Re: [WSG] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[tee g. peng]

On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:28 AM, David Dixon wrote:

With that particular page, and with the example you used, then I'd  
say yes, a tabular layout is well justified. In fact I wouldn't  
even recommend structuring data in that fashion using divs/spans  
etc, as the markup would a) be as bulky as hell, and b) provide no  
relationship between the headings and data, or even the data itself.





Thanks David and all, yes, your feedbacks help alot.

By the way, have anybody read the Designing with web standards second  
edition yet? I have the first edition, absolutely love it and this  
book got me to be passionate about web standards and CSS design.  Any  
big changes for the second edition and something I must read?


All these CSS, web design, web standards book cost big fortune, try  
very hard not to spend money on second, third editions :)



tee




**
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] Contextual selectors or class attribute in tag

[Nick Gleitzman]

On 7 Aug 2006, at 7:47 AM, James Thomson wrote:


Hi,

I'm putting together a site at the moment and I'm trying to work out 
the
best way of applying styles to various content. The site is split by 
divs in
typical fashion: #header, #nav, #content etc. Each of these sections 
use
lists in various ways, the #header has one list laid out horizontally 
as a
menu, the #nav has the same although laid out vertically, the #content 
uses
lists in the standard fashion albeit with a custom bullet image. My 
initial
thoughts were that each section uses lists in such different ways that 
the
most appropriate way of defining those lists was using contextual 
selectors,

e.g.:

#header ul { /* styles */ }
#header ul li { /* styles */ }

you get the jist. But then I start to think about what happens 
if

for some reason, the designers decide to add another list in the #nav
section which is considerably different in style to the first one. The
styles for this second list in #nav are so different that I find myself
over-riding practically all the styles defined for ul and li in the
contextual selectors. Would it not be better then to specify a class 
name
within the ul tag rather than using a contextual selector in case the 
new
list is required? Or is this where the initial analysis of the visuals 
come

in? I would say that there is next to no chance in reality that another
wildly different list would be required in #nav in which case the 
contextual

selectors would seem to be the best optionwould you agree?


Basically, yes. *If* a second nav is deemed necessary, the simple 
addition of a class to that ul is all that's needed to continue to use 
descendant selectors:


#header #nav2 ul {...}

On this same site I also have images with an annotation below them 
(I'll
refer to them as a 'widget' for this example). These exist in the #nav 
and
the #content sections. They are really quite similar, except in the 
#nav the

annotation has a red background and in the #content they have blue
background. So again I think contextual selectors:

#nav .widget { background-color: red; }
#content .widget { background-color: blue; }

And then again I start thinking about whether or not at some point in 
the
future the designers may well decide to mix the colors within each 
section,
i.e. have an annotation with a blue background followed by another one 
in
the same section with a red background. This is a more likely scenario 
than
the list situation above. In this case I start thinking that it's best 
to

use multiple class selectors and lose the contextual selectors, e.g.:

.widget.powerful { background-color: red; }
.widget.gentle { background-color: blue; }


Hmm. I'd be interested to see how you have the HTML marked up for 
these. These additional (?)subclasses are a slippery slope - as you see 
below. Better to do this:


.widget, .powerful {...red}
.widget, .gentle {...blue}

with your HTML marked up as




Then I need to control the position of the annotaion (it can go below 
or

above image) in which I case need to add:

.widget.above.powerful { background:
url(images/red_top_gradient.gif) top no-repeat; }
.widget.above.gentle { background: url(images/blue_top_gradient.gif)
top no-repeat; }
.widget.below.powerful { background:
url(images/red_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }
.widget.below.gentle { background:
url(images/blue_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }

Of course IE chokes on this meaning


Well, yes. See above... Suggest you also check out a good resource on 
specificity; try these for starters:


 - the horse's mouth
 - a lot easier 
to understand!


As well, if by 'annotation' you mean caption, I suggest you consider 
using s for your image/annotation pairs. Then you can style


#content dl {...}

and

#content dl.variation {...}


 I have to create multiple similar
classes resulting in loads more code and plenty of duplication which 
gets me

annoyed and frustrated resulting in my seeking out you guys!

