[WSG] Article: The real reason you should care about web standards
http://www.designbyfire.com/99.html * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Fwd: links dont work in ie6
Because you're applying a negative left margin to compensate for the 50%
declared body margin.
Replace the first 2 id's with --
body {
background-color: #fff;
padding: 0px;
margin: 20px auto;
text-align: center;
}
#container {
width: 398px;
height: 101px;
text-align: left;
}
and bring a little sunshine into your life :o)
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
www.seowebsitepromotion.com
www.gawds.org
hello everybody,
ok. this seems to be the right time for my first posting on this great
list which im enjoying very much.
does anyone know what kinda weird trick this is? ie6 (on a w2k
machine) does not display the background graphic of the head div and
the links are NOT WORKING at all. any other browser i know does.
i've never experienced such a behaviour but maybe one of you have an idea.
http://www.die-besten.net/die-besten/monkey/
code and css are valid of course.
regards,
_alex
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Fwd: links dont work in ie6
Damn that is weird! If I had any more time before bed I would of had a proper look. atm im am dead tired, and just thought it would be good to express my utter suprise... and disbelief - what the hell happened there! :) hehehe have a good night! best of luck finding your issue! Ciao! alex 'fanatique' thomas wrote: hello everybody, ok. this seems to be the right time for my first posting on this great list which im enjoying very much. does anyone know what kinda weird trick this is? ie6 (on a w2k machine) does not display the background graphic of the head div and the links are NOT WORKING at all. any other browser i know does. i've never experienced such a behaviour but maybe one of you have an idea. http://www.die-besten.net/die-besten/monkey/ code and css are valid of course. regards, _alex _ alexander 'fanatique' thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re[2]: [WSG] Fwd: links dont work in ie6
Hello Mike,
thanx a lot. now it's cool for ie but at least in opera mozilla
ist's not centered anymore. please don't let me check for nav.apps because
i'm reaaalllyy tired of that...
and by the way, why does ie behave like this???
_alex
Saturday, June 12, 2004, 3:55:13 PM, you wrote:
MP Because you're applying a negative left margin to compensate for the 50%
MP declared body margin.
MP Replace the first 2 id's with --
MP body {
MP background-color: #fff;
MP padding: 0px;
MP margin: 20px auto;
MP text-align: center;
MP }
MP #container {
MP width: 398px;
MP height: 101px;
MP text-align: left;
MP }
MP and bring a little sunshine into your life :o)
MP Mike Pepper
MP Accessible Web Developer
MP www.seowebsitepromotion.com
MP www.gawds.org
MP hello everybody,
MP ok. this seems to be the right time for my first posting on this great
MP list which im enjoying very much.
MP does anyone know what kinda weird trick this is? ie6 (on a w2k
MP machine) does not display the background graphic of the head div and
MP the links are NOT WORKING at all. any other browser i know does.
MP i've never experienced such a behaviour but maybe one of you have an idea.
MP http://www.die-besten.net/die-besten/monkey/
MP code and css are valid of course.
MP regards,
MP _alex
MP *
MP The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
MP See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
MP for some hints on posting to the list getting help
MP *
--
Best regards,
alexmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re[4]: [WSG] Fwd: links dont work in ie6
hello Mike, again thank you very much. you saved my day. _alex MP Sorry Alex -- MP margin: 0 auto; in the #container id will do it. MP Have a good one, MP Mike Pepper MP Accessible Web Developer MP www.seowebsitepromotion.com MP www.gawds.org * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: Re[2]: [WSG] Fwd: links dont work in ie6
Alex, forgot about the question ... and by the way, why does ie behave like this??? _alex Negative margin can cause overlap of content. Why this should be the case, I've no idea. IE6 exhibits some curious behaviour at times. You have to be careful with negative margin since different browser and their respective versions handle them differently. Some developers use them for artificial layering -- which is not good practice as there are other tools for the job and besides, not all browsers render elements sequentially which can lead to some weird results. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer () www.seowebsitepromotion.com www.gawds.org * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] file extensions
Hi, Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in best practices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and .png from image files for bandwidth conservation. I understand the theory, the mime-type is interpreted by the sever and the correct file is served to the user-agent. What implications do omitting these commonly known extensions have on the work place and viewing source code? Chris * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] standard compatible richtext editor?
