Michael Donnermeyer wrote:
The Chapters are in an unordered list that's displayed inline and
floated to the left. Of course the more proper browsers (Safari,
Mozillas, Opera, IE-Mac) are handling everything correctly...IE Win
IE6 under XP is stacking everything vertically.
2.) No tables.
On Jun 9, 2004, at 00:33, Nick Gleitzman wrote:
MD, this was just a real quick look, but I can't see where you have
the lis floated; they are just inline.
Oops, my bad...I'm working on 5 different sites at the moment and my
brain is very close to turning into mush. Floats were on a different
Heh..
I banged my head against the wall about this for while, then gave up and
went with the flow which got the application into production sooner.
Is an IE user going to be simultaneously viewing the same page in
Firefox or Mozilla or Opera? Bet you it's only web developers.
Wait till you see
It's a shame that IE doesn't come to the party with this one.
legend is a stubborn mule that doesn't want to budge, I've really never come
across such a problem with any other tags.
I know what your talking about with the fieldset tag as well, that too was a
pain in the butt, I had to wrap a
Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-)
I think the idea is that you should stay away from hacks as much as
possible. One exception is the box model hack for IE5 and IE5.5 - but there
are a couple of different ways of doing that one, and which one you pick
depends on
John,
It is always best to avoid any sort of hack.
There is always a way around a hack, if that be by adding an extra div.
or changing your menu layout.
Hacks are *last resort* methods to create a layout.
I think a list of _standard hacks_ would just promote the use of hacks,
where they are
That is true, however already knowing of such hacks enables you to make
this kind of judgement. So for the purpose of education these should
help you out John
http://diveintomark.org/safari/csshacks/
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssHack
Enjoy or not ;)
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:15,
Title: meta http-equiv
Hey,
just a quick question, is the below the correct markup for a transitional XHTML document?
I thought the meta http-equiv was text/xhtml, so I've lost confidence in the rest of the code being correct also.
Thanks a lot! Sorry to always be the one with the menial
I agree with Kay, avoid them when possible, Certainly don't take the
approach of including a bunch of them in every CSS regardless of
whether you need them or not.
If you are after more specific information on hacks (or filters as
they are also known), check out
I think that's a great idea actually. In theory yes we should all avoid
hacks but there are a few reasons where a big fat list of the
standard hacks, reasons for use and pros and cons would be useful...
1. If a deadline is looming and a hack will temporarily get you through
it without
I think that's a great idea actually. In theory yes we should all avoid
hacks but there are a few reasons where a big fat list of the
standard hacks, reasons for use and pros and cons would be useful...
1. If a deadline is looming and a hack will temporarily get you through
it without
Title: Message
Chris Stratford wrote:
It is always best to avoid any sort of hack.
It's important to remember why hacks exist in the first place. More
often than not, it's because a browser either doesn't support a feature
of CSS, or worse, supports it incorrectly.
There is always a way around a hack, if that
Let me be quite clear I was NOT having a go at IE. While I do have issues
with it, that was NOT the point of the post. I quite explicitly said we have
to live with that. I also deliberately kept all references to specific
browsers out of the post, except for the aside about IE.
What my suggestion
Marc Greenstock wrote:
The correct content type or MIME type for an XHTML document is
application/xhtml+xml.
Although I might add internet explorer doesn't understand it so you
need to determine if the users browser accepts it.You can do this in
PHP by writing:
?php
Web Standards Award winner for the month:
http://www.webstandardsawards.com/previous/readymade_mag.html
Web standards survey:
http://webstandards.org/survey/200406
Stop Design reload II:
http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2004/06/08/reloaded.html
Some Fun With Valid and Some Not So Valid CSS:
Nope sorry,
The correct content type or MIME type for an XHTML document is
application/xhtml+xml.
This (mime type issue) is only required for XHTML 1.1. You don't have to do
it for XHTML 1.0 Transitional (which the example was).
The answer to Jamie's original question is to have a look at the
The correct content type or MIME type for an XHTML document is
application/xhtml+xml.
Although I might add internet explorer doesn't understand it so you need
to determine if the users browser accepts it.You can do this in PHP by
writing:
: SNIP:
The suggested method doesn't work
Hello.
http://eutest.cpea.ro/contul_meu.php
Please take a look at that and maybe you can find out why the white
background is not rendering OK in Firefox.
The CSS: http://eutest.cpea.ro/stiluri/layout.css
*
The discussion list for
Thank you to Michael and Andrew for your help on the float. Everything
works beautifully now and I am sucking up the new knowledge.