I guess to summarise, I'm asking how you decide on when to use 
contextual

selectors and when to add the class attribute to a tag?


I think it all comes down to the semantic structure of the block-level 
elements that make up your page. If done carefully, you should still be 
able to use contextual selectors for the bulk of your styles, using 
class names judiciously for block-level elements only where necessary, 
and add qualifying overrides via classes for the exceptions 
to/variations of the 'main' styles.


As an additional thought, it occurs to me that if these multiple 
selectors are necessary, your design may be altogether too complex... 
remember to check whether your page still 'works' with styles turned 
off...



I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Sorry if I've not been too clear.

Many thanks,

J

Re: [WSG] Contextual selectors or class attribute in tag

[Pierre-Henri Lavigne]

On Sunday 06 August 2006 23:47, James Thomson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm putting together a site at the moment and I'm trying to work out the
> best way of applying styles to various content. The site is split by divs
> in typical fashion: #header, #nav, #content etc. Each of these sections use
> lists in various ways, the #header has one list laid out horizontally as a
> menu, the #nav has the same although laid out vertically, the #content uses
> lists in the standard fashion albeit with a custom bullet image. My initial
> thoughts were that each section uses lists in such different ways that the
> most appropriate way of defining those lists was using contextual
> selectors, e.g.:
>
>   #header ul { /* styles */ }
>   #header ul li { /* styles */ }
>
> you get the jist. But then I start to think about what happens if
> for some reason, the designers decide to add another list in the #nav
> section which is considerably different in style to the first one. The
> styles for this second list in #nav are so different that I find myself
> over-riding practically all the styles defined for ul and li in the
> contextual selectors. Would it not be better then to specify a class name
> within the ul tag rather than using a contextual selector in case the new
> list is required? Or is this where the initial analysis of the visuals come
> in? I would say that there is next to no chance in reality that another
> wildly different list would be required in #nav in which case the
> contextual selectors would seem to be the best optionwould you
> agree?
>
I suppose while I'm giving comments that lists are the appropriate markups in 
your design. If there is next to no chance that another list would be 
required for #nav and your #nav content is given by a dynamic way (include, 
templates, echo, print, etc...), contextual selectors without class names are 
useful in the case you're describing. Then you can easily add or remove class 
names in your stylesheets if need be.

> On this same site I also have images with an annotation below them (I'll
> refer to them as a 'widget' for this example). These exist in the #nav and
> the #content sections. They are really quite similar, except in the #nav
> the annotation has a red background and in the #content they have blue
> background. So again I think contextual selectors:
>
>   #nav .widget { background-color: red; }
>   #content .widget { background-color: blue; }
>
You can use css shortcuts :
#nav .widget {background:#f00;}
#nav .widget {background:#00f;}


> And then again I start thinking about whether or not at some point in the
> future the designers may well decide to mix the colors within each section,
> i.e. have an annotation with a blue background followed by another one in
> the same section with a red background. This is a more likely scenario than
> the list situation above. In this case I start thinking that it's best to
> use multiple class selectors and lose the contextual selectors, e.g.:
>
>   .widget.powerful { background-color: red; }
>   .widget.gentle { background-color: blue; }
>
> Then I need to control the position of the annotaion (it can go below or
> above image) in which I case need to add:
>
>   .widget.above.powerful { background:
> url(images/red_top_gradient.gif) top no-repeat; }
>   .widget.above.gentle { background: url(images/blue_top_gradient.gif)
> top no-repeat; }
>   .widget.below.powerful { background:
> url(images/red_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }
>   .widget.below.gentle { background:
> url(images/blue_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }
>
> Of course IE chokes on this meaning I have to create multiple similar
> classes resulting in loads more code and plenty of duplication which gets
> me annoyed and frustrated resulting in my seeking out you guys!
>
Don't name your class as 'above'. You will lost in your stylesheet when 
the .above class name will have a lower position background ;)
I'm not shure to understand the whole, but my intuitive mind would tell you 
there are too much selectors for a typical design. I would suggest you to 
search for an other simpler markup technic.


