Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0

[Adrian Lynch]

On 2/13/07, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


They're in the same spec, so they're developed at the same time.  HTML
and XHTML aren't really separate languages, but rather different
syntaxes for the same language.


Ah OK that's brilliant - takes away all my 'fears' of the (x)HTML5 vs
XHTML2 issue.

I had been assuming (as it sounds a few people had in this thread)
that the next 'step' could be to XHTML2 - and the thought of (X)HTML5
was a bit of a concern (especially for those knee deep in XSLT).

Knowing that  XHTML5 is developed in the same spec means that we can
push forward with our XSLT based workflows, and simply adjust to suit
once XHTML5 is supported at the browser level.

--
Adrian Lynch


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0

[Lachlan Hunt]

Adrian Lynch wrote:

Can you clarify how 'parallel' the development of HTML5 and XHTML5 is?

Are they developed in step or is there a lag between one spec being 
updated?


They're in the same spec, so they're developed at the same time.  HTML 
and XHTML aren't really separate languages, but rather different 
syntaxes for the same language.


HTML5 is being defined in terms of the DOM, rather than the syntax.  So 
that both HTML and XHTML share the same elements and semantics, and in 
most cases, either serialisation can be used to represent the same 
document.  Although there are some exceptions caused by the different 
parsing requirements. e.g.  can only be used in HTML, not in 
XHTML; other namespaces (xmlns="") can be used in XHTML, but not in 
HTML, etc.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0

[Adrian Lynch]

Lachlan,

Can you clarify how 'parallel' the development of HTML5 and XHTML5 is?

Are they developed in step or is there a lag between one spec being updated?

I am just curious as to if XHTML5 is given the same importance as HTML5.

Regards,
Adrian Lynch


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] ATO's (lack of) standards awareness

[Tim]

No it is not weird, it is a Linux server security feature easy to 
implement when you have error free pages.,


It is a htaccess file and if I see suspicious activity in web-logs such 
as an IP sucking down many pages very quickly or logs just pointing at 
the guestbook probably looking for email addresses to spam or anyone  
trying to remotely access cgi scripts then I ban them by IP address.


Sorry if you have been unfairly excluded, some dial-up IP change. If 
you send me your IP address I will unblock you from access.


Tim

On 13/02/2007, at 11:13 AM, Chris Stratford wrote:


When I try and load that page I get this message:

Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the 
webmaster.


Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files 
for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to 
access password protected files?


Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly 
excluded from access.



Weird??


On 2/13/07, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO). Just
look at some sites given excellence awards by AGIMO and you can see
that the Australian government are luddites when it comes to standards
or accessibility.

The AGIMO awards for excellence
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready

Tim

On 13/02/2007, at 10:15 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:

>> From the Australian Tax Office page I landed on from a Google 
search

>> on
>> applying for a Tax File Number online:
>> Please note that Mozilla is only able to be used if certain system
>> requirements are met. However, Mozilla is an open source 
application

>> and the chance of it being supported is unlikely.
>> I almost can't believe it. I will be writing to them.
>
> This is essentially why I don't lodge tax forms electronically. If
> they are that clueless, why would I trust them to handle the data?
>
> Mordechai said:
>> Netscape 6+, but not Mozilla? Never mind that they're willing to
>> support
>> a browser used by <1%, but not one used by >12%.
>
> Well note that they say Mozilla, not Firefox. My guess would be
> they've not really updated their site in years. So it's not a
> conscious decision about Firefox, it's a sign of a system that's not
> been updated much.
>
> Given that it's a seriously large government organisation, my bet -
> without so much as looking at the code - is that some big-name 
vendor
> sold them some big-name product for many many millions of dollars. 
In

> general, the big-name, off-the-shelf products do NOT come from
> standards-aware companies. They tend to come from companies that
> started developing PC applications and moved (with the same staff) 
to

> online delivery. PeopleSoft is a classic case - it was a desktop app
> before it was an online app.
>
> The thing about desktop->web conversions is that programmers were
> trained for relatively known environments; so their methodologies 
are
> not geared to something like the web. Plus there's nothing to say 
they

> got any training for the transition so who can really blame them for
> using tables - it was what worked at the time and it got them to
> go-live.
>
> So anyway the big vendors (and the agencies that implement them) 
are a

