Tat,
Am Sonntag, 3. April 2005 um 16:02:19 haben Sie geschrieben:
TO I'm trying to have a link open in a new window (like I've done a million
TO times). however the validator doesn't like this.
TO This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1
TO http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/ !
You seem to
Tat,
Am Montag, 4. April 2005 um 08:14:22 haben Sie geschrieben:
MH uncomment the target section, give it a name and put it inside your
MH site. Then modify the doctype of your pages to point at the new
MH driver.
Sorry, actually you have to add this section:
!-- Target Module
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:31:49 +0100, Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do it via JavaScript. For example:
a href=http://mysite.com; onclick=window.open(this.href); return
false; onkeypress=window.open(this.href); return false;/a
This is the most accessible way to do this.
No, it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pixeldiva
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:16 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Multiple classes applied to one element
On Apr 1, 2005 4:04 PM, Trusz, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I don't have a Mac, so I can't help you in that department, but I
tested it in my versions of Firefox (1.0.2 nightly) and the menus go
down, but they won't go up again (at least I couldn't figure out how to
do it).
Alan Trick
Richard Czeiger wrote:
Let's combine a whole bunch of
FYI, same problem in ff1.0.2/Mac)S 10.3.3 - dropdown drops but doesn't
retract again.
Works well in Opera 7.54, but the dividing line between Cleaning and
Health Support looks more like a dashed line - seems to be broken somehow.
However, works great in Safari 1.2.1.
Good luck!
Wendy
Alan
I can't see what you mean.
But what I do is, give the container a height of 1%.
eg:
div { height: 1% }
and that DIV will no longer be effected.
I cant tell if thats the problem though.
Gallagher, Robin wrote:
Hi
As you can see on the test page I've put up here:
Disclamer: this was /not/ my idea, the companies graphic designer make
me do it :-P
The graphics designer at my company has a thing against pages that are
larger/smaller than the viewport. As much as I fell this is total
nonsense I've tried to comply with her wishes. As always IE is giving
Piero Fissore wrote:
Someone told me that it doesn't consider those links separated because
of the the printed point of the li element.
That someone says that in the guideline - at the point 10.5 - they
speak about separate adiacent links with PRINTED character: this is
true, but I can't believe
Why is it that rows and cols are required attributes for the textarea
element, even in xhtml? They strike me as being purely presentational, and
not really needed: in the absense of styling, browsers could apply
arbitrary defaults as they do with text input field width. I can't find
any
I am out of the office today If you need assistance please contact Mickey Rose
at 1-509-628-9015 or Ken Noyce at 425-865-3960.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
That's what I had, but AFAIK, you can't have the page resize to fit the
viewport without absolute/fixed positioning (unless you use a screwy js
hack). If you could prove me wrong I would be very greatful. Personally
I dislike absolute positioning.
Alan
David Laakso wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005
I know this is offtopic in this list but I don't know where it is on
topic, I'd be happy if anyone pointed out where I should send this.
I'm wondeing if the people who maintain the mailing list could stop
forwarding emails with 'AUTOREPLY','OUT OF OFFICE',
and 'MESSAGE NOT DELIVERED' in the
I know this is offtopic in this list but I don't know where it is on
topic, I'd be happy if anyone pointed out where I should send this.
I'm wondeing if the people who maintain the mailing list could stop
forwarding emails with 'AUTOREPLY','OUT OF OFFICE',
and 'MESSAGE NOT DELIVERED' in the
I've wondered about this one as well, my guess is that
1. they figured the attributes were to important to drop in
the event of non-css user agents,
or more likely
2. they didn't change it because xhtml1.x was really not
much more than a reformulation of html into xml. To get real xhtml we
Chris Stratford wrote:
You can use this DTD:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC XHTML 1.0 Strict
http://www.neester.com/DTD/xhtml-target.dtd;
I made it myself from a tutorial.
It is XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Are you sure that the Formal Public Identifier part of the DTD can
really look like that? I thought that
Alan Trick wrote:
That's what I had, but AFAIK, you can't have the page resize to fit
the viewport without absolute/fixed positioning (unless you use a
screwy js hack). If you could prove me wrong I would be very
greatful. Personally I dislike absolute positioning.
