Richard,
I think you're right on both counts...
Yes, in order for this to be effective the more professionals who
contribute, the better it will be.
And yes, absolutely, it's not about stating this is the ONLY way
you can do this but presenting a set of choices.
I look forward to seeing
I have a swf file in my page.Google will not index. I can print the content of swf in a div with display:none.Is it a good practice ? Does anyone have a better idea ?This is the url:
http://www.victoriabratberg.com/betaThanks and sorry
Hi, if you put some textlinks to other parts of the site in your home page under
or over the flash, google will index it.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some
Elton,
on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 15:33 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
I have a swf file in my page.
Google will not index. I can print the content of swf in a div with
display:none.
Is it a good practice ? Does anyone have a better idea ?
Yep! Use standards and some proprietary
Put a sitemap on your index page down the bottom so that Google et al
can follow the html links. Validate your page also. You are using an
xhtml doctype and yet have upper case tags on your page.
Regards,
Ric
Elton Okada wrote:
I have a swf file in my page.
Google will not index. I can
Thanks !!!RegardsEltonOn 12/20/05, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elton,on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 15:33
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: I have a swf file in my page. Google will not index. I can print the content of swf in a div with display:none. Is it a good practice ? Does
Thanks Ric !!
Regards
Elton
On 12/20/05, Ric Raftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put a sitemap on your index page down the bottom so that Google et alcan follow the html links.Validate your page also.You are using an
xhtml doctype and yet have upper case tags on your page.Regards,RicElton Okada
What about this:http://blog.deconcept.com/2005/03/31/proper-flash-embedding-flashobject-best-practices/Regards
EltonOn 12/20/05, Ric Raftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put a sitemap on your index page down the bottom so that Google et alcan follow the html links.Validate your page also.You are using
this might be a bit of dumb question
anyideas on how to get this keyword search box any narrower in ie? something
like it is in firefox
http://www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final6.htm
http://www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/index3.css
(ie code for search box at bottom of stylesheet)
-best kvnmcwebn
Hi everyone:
I apologize for sending this site critic too early, I definitely jumped
the gun asking for a critic. I will be making a bunch of changes and
make sure to validate all my code before I ask for a site critic in the
future. Thank you so much to those of you who, very graciously, gave
http://home.alltel.net/omen/schedule.htm
Looks great until you try to print in landscape. Can someone please
help me with adjusting the css so that the print preview looks the
same as it does in the browser.
We're on a IE standard intranet.. sucks I know.. but I appreciate your
help in advance.
Return Receipt
Your RE: [WSG] Site Critic
document:
Return Receipt
Your document: RE: [WSG] Site Critic
Thanks Samuel.
I'd actually considered the fixes quite minimal. Apart from a couple of IE
hacks, the only 'fix' in place is the mighty clearfix class for float
clearing.
If you have any suggestions on how the CSS can be minimised I'd be very
grateful if you'd share them. Almost everything I know
I've found the majority of IE hacks can be avoided by nesting padded
boxes inside boxes with widths rather then trying to combine them, it
does create extra markup but it is easier to read and understand if you
or someone else has to make changes later.
The only IE bug I seem to run into
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS
documents?
I've been using
body
{
font-size .8em;
}
then
p
{
font-size : 90%; (adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)
}
the problem I've found with this is that I'll sometimes set a 90% on a
td element (or
On 21 Dec 2005, at 7:47 AM, kvnmcwebn wrote:
how to get this keyword search box any narrower in ie?
.searchbox input{
width: 10em; /* desired width */
}
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in
CSS documents?
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for
I have had good luck with the Owen Briggs Method across browsers--
just watch out for the cascade:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
Paula
Paula Petrik
Professor
Department of History Art History
Associate Director
Center for History New Media
So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then adjusting
it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended?
I tried to find fault with Owen Briggs' Text Sizing
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html
article which uses a simple declaration of
Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font size to
100% and then setting individual elements to ems is how I do all my
pages. As far as I know it is the recommended method so users have
control of their own viewport.
Regards,
Ric
Paul Noone wrote:
So setting the font
Where I got it from was the supplied stylesheet. The comments within also
explain why 76% was chosen as a figure.
The 100.01% size for html or body elements was/is a much practiced method
which was expounded on this very list not so long ago.
Is it just me or is there some underlying agression
SamuelYou wrote: body { font-size .8em; } p { font-size : 90%; (adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)}That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade. Get a p inside a p, an li inside an li or a li inside a p and suddenly instead of being 12px text ( 16px -
Nick Cowie wrote:
Samuel
You wrote:
body { font-size .8em; }
p { font-size : 90%;
(adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)
}
That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade.
Get a p inside a p,
It's very rare that p elements would be nested like that and
Not from me Paul. If my msg came across that way, please accept my
apologies. It was not intended.
Regards,
Ric
Paul Noone wrote:
Is it just me or is there some underlying agression on this list of late?
**
The discussion list for
Paul Noone wrote:
Ric Raftis wrote:
Paul Noone wrote:
So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then
adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended
I tried to find fault with Owen Briggs' Text Sizing
Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in
CSS documents?
Watch out for this one...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html
...and this one...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html
regards
Georg
--
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
default font-size.
Actually whether small matches 80% or not depends on browsers and
rounding and the default size
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
I have to agree with Felix here as well. In the end, I have to abide my
clients wishes
29 matches
Mail list logo