> seriously large goal for standards advocacy. They are very hard to
> approach (beware, sweeping generalisations ahead):
> - they already have the big contracts/business so they don't care
> about cost/competition
> - the consultants who implement them are paid by the hour so they
> don't care about efficiency
> - all companies concerned are big enough to just fight accessibility
> cases rather than build accessible products
> - they have "quality assurance" procedures based around the way
> they've been building things for years now; so they may even think
> moving to standards would break their QA system and reduce quality.
> seriously! :)
> - the big companies often leave interface design and development to
> the programmers, usually by default of not providing anyone else. it
> just gets lumped onto the coders. it's not their job, they're not
> trained for it, nor is there any reason to think they enjoy it
> (they're there to code!) so no wonder it's rarely done well!
>
> Just some thoughts anyway.
>
> At some point there must be an "in", an opportunity will come up to
> win over the big challenges. I'm not quite sure what it will be, but
> I'm hoping that the industry grabs it when it comes up! :)
>
> - Ben
>
> --
> --- 
> --- The future has arrived; it's just not
> --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpre

Re: [WSG] ATO's (lack of) standards awareness

[Chris Stratford]

When I try and load that page I get this message:

*Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.*

Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files for
offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to access
password protected files?

*Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly excluded
from access.*


Weird??


On 2/13/07, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


All Australian Federal government departments get their IT advice from
the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO). Just
look at some sites given excellence awards by AGIMO and you can see
that the Australian government are luddites when it comes to standards
or accessibility.

The AGIMO awards for excellence
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready

Tim

On 13/02/2007, at 10:15 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:

>> From the Australian Tax Office page I landed on from a Google search
>> on
>> applying for a Tax File Number online:
>> Please note that Mozilla is only able to be used if certain system
>> requirements are met. However, Mozilla is an open source application
>> and the chance of it being supported is unlikely.
>> I almost can't believe it. I will be writing to them.
>
> This is essentially why I don't lodge tax forms electronically. If
> they are that clueless, why would I trust them to handle the data?
>
> Mordechai said:
>> Netscape 6+, but not Mozilla? Never mind that they're willing to
>> support
>> a browser used by <1%, but not one used by >12%.
>
> Well note that they say Mozilla, not Firefox. My guess would be
> they've not really updated their site in years. So it's not a
> conscious decision about Firefox, it's a sign of a system that's not
> been updated much.
>
> Given that it's a seriously large government organisation, my bet -
> without so much as looking at the code - is that some big-name vendor
> sold them some big-name product for many many millions of dollars. In
> general, the big-name, off-the-shelf products do NOT come from
> standards-aware companies. They tend to come from companies that
> started developing PC applications and moved (with the same staff) to
> online delivery. PeopleSoft is a classic case - it was a desktop app
> before it was an online app.
>
> The thing about desktop->web conversions is that programmers were
> trained for relatively known environments; so their methodologies are
> not geared to something like the web. Plus there's nothing to say they
> got any training for the transition so who can really blame them for
> using tables - it was what worked at the time and it got them to
> go-live.
>
> So anyway the big vendors (and the agencies that implement them) are a
> seriously large goal for standards advocacy. They are very hard to
> approach (beware, sweeping generalisations ahead):
> - they already have the big contracts/business so they don't care
> about cost/competition
> - the consultants who implement them are paid by the hour so they
> don't care about efficiency
> - all companies concerned are big enough to just fight accessibility
> cases rather than build accessible products
> - they have "quality assurance" procedures based around the way
> they've been building things for years now; so they may even think
> moving to standards would break their QA system and reduce quality.
> seriously! :)
> - the big companies often leave interface design and development to
> the programmers, usually by default of not providing anyone else. it
> just gets lumped onto the coders. it's not their job, they're not
> trained for it, nor is there any reason to think they enjoy it
> (they're there to code!) so no wonder it's rarely done well!
>
> Just some thoughts anyway.
>
> At some point there must be an "in", an opportunity will come up to
> win over the big challenges. I'm not quite sure what it will be, but
> I'm hoping that the industry grabs it when it comes up! :)
>
> - Ben
>
> --
> --- 
> --- The future has arrived; it's just not
> --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [E

RE: [WSG] character encodings and xml

[John Horner]

> I deal with a lot of real-world user-entered data and am sick 
> of seeing xml  errors about entities

Tell me about it.