David Laakso wrote:
Looks
It could be argued that it is more than
presentation. It indicates to the user about the quantity or usage of the
textarea; the size of text fields is a usability topic. If you were told to
write a "Summary of your proposal", and given 8 lines instead of 2 lines, you
would probably write a
At 03:00 PM 4/4/2005, Sigurd Magnusson wrote:
It could be argued that it is more than presentation. It indicates to the
user about the quantity or usage of the textarea; the size of text fields
is a usability topic. If you were told to write a Summary of your
proposal, and given 8 lines instead
Hi
I was wondering what the best solution was for captioning images where you
have a number of differently sized images on a page.
Is using a definition list the best way to do this and the most
semantically correct? Are there better ways?
The biggest problem I have found is having to set the
The number of rows and columns of a textarea in no way constrains the
amount of text that can be entered, it only affect the appearance of the
input area on the screen.
I agree it doesn't technically constrain the user, but it does instruct a
user how much they are expected to write. As power
This fixed it:
#rightColumn
{
float: right;
width: 200px;
background-image: url(background.jpg);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
height: 500px;
}
* html #rightColumn
{
width: 202px;
margin-left: -2px;
}
* html hid the IE fix from other
Sure
I've never heard myself of using DL/DT/DD for this sort of thing, although
instinctively it seems quite an appropriate use.
My question relates to what sort of problems you have encountered with
widths; I would have thought the following would pose no problems:
dl class=captionedimage
Good evening all,
I know there's two schools of thought regarding forms where one uses a
table and the other a definition list to style and layout the data fields.
I have a simple form on a client's Contact Us page, and I wondered if
there's a consensus as to which method is more semantically
Hey Chris,
Not too sure on this.
I just emulated the real strict DTD - but made it version 1.01 - :)
Chris Bentley wrote:
Chris Stratford wrote:
You can use this DTD:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC XHTML 1.0 Strict
http://www.neester.com/DTD/xhtml-target.dtd;
I made it myself from a tutorial.
It is XHTML
I'd be pointing you towards styling fieldset and label elements
rather than using dl or table
Good examples
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/InForm/
Cheers
Chris
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good evening all,
I know there's two schools of thought regarding
Hi,
I have a menu in my site that I use class ID for each link with different
menu button. It was validated until I added body#ID for persistent page
indicator.
Before persisten page indicator:
.lia href=index.htm id=home title=home accesskey=1 /a/li
After page indicator:
.li id=homea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good evening all,
I know there's two schools of thought regarding forms where one uses a
table and the other a definition list to style and layout the data fields.
I have a simple form on a client's Contact Us page, and I wondered if
there's a consensus as to which method
G'day
I know there's two schools of thought regarding forms where one uses a
table and the other a definition list to style and layout the data fields.
I have a simple form on a client's Contact Us page, and I wondered if
there's a consensus as to which method is more semantically correct?
Not
If you use label elements around your text then you can simply do this:
HTML:
plabel for=firstNameFirst Name/labelinput type=text id=firstName
//p
CSS:
form p{
clear:both;
}
form p label{
float:left;
width:30%;
}
Grant
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
You cannot reuse IDs within a document. Each ID must have a unique value.
Have a look at
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200503/setting_the_current_menu_state_with_css/
It has a good example of what you are trying to achieve.
Regards,
Jachin Sheehy
Senior Web Developer
InternetFiji.com
How about plain old form elements?
Example:
style type=text/css
form { font: 65%/1.2 verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 3em; }
fieldset { margin-bottom: 0.3em; border: none; }
label { width: 160px; }
label.radio { width: auto; }
input, select, textarea { font-family: verdana; font-size: 1.0em;
Hi Tee,
ID should be unique. That's it. Change IDs to be diferent or use classes instead
On Apr 5, 2005 12:37 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a menu in my site that I use class ID for each link with different
menu button. It was validated until I added body#ID for persistent page
Well, it seems that styling the actual form elements is the way to go, and
certainly appears to be ideal for simple forms.
