how many people using IE5 on Mac OS9? (apart from my damn friend that is!) ;) Peter On 20/05/2004, at 3:20 PM, Kay Smoljak wrote: I thought I had a train wreck on a site in IE5Mac a while back - but it turns out there's a major bug with clearing floats, and as soon as I put in separate divs to clear the other elements, it started looking fine. So until you find the bug, don't despair! x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