Rosie Norwood
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Alan Milnes wrote:
The correct content type or MIME type for an XHTML document is
application/xhtml+xml.
Although I might add internet explorer doesn't understand it so you need
to determine if the users browser accepts it.You can do this in PHP by
writing:
: SNIP:
The suggested
media=screen is not a hack, thats statin the proper display device target for
the relavent stylesheet.
Hacks are things like the IE Underscore hack, they tend to be workarounds for CSS
properties that are not yet implemented in certain browsers or that need slightly
differnt values, theres
J4Web wrote:
style type=text/css media=screen@import
url(/stylesheets/wsg_advanced.css);/style
link rel=stylesheet href=/stylesheets/wsg_main.css
type=text/css media=screen
Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of
standard hacks?
After giving it some thought, I
Russ and I have discussed this at length and we have come to the opinion
that the @import rule (when used in that manner) is indeed a hack but a
harmless one.
The reasoning is that it exploits a bug or particular behaviour in a
browser. In this case, older browsers don't understand it at all and
Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of
standard hacks?
It seems pretty essential to me to get version 4 browsers to degrade
gracefully.
CSS hacks are one of those questions (like font sizes) that bring out the
fanatics from all sides. On one side you will have
Hacks are for the Cowbot webdesigner who hasnt done his job right in the
first
place! ( or for a client thats given too much hassle and not enough cash
to make
the recode cost effective! ;] )
quite true - but there are hacks that are used to counteract behavours in
browsers.
Camz
-- Original Message -
From: scott parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not know what industry you work in but in every industry I have
worked in there is a great need for pixel precise layouts.
Can you name some industries?
...
Clients and the many print trained art directors
I do not know what industry you work in but in every industry I have
worked in there is a great need for pixel precise layouts.
When you go through 13 rounds of changes with a client and discuss
things like the letter spacing on single superscript letters then you
just might have to put
-- Original Message -
From: Peter Firminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russ and I have discussed this at length and we have come to the opinion
that the @import rule (when used in that manner) is indeed a hack but a
harmless one.
The reasoning is that it exploits a bug or particular
Razvan Pop schrieb, am 09.06.04 14:36:
http://eutest.cpea.ro/contul_meu.php
Please take a look at that and maybe you can find out why the white
background is not rendering OK in Firefox.
The CSS: http://eutest.cpea.ro/stiluri/layout.css
#main doesn't have any non-floating and hence height
No, we do it to specifically exploit this bug or particular behaviour so it
is a hack. If you look at the stylesheets you'll see that there is basic css
in the one that NN4 can see and all the other more advanced stuff is in the
one it can't see. All quite deliberate using both methods to achieve
Thank you Susane.
Any idea how i could make the left blue column fit the height of the page?
Kindest Regards,
Razvan Pop
Susanne Jaeger wrote:
Razvan Pop schrieb, am 09.06.04 14:36:
http://eutest.cpea.ro/contul_meu.php
Please take a look at that and maybe you can find out why the
Rosie Norwood wrote:
Thank you to Michael and Andrew for your help on the float. Everything
works beautifully now and I am sucking up the new knowledge.
Rosie Norwood
Please send thank-you emails offlist directly to the people you are
thanking.
--
Ryan Christie| e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
This does work if you use PHP to provide the correct alternative instead of
just changing the MIME-type. Since XHTML 1.1 should NOT be served as
text/html, this is the code I use on my site:
? $isXHTML11 = ;
if (stristr($_SERVER[HTTP_ACCEPT],application/xhtml+xml)) {
Good Day, List,
In my effort to further comply with guidelines, I have inserted a noscript element in
the page:
http://www.wdfcs.ca/contact.htm
Default styles are here (I've got it right, this time):
http://www.wdfcs.ca/fcss/default.css
Page specific styles are here:
Please take a look at that and maybe you can
find out why the white
background is not rendering OK in Firefox.
I couldn't see any other replies to
this (but mail delivery seems to have been an issue here lately).
I have just had a look in Firefox (0.8
version) and cannot see any difference
I just think it is a little simplistic and idealistic to tell
newcomers to css that all hacks are bad.
Good post Scott...It's a relief seeing real world scenarios used to
backup reasons and choices. I'm often surprised at the number of
educate your clients to understand why they cannot have
If you read this tutorial at A List Apart, it'll show you how to achieve
what you want.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/
Cheers
Jeff Lowder
Accessibility 1st
Website: www.accessibility1st.com.au
Blog: www.accessibility1st.com.au/journal/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
2 other links which may help are:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/security/productinfo/XPSP2/securebrowsing/popup_devimp.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/security/productinfo/XPSP2/securebrowsing/lockdown_devimp.aspx
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 403
Hi Neerav,
Thanks for the link :) Very useful to know... Just another good reason to build
accessible interfaces... I now know a few of my older sites will have problems due to
SP2 but I wouldn't have realised if not for those checkpoints!