Hello everybody, wow. second posting today but this one is more general. i'm looking for a webstandard compatible richtext editor for my cms (sthg like this http://richtext.sourceforge.net/ ). it should be integrated into the browser and offer the possibility to switch between code and styled view - ah well, and maybe for free... did one of you stumble across something like this? -- Best regards, alex mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] HTML email - mac testers please
Apple's Mail.app is probably going to be the most used program for OS X users. Since the Jaguar edition of OS X (10.2) it's used WebKit for the rendering, which is the KHTML engine used in Safari. If I remember right, Jaguar users are limited to Safari 1.0, and Panther has 1.1 and 1.2 available. I'm not sure what the Mail.app uses in 10.1.5 or earlier versions of OS X, probably IE's engine though. Behind that will probably be Microsoft Entourage (IE 5.2 engine). Outlook Express would only be used by OS 9 or earlier users, there's no OS X version. Eudora would be popular among some, probably those who used it in the past and wanted to stat with something familiar. On Jun 10, 2004, at 00:05, Mark Stanton wrote: I guess I'm just interested what rendering engine do 90% on a MAC use when they look at an HTML email and then testing in that environment. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] Suckerfish problem
Hi !Hope you can help with the menu at http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/suckerfish.html?The submenu is placed behind the imagesin Internet Explorer, and I can't get it in front of the pictures...? The css for det menu is placed here:http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/styles/navigation.cssand the css for the gallery is found here:http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/styles/galleri.cssAny help will be appreciated!Regards Anders!
RE: [WSG] file extensions
Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in best practices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and .png from image files for bandwidth conservation. Chris, Whats the URL for this article. I'm finding it hard to grasp the reasoning, does it save on bandwidth as the images don't get displayed? :-) Regards Jason * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] file extensions
Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired. Chris http://www.sitepoint.com/article/effective-website-acceleration/2 18. Remove or reduce file extensions. Interestingly, there really is little value to including file extensions such as .gif, . jpg , .js, and so on. The browser does not rely on these values to render a page; rather it uses the MIME type header in the response. Knowing this, we might take: img src=images/SubHeaderAbout.gif> and shorten it to: img src=images/SubHeaderAbout> If combined with file renaming, this might produce: img src=/0/sA> Don't be scared by how strange this technique looks; your actual file will still be sA.gif. It's just the end user who won't see it that way! In order to take advantage of this more advanced technique, however, you do need to make modifications to your server. The main thing you will have to do is to enable something called content negotiation, which may be native to your server or require an extension such as mod_negotation for Apache or Port80's pageXchanger for IIS. The downside to this is that it may cause a slight performance hit on your server. However, the benefits of adding content negotiation far outweigh the costs. Clean URLs improve both security and portability of your sites, and even allow for adaptive content delivery whereby you can send different image types or languages to users based upon their browser's capabilities or system preferences! See Towards Next Generation URLs by the same authors for more information. Note: Extension-less URLs will not hurt your search engine ranking. Port80 Software, as well as major sites like the W3C, use this technique and have suffered no ill effects. On Saturday, June 12, 2004, at 03:34 PM, Jason Turnbull wrote: Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in best practices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and .png from image files for bandwidth conservation. Chris, Whats the URL for this article. I'm finding it hard to grasp the reasoning, does it save on bandwidth as the images don't get displayed? :-) Regards Jason * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor?
Hi Alex Try our resources section, you can add any editors you wish by logging in. http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm Cheers James alex 'fanatique' thomas wrote: Hello everybody, wow. second posting today but this one is more general. i'm looking for a webstandard compatible richtext editor for my cms (sthg like this http://richtext.sourceforge.net/ ). it should be integrated into the browser and offer the possibility to switch between code and styled view - ah well, and maybe for free... did one of you stumble across something like this? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] new layout/design
Hey WSG, Just looking for your opinion. My new layout - I coded 100% myself last night. Although I have a feeling its a clone of a lot of the "blog" scripts you can download? Do you think this layout copies any layouts? I did take other sites as inspiration, although I never used another website while coding mine. I would rather get your opinion now, rather than later, when its published. If you are wondering why I have changed my website again, before even finishing the last one. Its because I have decided to open a new website up for the webdev. this will remain a personal website for me. :) Thanks... Here is the link: http://www.neester.com/temp/ CSS: http://www.neester.com/temp/styles/june2004.css There is just some test text in the index.php file. Its so I can see how well its been built - and how it displays in other browsers. Thanks list! - Chris Stratford
Re: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor?
