Hello,
I have a few HTTPS pages on a separate URL that display dynamic information,
(names, titles and telephone numbers, etc.), from a database. 99% of my pages
are static HTTP pages. I want the URL for all my pages to be same as much as
possible. I would like to proxy the HTTPS pages to my
Hello Kevin,
What exactly do you mean by proxying in this sense?
I'll just assume some stuff :)
If what your visitors are viewing is sent to them via a HTTP
connection only, you're not misleading them (unless you tell them it's
a safe connection), but you're also not using HTTPS. I assume that
What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to go to the
HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not misleading the users by any
means.
I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be.
Thank you for your thoughts.
kevin
I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the
WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a
link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221.
Cheers.
Mike Cherim
Kevin,
well, I think it ist completely off topic, but anyway:
You mean that http://my.server.com/folder/file.html shows the same
HTML document as https://my.server.com/folder/file.html ?
Make sure you use only relative links in the .html so that the
secure connection is used for all
nice job! has the feel of web 2.0.
dwain
On 3/11/08, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the
WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a
link to the site can be found here:
Nice work Mike, I quite like the way you've used hr/ to separate the
content for non-css and used display:none in the other case, it chunks
the content quite well.
I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating
Matt wrote:
I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a
similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as
well.
Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all?
I'm not Mike,
On 11 Mar 2008, at 22:38, Matt Fellows wrote:
I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a
similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as
well.
Is there a reason for not using
Rick Lecoat wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more
hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for
specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular
browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are
Thank you and my apologies if was indeed off-subject. My thinking was that this
is indeed a standards right-or-wrong issue when looking out for the users. -
kevin
--- Original Message ---
From:Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Tue 3/11/08 3:28 pm
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Fellows
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more
Interesting. Thanks Thierry!
On 3/12/08, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Fellows
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2
13 matches
Mail list logo