Cheers,
Mt.
-Original Message-
From:
Not many of these restrictions affect me, because I do most of my dynamic
things on the server side with ColdFusion. But I read this with some alarm
- does it mean that the DHTML menus I spent so much time getting to work
will cease dropping down?
[quote]
Q: What does Internet Explorer consider
On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 10:40 AM, Neerav wrote:
I foresee in my crystal ball a lot of headaches for web developers who
use popups Heres something that might help
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/
dnwxp/html/xpsp2websites.asp
Anybody else get a 404
theres should be no space between
en-us/
and
dnwxp
in the link
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 403 8000 27
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 10:40 AM, Neerav wrote:
I foresee in my crystal ball a lot of headaches for web
The link worked OK; the space happened when I quoted your original
message. I've sent you a screenshot direct to show you what I mean...
N
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/
On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 12:25 PM, Neerav wrote:
theres should be no
You actually can download the XP Service Pack 2 _Beta_
To test whats happening with the IE thats with it.
I haven't done it myself, since I only use one laptop to do my coding
on, and I dont wank to screw it up with a BETA...
But yeah.
Just goto ms.com
search for SP2
There will be a link or
Hi All
I've got an HTML email that I need to prepare for a client. The mockup
can be seen at:
HTML: http://mark.gruden.com/beerworth/
CSS: http://mark.gruden.com/beerworth/lib/main.css
We didn't design it, we just did the HTML CSS work. An initial
review by the designers (MAC users) has
IMHO that testing is not correct because you should test web sites in
web browsers and therefore you should test HTML email in different Email
clients eg:
Outlook, Outlook Express, Lotus Notes, Novell Groupwise, Eudora, Mozilla
Mail etc
AFAIK (untested):
* Outlook / Outlook Express will use
Mark:
Mac OSX comes with a prog called Mail (known as Apple Mail), then
there's, I guess, Entourage for MS Office users, Outlook Express,
Eudora - and others.
I use Mail - which by logic should use the Safari engine for rendering
HTML - but I've had similar problems with unwanted white space
Don't mind me I just want to rant about Automatic Accessibility checkers
such as bobby.
Bobbycontradicts it's self all the way through the WAI test, failing
everything it THINKS is wrong. Let me give youa few examples...
Problem: Do not use the same link phrase more than once
when the
Hey there Mark,
html in emails is a bit trcky and doesn't take too kindly to external css
files or using css for positioning. To cover all bases, I usually code the
emails in html 3.2 - using as much inline crappy html as possible.
It ain't pretty but it works.
Go here for some more info :
Hey there Mark,
html in emails is a bit trcky and doesn't take too kindly to external css
files or using css for positioning. To cover all bases, I usually code the
emails in html 3.2 - using as much inline crappy html as possible.
It ain't pretty but it works.
Go here for some more info :
Hi all
This would be better discussed on a place like the Sitepoint.com forums,
as it's about general web development. Having a discussion about where
you have sent screenshots is not for the list, it's for the person you
sent the screenshots to.
Cheers
James
Thanks guys
Let me clarrify something quickly - I hate HTML email and I'm pretty
sure I will burn in hell for my sins against the STMP protocol or
whatever, but... I have a problem here that I need solved.
I know HTML rendering in email client like lotus notes is very poor
and I realise that
So James I have to go off and sign on for yet ANOTHER forum (I already have
more than 800 emails a day to wade through, and 8 forums to check each day)
just to ask if my DHTML menus are going to break here???
Surely there's someone here who knows the answer. How hard is it to just
answer the
Big thanks Nick,
I've gone for a table based layout for these reasons, CCS-P in mail
clients is asking for trouble. I guess the next step is removing
all my CSS and just going the old school route as suggested by Ben.
If most Mac users are on Mail or Outlook (which I guess means Safari
IE)
Hello there.
Im developing a site for a local hat shop, and Im
having some problems with the menu. If you could please take a look at the
following link: http://www.affectus.net/freelance/2004_05_phathats/
Here are the issues I am experiencing:
1) I would
like for the navigation to
Looks like a neat solution to me
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 403 8000 27
Miles Tillinger wrote:
Is there an accepted number format for ordered lists? When using ordered lists in a
structured document, e.g. a Policy or Standards document, I'm
57 matches
Mail list logo