Hi Alex, As far as I know, we are the only producers of a standards-based XHTML (Strict / 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It's called XStandard and there is a free version. For more information check out: http://xstandard.com Here is an article that might help you evaluate WYSIWYG editors. http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A A new point release is coming soon. You can see new features here: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A38C2E89-9CBC-4329-AA3B-2581DAF6C2FF Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: alex 'fanatique' thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor? Hello everybody, wow. second posting today but this one is more general. i'm looking for a webstandard compatible richtext editor for my cms (sthg like this http://richtext.sourceforge.net/ ). it should be integrated into the browser and offer the possibility to switch between code and styled view - ah well, and maybe for free... did one of you stumble across something like this? -- Best regards, alex mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] file extensions
Not a good idea for the average website. If you're running amazon.com then there would be a reason to do it but for most of us maintenance would be an issue. P From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher KennonSent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 9:28 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions Hi,Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired.Chrishttp://www.sitepoint.com/article/effective-website-acceleration/218. Remove or reduce file extensions. Interestingly, there really is little value to including file extensions such as .gif, . jpg , .js, and so on. The browser does not rely on these values to render a page; rather it uses the MIME type header in the response. Knowing this, we might take: img src="" and shorten it to: img src="" If combined with file renaming, this might produce: img src="" Don't be scared by how strange this technique looks; your actual file will still be sA.gif. It's just the end user who won't see it that way! In order to take advantage of this more advanced technique, however, you do need to make modifications to your server. The main thing you will have to do is to enable something called "content negotiation," which may be native to your server or require an extension such as mod_negotation for Apache or Port80's pageXchanger for IIS. The downside to this is that it may cause a slight performance hit on your server. However, the benefits of adding content negotiation far outweigh the costs. Clean URLs improve both security and portability of your sites, and even allow for adaptive content delivery whereby you can send different image types or languages to users based upon their browser's capabilities or system preferences! See "Towards Next Generation URLs" by the same authors for more information. Note: Extension-less URLs will not hurt your search engine ranking. Port80 Software, as well as major sites like the W3C, use this technique and have suffered no ill effects. On Saturday, June 12, 2004, at 03:34 PM, Jason Turnbull wrote: Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in bestpractices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and.png from image files for bandwidth conservation. Chris, Whats the URL for this article. I'm finding it hard to grasp thereasoning, does it save on bandwidth as the images don't get displayed?:-)RegardsJason*The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help*
RE: [WSG] file extensions
Whats the point of doing this? Saving 4 characters per image as a way of reducing bandwidth? Is there any other purpose? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Kennon Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2004 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired. Chris http://www.sitepoint.com/article/effective-website-acceleration/2
Re: [WSG] file extensions
Christopher Kennon wrote: Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired. Chris */ http://www.sitepoint.com/article/effective-website-acceleration/2 /* Sorry but what a load of crap, what are they trying to save here? Four bytes that that represent a file extension? Big whoop. The whole concept of cleaning up your links, using mod_rewrite/mod_spell/mod_regoation, removing comments from javascript??? so your page contains a few less bytes is frivolous let alone dangerous. Marc * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] new layout/design
Chris Stratford spoke the following wise words on 13/06/2004: Just looking for your opinion. My new layout - I coded 100% myself last night. Here is the link: http://www.neester.com/temp/ CSS: http://www.neester.com/temp/styles/june2004.css My opinion: Source code and accessibility: - Do you really need all those nested div's? - Enclose paragraph text in p's - Teaser boxes shouldn't be span's - Don't use a clearing div if you can just clear the (next) element itself. - Try to include a 'media' on the link tag - Consider including a print style sheet - Need more contrast on the lower 3 buttons. - Consider a skip link - Is your H2 a heading with associated content or just a tagline? - Should your H1 be the title of your site or the title of this page? Although from your POV the site title is more important there are no explicit tags to describe the heirarchy of your site, only the heirarchy of this page. Therefore in this page/document