> I guess to summarise, I'm asking how you decide on when to use contextual
> selectors and when to add the class attribute to a tag?
>
> I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Sorry if I've not been too clear.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> James.
>
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **

I think I answer your question : for me it's just the 'feeling'. I'm curious 
to listen to other opinions.

Regards,

-- 
Pierre-Henri Lavigne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +33 (0)6.18.75.32.67


**
The discussion list for  http

RE: [WSG] Contextual selectors or class attribute in tag

[Samuel Richardson]

 
Hi James,

I find that if you are getting conflicts (or potential conflicts) like that
then you are not being specific enough with your #id's. In this case I could
keep the #nav div but add ul#mainnav to the  that contains the main
navigation, then if you have to add another list it can either have no idea
(and inherit the default #nav ul styles if specified) or give it its own id
again, e.g. ul#secondnav.

It is hard to predict how specific you are going to need to be when you're
building the site however, too specific and you negate the benefits of using
CSS, too general and your styles become a mess of overriding rules.

Samuel


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of James Thomson
Sent: Monday, 7 August 2006 7:47 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Contextual selectors or class attribute in tag

Hi,

I'm putting together a site at the moment and I'm trying to work out the
best way of applying styles to various content. The site is split by divs in
typical fashion: #header, #nav, #content etc. Each of these sections use
lists in various ways, the #header has one list laid out horizontally as a
menu, the #nav has the same although laid out vertically, the #content uses
lists in the standard fashion albeit with a custom bullet image. My initial
thoughts were that each section uses lists in such different ways that the
most appropriate way of defining those lists was using contextual selectors,
e.g.:

#header ul { /* styles */ }
#header ul li { /* styles */ }

you get the jist. But then I start to think about what happens if
for some reason, the designers decide to add another list in the #nav
section which is considerably different in style to the first one. The
styles for this second list in #nav are so different that I find myself
over-riding practically all the styles defined for ul and li in the
contextual selectors. Would it not be better then to specify a class name
within the ul tag rather than using a contextual selector in case the new
list is required? Or is this where the initial analysis of the visuals come
in? I would say that there is next to no chance in reality that another
wildly different list would be required in #nav in which case the contextual
selectors would seem to be the best optionwould you agree?

On this same site I also have images with an annotation below them (I'll
refer to them as a 'widget' for this example). These exist in the #nav and
the #content sections. They are really quite similar, except in the #nav the
annotation has a red background and in the #content they have blue
background. So again I think contextual selectors:

#nav .widget { background-color: red; }
#content .widget { background-color: blue; }

And then again I start thinking about whether or not at some point in the
future the designers may well decide to mix the colors within each section,
i.e. have an annotation with a blue background followed by another one in
the same section with a red background. This is a more likely scenario than
the list situation above. In this case I start thinking that it's best to
use multiple class selectors and lose the contextual selectors, e.g.:

.widget.powerful { background-color: red; }
.widget.gentle { background-color: blue; }

Then I need to control the position of the annotaion (it can go below or
above image) in which I case need to add:

.widget.above.powerful { background:
url(images/red_top_gradient.gif) top no-repeat; }
.widget.above.gentle { background: url(images/blue_top_gradient.gif)
top no-repeat; }
.widget.below.powerful { background:
url(images/red_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }
.widget.below.gentle { background:
url(images/blue_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }

Of course IE chokes on this meaning I have to create multiple similar
classes resulting in loads more code and plenty of duplication which gets me
annoyed and frustrated resulting in my seeking out you guys!

I guess to summarise, I'm asking how you decide on when to use contextual
selectors and when to add the class attribute to a tag?

I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Sorry if I've not been too clear.

Many thanks,

James.



**
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] First item on a list not rendering as a link it is. IE6.

[TuteC]

Great! Solved the problem, and so I didn´t have to use a special style
for the extra-margin in IE. And more semantic... :)
Thanks.
Regards;
Eugenio.

