Lachlan,I'm going to take your much appreciated response one bit at a time.By doing as you suggested, I lose the point of having used the JS in the first place.(For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that having the copyright notices reflect the current year is a desired thing).With the
I suppose you mean PHP or ASP or similar?
If so, wouldn't this be taking things to an extreme just to do a
simple copyright that is already handled so well with this little JS?
Bob
Javascript is for behaviour, not content (or structure, really).
Therefore, if you want to dynamically change
Bob Schwartz wrote:
This one all alone on the page, with no linked JS in the head:
div id=copy
script type=text/javascript
...
document.write(copy; +yr);
/scriptnbsp;Cedar Tree Books
/div
p id=copy© 2005 Cedar Tree Books/p
No script (or entity reference) required.
I'm going to take your
Bob,
on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 18:57 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
These connected to a linked JS in the head:
1. a href=http://www.fotografics.it; onclick=popUp
(this.href,'elastic',500,650);return false;nbsp;powered by:
FotoGrafics/a
a href=http://www.fotografics.it;
Martin Heiden wrote:
Do it on the serverside!!!
Maybe I'm a cycle head, but it seems silly to use computation cycles
(although very little) to compute a year that changes only once per
year. Use a server side include or hard code it in your footer template
and remember to change it in the
Peter J. Farrell wrote:
Martin Heiden wrote:
Do it on the serverside!!!
Maybe I'm a cycle head, but it seems silly to use computation cycles
(although very little) to compute a year that changes only once per
year. Use a server side include or hard code it in your footer
template and
I'm no Lawyer but what are the legal ramifications of a user having the
wrong year set on the client. If the client's clock were set to 1900
then wouldn't the Copyright notice then be invalid?
That is one of the ramifications of not Using PHP or ASP.
Stephen
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Lachlan,
Peter,
on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 12:31 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
Martin Heiden wrote:
Do it on the serverside!!!
Maybe I'm a cycle head, but it seems silly to use computation cycles
(although very little) to compute a year that changes only once per
year. Use a server
Martin Heiden wrote:
Peter,
on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 12:31 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
Maybe I'm a cycle head, but it seems silly to use computation cycles
(although very little) to compute a year that changes only once per
year. Use a server side include or hard
Lachain,
I sort of get it but...
Below are a couple of real world (my world, anyway) javascripts,
could you re-do them as per Good, then I would have an example for
reference that I could closely relate to.
These connected to a linked JS in the head:
1. a href=http://www.fotografics.it;
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Below are a couple of real world (my world, anyway) javascripts, could
you re-do them as per Good, then I would have an example for
reference that I could closely relate to.
These connected to a linked JS in the head:
1. a href=http://www.fotografics.it;
Exactly where in my posts did I say I create web sites in the style
of my friend?
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my
friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his
(fairly complicated) site
Sorry, if it seemed like I implied that, but even if you don't, just
the experience of the pain of having to maintain that sort of code
would eliminate any thought of reverting to the old school way of
making web sites.
On 12/5/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly where in my posts
No problem, Ben. Believe me I would never revert to the old way.
I guess I was just surprised to see how well my friend's site worked
in 7 or 8 different MAC win browsers with such outdated code.
Sorry, if it seemed like I implied that, but even if you don't, just
the experience of the pain
Christian Montoya wrote:
Tables + tag soup = hacking. Your friend really needs to get with it.
Validation is not the main issue, it's accessibility. Speed is
important too. If you can convince him to use CSS (if you can't, you
have a lot to learn too, or he is dumb) then he will want to get
Lachlan,
By far, the most important issue facing beginners with regards to
standards is the separation of semantics, presentation and
behavioural layers into well structured, valid, non-presentational
markup; CSS and javascript, respectively, and it sounds like you've
already made
On 05/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to be clear I've understood a concept you mention above, could
you show an example of javascript used as layered, non-presentational
markup and one that is not?
a) a href=javascript:myfunction();Link/a
b) a href=page.html
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Lachlan,
By far, the most important issue facing beginners with regards to
standards is the separation of semantics, presentation and behavioural
layers into well structured, valid, non-presentational markup; CSS and
javascript, respectively, and it sounds like you've
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. I
joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of
web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of
course, I had
Oddly enough I've been thinking about making a similar post.
I would have said all you said and then added two more tidbits.
1. Just read on some blog (pointed to from this list) where doctypes
are useful only for validation, otherwise of no use.
2. A friend just got back into the web
On 04/12/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bob,
please understand any blunt or straightforward response is by no means
a personal attack on you, but I feel the rant mode growing inside of
me :-)
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been
On 04/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time
away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables
and the usual tag soup.
I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with
the modern way
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my
friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his
(fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers
which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through
trying to get a
designer wrote:
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea.
Yes, that is a very good idea.
I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of
web sites about standards) and
Bob Schwartz wrote:
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend
to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly
complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he
built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through
On 04/12/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the core of the issue not designing with CSS vs tables, rather
than with the standards themselves?
Yes, there's an ongoing confusion between standards compliance
(validation) and observance of good practices (css layouts, etc.)
--
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time
away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables
and the usual tag soup.
I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with
the modern way
My biggest reason for following standards originally was selfish: vastly
increased ease of maintainability. When you separate content from
presentation, you can change the presentation aspect of the site once
and it goes into effect across the entire site. I really, really liked
that aspect
Hi Lachlan,
Lachlan Hunt wrote: [snipped]
MIME Types
As I promised, this is a (not so) brief discussion of MIME types and
how they relate to this discussion of HTML vs. XHTML.
I will certainly read and inwardly digest this!
Many thanks,
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my
friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his
(fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers
which he built without jumping through any of
30 matches
Mail list logo
