Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML
1.1 it should allways be sent as XML.
...
That is true, but Internet Explorer does not support XHTML.
HTML 4.01/5 ftw :)
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as
XHTML 1.1 it should allways be sent as XML.
Though, I have seen people sniffing out browsers and using server side
scripting to change the doctype. XHTML 1.1 to browsers than supports it,
and XHTML
Designer wrote:
Maybe, but coding in xhtml1.1 makes you MUCH more fussy about syntax
etc. and it shows up any 'well formed' errors as soon as you browse.
So, whilst the user will know nothing about all this, it makes you as
a designer get lots of practice in using the stricter syntax, ready
for
There's no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1 only
advantage is that it's modulized and can only be sent as XML so it can be
extended. If you're not extending it then you're better off with XHTML 1.0.
- Original Message -
From: Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Hi everyone,
I'm currently working on a new set of web publishing standards or guidelines.
The New Zealand Government Web Standards and Recommendations [
http://webstandards.govt.nz/index.php/Home_page ] are a great inspiration, as
well as the W3C standards of course.
Just wondering if
Thomas Thomassen skrev:
Yes, that is an issue. But saving webpages to disc has always been
unreliable. Espesially now with the extensive use of AJAX and other
embedded and streamed content.
Not to mention IE:s habit of botching up the markup badly. Valid and
well-formed XHTML will often be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
One question that I have yet to see anyone ask is: How good will IE8
actually be?
If it is perfect, then there is no need to worry about future
versions...
No browser is, and never will be perfect. (Look at Acid 3.
http://acid3.acidtests.org/ And when most browsers
Thomas Thomassen skrev:
There's no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1
only advantage is that it's modulized
Not entirely true. XHTML 1.1 includes ruby.
and can only be sent as XML so it
can be extended. If you're not extending it then you're better off with
XHTML
Now that's new to me. Will have to read up on that. But then I see no point
in XHTML 1.1, because wasn't it mean to be modulized and extendible by XML?
- Original Message -
From: Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:52 PM
...
FWIW - and I do not wish to reopen the considered harmful debate -
appendix C allows for sending XHTML 1.1 as well as XHTML 1.0 as
text/html. (That's a recent change in the specs that few seem to know
about.)
Can you elaborate what appendix C are you talking about?
I can recomment the Dutch Guidelines: http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/
Regards,
Koen Willems
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens
Faul, Mark
Verzonden: donderdag 31 januari 2008 16:04
Aan: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Onderwerp: [WSG] Web
Rimantas Liubertas skrev:
Can you elaborate what appendix C are you talking about?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html#summary
(latest version, supposedly) does not confirm this.
The 2nd edition opens things up a bit:
Hello all,
quick question; we signed up for scanalert.com and been given some HTML code
to place a icon on our search engine www.clickfind.com.au
I placed the code on the pages without really paying attention to it, after
a while I discovered the image was linked as
This is probably off topic, if you want to discuss off line, I'm happy to
help.
I do this daily, on three different Macs. FWIW, I used to be an executive
at Microsoft, but use Macs in my daily life. I retreat to Windows only as
needed. I use Parallels, although others report good success with
Hi List,
If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I know it
was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list if you feel
it's more appropriate.
I've recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track as
soon as possible, it was a Mac
When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely
not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just
like IE5 did.
James Leslie wrote:
It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy
everything that has been created in
Hello;
In every email you get there is an unsubscribe link at the bottom ;)
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
On 30 Jan 2008 at 11:25, Datatank wrote:
Please remove me from this list. thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me
document:
Hi
It's a bit difficult to work out what is going one given the image itself
seems to be a 1x1 transparent gif. You may find that your browser is blocking
these as they most likely represent web bugs, causing the issue you see.
the HTML spec redirects URI info to RFC2396. In section 3. URI
James Ellis skrev:
Relative URI references are distinguished from absolute URI in that
they do not begin with a scheme name. Instead, the scheme is
inherited from the base URI, as described in Section 5.2.
// in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path.
I have no idea of
Anders Nawroth wrote:
// in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path.
I have no idea of how the browser support for this is, or how they
choose to interpret it.
scanalert/hackersafe publishes their badges with the img
src=//path/image.gif / method.
I've yet to see a problem
On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Anders Nawroth wrote:
// in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path.
I have no idea of how the browser support for this is, or how they
choose to interpret it.
A single / in the beginning says this URI is relative to the
domain of the document.
Well, thats the question here.
It seems to work without in some browsers (if I'm not mistaken).
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of kate
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 8:31 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] linking to images with //
Hi,
Should'nt that beimg src='http whatever?
Late
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the other discussion it was more around how to deal with http and https
CSS images references when the image was remote. The accepted solution goven
by all was to use two different CSS files. My friend Ryan Joy noted
(http://www.atxryan.com/2008/01/22/breaking-with-protocol/
) that using this
I placed the code on the pages without really paying attention to it, after
a while I discovered the image was linked as
src=//images.scanalert.com/meter/www.clickfind.com.au/12gif
I never seen this before, but it worked! I changed it to src=
Check out this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
Tim MacKay wrote:
Hi List,
If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I
know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list
if you feel it’s more appropriate.
I’ve recently had my
Do you check your logs for 404s?
Like I said, when I published the code as they presented it, I got some 404
errors from browsers looking for the image on our domain.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Cummiskey
Sent: Friday, 1
On a different note:
Just been speaking with ScanAlert, I tried to get them to understand that
their code does not validate since they used oncontextmenu, and border=0 -
I got a response saying that W3C standards is not widely accepted!
Microsoft is not using it, Google is not using it and all
Can we please keep the discussions on topic, lately there have been a number
of threads having nothing to do with standards
Cheers
Adam
On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Taco Fleur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you check your logs for 404s?
Like I said, when I published the code as they presented it, I
ooh sorry, I thought it had to do with standards...
My apologies. Thread closed.
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Martin
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 11:17 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] linking to images with //
Can we please
This is interesting!
Are saying it should be src=://images.scanalert.com. Instead of
src=//images.scanalert.com ?
I have not tested it in any other browser than i.e6 and firefox 2
The only reason I found out about the way it was coded was because I got a
report of 404 errors, so I'm
The Griffith University Web Style Guide
http://www.griffith.edu.au/web-publishing/web-style-guide/
It covers range of Corporate branding, Information architecture, writing
for the web, and web standards issues.
I think its good, but I may be biased :-)
Kind Regards,
Kane Tapping
Web Standards
The Australian Government Web Publishing Guidelines:
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au
The Griffith University Web Style Guide
http://www.griffith.edu.au/web-publishing/web-style-guide/
I can recomment the Dutch Guidelines:
http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/
Tim MacKay wrote:
Hi List,
snip
I have a few questions about the Windows environment on the
new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual Studio?
Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the Windows
environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it
On an Intel-based processor, you should be able to actually install
Windows onto a Mac machine. I've never personally tested this, but it
makes sense to me. If that is the case, then it will function just like
Windows on any other PC build, so you can run anything that you would
normally run.
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me
document
:
37 matches
Mail list logo