On 8/2/06, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I don't know if this will solve your problem or not, but try putting the
'inner' ul within the parent li.  Example:


stuff
more stuff
title of stuff beneath

stuff beneath
more stuff beneath


the last stuff


Even if this doesn't fix your problem, your code will be more semantically
correct.  Hooplah!
Jough



**
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] Contextual selectors or class attribute in tag

[James Thomson]

Hi,

I'm putting together a site at the moment and I'm trying to work out the
best way of applying styles to various content. The site is split by divs in
typical fashion: #header, #nav, #content etc. Each of these sections use
lists in various ways, the #header has one list laid out horizontally as a
menu, the #nav has the same although laid out vertically, the #content uses
lists in the standard fashion albeit with a custom bullet image. My initial
thoughts were that each section uses lists in such different ways that the
most appropriate way of defining those lists was using contextual selectors,
e.g.:

#header ul { /* styles */ }
#header ul li { /* styles */ }

you get the jist. But then I start to think about what happens if
for some reason, the designers decide to add another list in the #nav
section which is considerably different in style to the first one. The
styles for this second list in #nav are so different that I find myself
over-riding practically all the styles defined for ul and li in the
contextual selectors. Would it not be better then to specify a class name
within the ul tag rather than using a contextual selector in case the new
list is required? Or is this where the initial analysis of the visuals come
in? I would say that there is next to no chance in reality that another
wildly different list would be required in #nav in which case the contextual
selectors would seem to be the best optionwould you agree?

On this same site I also have images with an annotation below them (I'll
refer to them as a 'widget' for this example). These exist in the #nav and
the #content sections. They are really quite similar, except in the #nav the
annotation has a red background and in the #content they have blue
background. So again I think contextual selectors:

#nav .widget { background-color: red; }
#content .widget { background-color: blue; }

And then again I start thinking about whether or not at some point in the
future the designers may well decide to mix the colors within each section,
i.e. have an annotation with a blue background followed by another one in
the same section with a red background. This is a more likely scenario than
the list situation above. In this case I start thinking that it's best to
use multiple class selectors and lose the contextual selectors, e.g.:

.widget.powerful { background-color: red; }
.widget.gentle { background-color: blue; }

Then I need to control the position of the annotaion (it can go below or
above image) in which I case need to add:

.widget.above.powerful { background:
url(images/red_top_gradient.gif) top no-repeat; }
.widget.above.gentle { background: url(images/blue_top_gradient.gif)
top no-repeat; }
.widget.below.powerful { background:
url(images/red_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }
.widget.below.gentle { background:
url(images/blue_bottom_gradient.gif) bottom no-repeat; }

Of course IE chokes on this meaning I have to create multiple similar
classes resulting in loads more code and plenty of duplication which gets me
annoyed and frustrated resulting in my seeking out you guys!

I guess to summarise, I'm asking how you decide on when to use contextual
selectors and when to add the class attribute to a tag?

I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Sorry if I've not been too clear.

Many thanks,

James.



**
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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[David Dixon]

With that particular page, and with the example you used, then I'd say 
yes, a tabular layout is well justified. In fact I wouldn't even 
recommend structuring data in that fashion using divs/spans etc, as the 
markup would a) be as bulky as hell, and b) provide no relationship 
between the headings and data, or even the data itself.


Tables are the way to go for this kind of use.

I hope that helps for future reference.

Thanks,

David

tee g. peng wrote:

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:10 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:

Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike  be tabular layout?


Do you mean an entire item's listing, or a page listing multiple
items? A URL would be handy to clarify which bit of ebay you're
talking about :)



Something like this:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F% 
2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=designing+with+web 
+standards&category0=


The layout I need to do is such:

image   |   item desc  |   Price  |   Ending  |   Time Left |   Bids  
|   Store



Didn't get a response early so I told client he shouldn't waste money  
for me to do the conversion, still, I would love to have second  
opinion perhaps for future reference.


By the way, the layout of the site is CSS but few section are done in  
tables, that is part of the reason I think the listing shouldn't need  
to convert to CSS. It looks tabular to me.


Best,

tee



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**




__ NOD32 1.1694 (20060805) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[Rahul Gonsalves]

tee g. peng wrote:

Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike  be tabular layout?
Have a small job comes in that client asks to convert an ebay alike 
auction layout (which is done in table) to css. I think it's tabular 
justifiable and therefor do not wish client to spend unnecessary money 
for me to do the conversion. Thought I get a second opinion from you 
experts.