Thank you Chris, Bert and Darren for the quick response, advice and links!
Yours respectfully,
Mario
G'day
I know there's two schools of thought regarding forms where
It looks like you're defining the same element twice, but in a different
way and with a different background image. To me this makes sense why
this would conflict.
#siteOption li a#home { background: url(images/h_gb.gif) no-repeat; }
vs.
body#homepage li#home a { background:
It looks like you're defining the same element twice, but in a different
way and with a different background image. To me this makes sense why
this would conflict.
There are 8 buttons in the menu and each button with unique ID because each
button is different.
#siteOption li a#home {
At 07:37 PM 4/4/2005, tee wrote:
I have a menu in my site that I use class ID for each link with different
menu button. It was validated until I added body#ID for persistent page
indicator.
Before persisten page indicator:
.lia href=index.htm id=home title=home accesskey=1 /a/li
After page
tee,
your english is great. even those of us that grew up on the language
abuse it with regularity.
my only confusion comes from perhaps the 'persistent page indicator'.
i'm not sure how this second definition is only triggered when a user
visits the home page...irregardless, when the page
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
A simple float-design with a little bit of AP, can be as fluid as one
may like it. How about 3-column floats?
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1.html
Basically it is this:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins/
This technique uses negative margins too,
hi everyone,
Im having a problem with type getting croped-
The bottom few pixels of some ascenders - like on g - are being chopped off.
This is happening on ie5mac and netscape 6mac, havnt tested it on the pc
yet. I'm using these attributes for my paragraph text.
---
p { width: 245px;
In some browsers, the test page I have put up renders fine: namely, IE
Mac, Safari on Mac, IE6 on PC. However, Firefox, Opera, Mozilla and
Netscape don't seem to see the stylesheet.
Both HTML and CSS validated fine through the W3C site.
I am really having a difficult time understanding why
G'day
I am really having a difficult time understanding why some browsers see
the stylesheet, while others don't?
The link to the page:
http://www.deafvision.net/projects/btw/revised/indexx.html.
link rel=StyleSheet type=text/css href=css/btwnewx.css /
Try making that stylesheet (all lower
This is because your webserver is outputting:
Content-Type: text/plain
and not:
Content-Type: text/css
For your CSS file.
IE doesn't care, but most other stuff does. Nothing wrong with your CSS. It is
a web server configuration problem.
- Original Message -
From: Leslie Riggs [EMAIL
Hi Lesley,
Have you tried an absolute path for the style sheet href property?
Regards,
Ben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Leslie Riggs
Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2005 4:35 p.m.
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Really strange
The easy answer is that your server is configured incorrectly.
Your stylesheet is being served as text/plain, and not text/css
thus some browsers are not treating it as a style sheet..
s
Leslie Riggs wrote:
In some browsers, the test page I have put up renders fine: namely, IE
Mac, Safari on Mac,
Thanks, Michael,
Where do I find that information, so I can back up the assertion when I
talk with the hosting provider?
Thank you!
Leslie Riggs
This is because your webserver is outputting:
Content-Type: text/plain
and not:
Content-Type: text/css
For your CSS file.
IE doesn't care, but most
scott parsons wrote:
The easy answer is that your server is configured incorrectly.
Your stylesheet is being served as text/plain, and not text/css
thus some browsers are not treating it as a style sheet..
i just did a quick test, copying leslie's code and css and loaded it on
my server - and it
Thank you everyone! The conflict solved after I change it to class.
your english is great. even those of us that grew up on the language
abuse it with regularity.
Diona, I was just being lame ;) Once I get myself comfortable in this list,
I probably will make no apology for my English lol.
my
Thanks to all - the hosting provider confirmed that the web server was
incorrectly configured; it's an older one. The site will go live on a
newer, properly configured server.
I can now sleep happythanks again, everyone.
Leslie Riggs
scott parsons wrote:
The easy answer is that your server
49 matches
Mail list logo