medium shouldn't the page/document title have greater importance? - Validate your CSS - Ditch the FIR on your H1 and H2. Use an image with an 'alt' in your H1 and H2 element or an accessible IR technique. Graphic design: - Page title the fullstop, space and capital too closely resembles two sentences. You could probably either put the two closer or move the fulltop closer to 'Com'. - The page title image says 'elegant' to me. Try to remember this when styling each element. - The bottom links are already visually separated from the body by their surrounding grey box so probably don't need the harsh outline. They do need separation from themselves though. Try centre equalizing them. - More whitespace around the content boxes - Changing background colour of a box on :hover gives it the appearance of a link - Don't really need the last hr - Background of nav could be a little lighter - Hover on nav maybe a bit too harsh (remember 'elegant') - More spacing between nav elements - Include more alternative fonts in your font-family declarations - Consider line-height for your fonts And personally a lil splash of colour (just one or two complements) to make your site a bit different from the few other bw blogs. All round nice job. Your work (both design and coding) has improved significantly since you signed up to the list a long while back =) Have you done any paid work? -- tim lucas http://www.toolmantim.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] new layout/design
Sorry for the dual posting. Accidently left my digital signature on for the last post. I wish the list software didn't abuse the mail headers. Chris Stratford spoke the following wise words on 13/06/2004: Just looking for your opinion. My new layout - I coded 100% myself last night. Here is the link: http://www.neester.com/temp/ CSS: http://www.neester.com/temp/styles/june2004.css My opinion: Source code and accessibility: - Do you really need all those nested div's? - Enclose paragraph text in p's - Teaser boxes shouldn't be span's - Don't use a clearing div if you can just clear the (next) element itself. - Try to include a 'media' on the link tag - Consider including a print style sheet - Need more contrast on the lower 3 buttons. - Consider a skip link - Is your H2 a heading with associated content or just a tagline? - Should your H1 be the title of your site or the title of this page? Although from your POV the site title is more important there are no explicit tags to describe the heirarchy of your site, only the heirarchy of this page. Therefore in this page/document medium shouldn't the page/document title have greater importance? - Validate your CSS - Ditch the FIR on your H1 and H2. Use an image with an 'alt' in your H1 and H2 element or an accessible IR technique. Graphic design: - Page title the fullstop, space and capital too closely resembles two sentences. You could probably either put the two closer or move the fulltop closer to 'Com'. - The page title image says 'elegant' to me. Try to remember this when styling each element. - The bottom links are already visually separated from the body by their surrounding grey box so probably don't need the harsh outline. They do need separation from themselves though. Try centre equalizing them. - More whitespace around the content boxes - Changing background colour of a box on :hover gives it the appearance of a link - Don't really need the last hr - Background of nav could be a little lighter - Hover on nav maybe a bit too harsh (remember 'elegant') - More spacing between nav elements - Include more alternative fonts in your font-family declarations - Consider line-height for your fonts And personally a lil splash of colour (just one or two complements) to make your site a bit different from the few other bw blogs. All round nice job. Your work (both design and coding) has improved significantly since you signed up to the list a long while back =) Have you done any paid work? -- tim lucas http://www.toolmantim.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] new layout/design
Source code and accessibility: - Do you really need all those nested div's? I have it because IE wont center the DIV, so I need the nested DIV to have a text-align:center in there... Have you tried using margin: 0px auto; for cetering divs? Camz www.t94xr.net.nz * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] new layout/design
Yeah thats what I have for the inner Div. but IE doesnt recognise that I thought. So the way around that is to have an outer div with: text-align: center; So that the inner div is centered. Then the inner div has: text-align: left; to fix the text, but its also got a set width... ?? I thought that was the only way around it...? t94xr.net.nz webmaster wrote: Source code and accessibility: - Do you really need all those nested div's? I have it because IE wont center the DIV, so I need the nested DIV to have a text-align:center in there... Have you tried using margin: 0px auto; for cetering divs? Camz www.t94xr.net.nz * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] new layout/design
Chris Stratford spoke the following wise words on 13/06/2004 3:31 PM EST:
Yeah thats what I have for the inner Div.
but IE doesnt recognise that I thought.
If you apply the text-align to the body element you only need 1 div:
body
{
text-align: center;
}
#shell
{
text-align: left;
margin: 0px auto;
width: 750px;
}
-- tim lucas
http://www.toolmantim.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