Hardly an expert here Tee, however, I'll try and see if my understanding 
of semantics on the web is right:


Do the items in the table have a relationship to each other? For 
example, I assume you're talking about an auction listing, perhaps 
selling items of some sort. In which case, a table might make sense, as 
there is a relationship between the price (for eg) of an item, and its' 
name.


A good rule of thumb, which I have used often is to see whether I would 
use a table while laying the same data out if I was doing the same job, 
but for print. If a table makes sense there, semantically, it probably 
will make sense on the web too.


Cheers,
- Rahul (first post to WSG!).


**
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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[leenath1]

Using a web standards based layout in eBay does not make a lot of sense when 
you take a peak under the hood (view source) and see that eBay is clearly 
years away from a standards based layout. However, that does not mean you 
should adopt a standards based layout for yourself. I found some great 
examples the other day of sellers who appear to be using semantic mark-up. 
The only delema I see is that they have been forced to include the 

Re: [WSG] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[tee g. peng]

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Shlomi Asaf wrote:



can u please send us a link to this page?




Sorry, can't do that. All jobs for this client are NDA.
See my other post please. Thanks!

tee


**
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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[tee g. peng]

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:10 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:



Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike  be tabular layout?



Do you mean an entire item's listing, or a page listing multiple
items? A URL would be handy to clarify which bit of ebay you're
talking about :)



Something like this:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F% 
2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=designing+with+web 
+standards&category0=


The layout I need to do is such:

image   |   item desc  |   Price  |   Ending  |   Time Left |   Bids  
|   Store



Didn't get a response early so I told client he shouldn't waste money  
for me to do the conversion, still, I would love to have second  
opinion perhaps for future reference.


By the way, the layout of the site is CSS but few section are done in  
tables, that is part of the reason I think the listing shouldn't need  
to convert to CSS. It looks tabular to me.


Best,

tee



**
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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[Shlomi Asaf]

can u please send us a link to this page?
 
Thank You
NeoSwf 
On 8/6/06, Ben Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/08/06, tee g. peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike  be tabular layout?Do you mean an entire item's listing, or a page listing multipleitems? A URL would be handy to clarify which bit of ebay you'retalking about :)
Basic test to decide on whether a table should be used: Is theinformation a set of data with common fields, logically organised intocolumns and rows? Would it look weird if the information was put into
a spreadsheet format (eg. Excel)?ie. is it tabular data? If not, then a table is not appropriate. Ifyes, then a table is appropriate.cheers,Ben- <
http://weblog.200ok.com.au/>--- The future has arrived; it's just not--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson**The discussion list for  
http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
-- visit my blog: http://www.webcssdesign.34sp.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] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?

[Ben Buchanan]

On 06/08/06, tee g. peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike  be tabular layout?


Do you mean an entire item's listing, or a page listing multiple
items? A URL would be handy to clarify which bit of ebay you're
talking about :)

Basic test to decide on whether a table should be used: Is the
information a set of data with common fields, logically organised into
columns and rows? Would it look weird if the information was put into
a spreadsheet format (eg. Excel)?

ie. is it tabular data? If not, then a table is not appropriate. If
yes, then a table is appropriate.

cheers,

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


**
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] on P & H1-H6 "Block" Elements

[Shlomi Asaf]

thank you all guys for this usefull information!!!
On 8/6/06, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shlomi Asaf wrote:> i just been informed that P & Hn Elements are Inline Element. How Come?
> how can those elements be inline, and the user-agent render them as> Block-level elements?>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-H1
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-P>> this information shocked the ground im standing on.You wouldn't be shocked if you read the DTD properly. I'm assuming that
this is what you're referring to:the (%inline;)* part refers to the type of elements that the H and P
*are allowed to contain*, and does NOT refer to the H and P themselves.http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html#block defines what elementsare block level, and you'll see that %headings is listed there. So
unshock yourself, all is as it should be...P--Patrick H. Lauke__re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.ukhttp://redux.deviantart.com__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://webstandards.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**-- visit my blog: 
http://www.webcssdesign.34sp.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**