An old chestnut.
Standards badging is largely irrelevant to the client as they have no
knowledge of or likely interest in the delivery mechanisms and markup/coding
involved in development of a web presence. Neither too has the general
public. That's point 1: fair ignorance of development.
Since
Hi all,
I think that basically we all agree in principle. However, to take a couple
of points:
[1] Patrick's :
It's a bit like plastering a nice
big sticker on a new building saying built with bob's special concrete
mix. As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers
do
Its part of the spec I believe. An element is absolutly positioned
within it's containing element ( which I think has to be block level
for obvious reasons ). A basic example is that a single absolutly
positioned element ( say a div#example ) within the body tag is
positioned to the body tag which
Hi,
I am developing some different advertising and would like to know, how
can i create a slide layer that appears on righr side of browser, only
when the screen resolution is more than 1024x768 pixels.
My layer should be 150 px x 600 and will be layered at right side of
the page.
Can anyone
Just give the element which you want to position the other element
relative to a poistion of relative and then give the inner elemennt a
position of absolute and specify toop,right etc...
example:
div#container {position:relative;}
div#container img.example {position: absolute; top:0; right:0;}
Has anyone written anything like this we could use?
Also, excuse my slight ignorance here, but just because a page validates as
XHTML and CSS compatible, does that make it accessible?
Obviously it helps, but there is more to accessibility than that isn't
there. I also use tables in my pages in
No, Stephen, a standards-compliant site does not mean an accessible site --
but it goes a long way towards it. Accessibility has it own set of
recommendations which sit atop those of pure compliant build, although
building to standards often illustrates the developer's mindset: doing the
job right
Steven wrote:
Also, excuse my slight ignorance here, but just because a page validates as
XHTML and CSS compatible, does that make it accessible?
True. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it's semantically correct,
as there tends to be a trend in pages that just consist of a load of
divs
Question:
What's more in-spec:
div id=hello/div
Or
div id='hello'/div
Ciao
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
What's more in-spec:
div id=hello/div
Or
div id='hello'/div
Both versions are acceptable, although the de-facto standard is to use
double-quotes.
Best regards,
Gez
_
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
What's more in-spec:
div id=hello/div
Or
div id='hello'/div
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.2
quote
By default, SGML requires that all attribute values be delimited using
either double quotation marks (ASCII decimal 34) or single quotation marks
(ASCII decimal 39).
What's more in-spec:
When talking about XHTML, it adheres to XML wellformness - so it's
defined really simple:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-AttValue -- both are
equivalent and thus sholud be supported in the same way.
(I'd porsonally use double quotes to have it more
Jan Brasna wrote:
What's more in-spec:
When talking about XHTML, it adheres to XML wellformness - so it's
defined really simple:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-AttValue -- both are
equivalent and thus sholud be supported in the same way.
(I'd porsonally use double quotes to
13 matches
Mail list logo