Well, here's the rule. There are only five *named* entities you can use
in XML: 

  &
  <
  >
  "
  '

if you've got anything else that's non-numeric, it's going to cause an
error. So, where are these other entities coming from?

One valid but unhelpful answer is "you haven't really got XML", because
if it's not well-formed and, if applicable, valid, you've just got
another kind of tag soup. So, how is this "XML" entering your system if
it's not really XML?

==
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and
may contain legally privileged or copyright material.   It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or
any attachments.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system.  The ABC does not
represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free.   Before
opening any attachment you should check for viruses.  The ABC's liability is
limited to resupplying any email and attachments
==


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] ATO's (lack of) standards awareness

[Tim]

All Australian Federal government departments get their IT advice from 
the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO). Just 
look at some sites given excellence awards by AGIMO and you can see 
that the Australian government are luddites when it comes to standards 
or accessibility.


The AGIMO awards for excellence
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready

Tim

On 13/02/2007, at 10:15 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:

From the Australian Tax Office page I landed on from a Google search 
on

applying for a Tax File Number online:
Please note that Mozilla is only able to be used if certain system
requirements are met. However, Mozilla is an open source application
and the chance of it being supported is unlikely.
I almost can't believe it. I will be writing to them.


This is essentially why I don't lodge tax forms electronically. If
they are that clueless, why would I trust them to handle the data?

Mordechai said:
Netscape 6+, but not Mozilla? Never mind that they're willing to 
support

a browser used by <1%, but not one used by >12%.


Well note that they say Mozilla, not Firefox. My guess would be
they've not really updated their site in years. So it's not a
conscious decision about Firefox, it's a sign of a system that's not
been updated much.

Given that it's a seriously large government organisation, my bet -
without so much as looking at the code - is that some big-name vendor
sold them some big-name product for many many millions of dollars. In
general, the big-name, off-the-shelf products do NOT come from
standards-aware companies. They tend to come from companies that
started developing PC applications and moved (with the same staff) to
online delivery. PeopleSoft is a classic case - it was a desktop app
before it was an online app.

The thing about desktop->web conversions is that programmers were
trained for relatively known environments; so their methodologies are
not geared to something like the web. Plus there's nothing to say they
got any training for the transition so who can really blame them for
using tables - it was what worked at the time and it got them to
go-live.

So anyway the big vendors (and the agencies that implement them) are a
seriously large goal for standards advocacy. They are very hard to
approach (beware, sweeping generalisations ahead):
- they already have the big contracts/business so they don't care
about cost/competition
- the consultants who implement them are paid by the hour so they
don't care about efficiency
- all companies concerned are big enough to just fight accessibility
cases rather than build accessible products
- they have "quality assurance" procedures based around the way
they've been building things for years now; so they may even think
moving to standards would break their QA system and reduce quality.
seriously! :)
- the big companies often leave interface design and development to
the programmers, usually by default of not providing anyone else. it
just gets lumped onto the coders. it's not their job, they're not
trained for it, nor is there any reason to think they enjoy it
(they're there to code!) so no wonder it's rarely done well!

Just some thoughts anyway.

At some point there must be an "in", an opportunity will come up to
win over the big challenges. I'm not quite sure what it will be, but
I'm hoping that the industry grabs it when it comes up! :)

- Ben

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] ATO's (lack of) standards awareness

[Ben Buchanan]

From the Australian Tax Office page I landed on from a Google search on
applying for a Tax File Number online:
Please note that Mozilla is only able to be used if certain system
requirements are met. However, Mozilla is an open source application
and the chance of it being supported is unlikely.
I almost can't believe it. I will be writing to them.


This is essentially why I don't lodge tax forms electronically. If
they are that clueless, why would I trust them to handle the data?

Mordechai said:

Netscape 6+, but not Mozilla? Never mind that they're willing to support
a browser used by <1%, but not one used by >12%.


Well note that they say Mozilla, not Firefox. My guess would be
they've not really updated their site in years. So it's not a
conscious decision about Firefox, it's a sign of a system that's not
been updated much.

Given that it's a seriously large government organisation, my bet -
without so much as looking at the code - is that some big-name vendor
sold them some big-name product for many many millions of dollars. In
general, the big-name, off-the-shelf products do NOT come from
standards-aware companies. They tend to come from companies that
started developing PC applications and moved (with the same staff) to
online delivery. PeopleSoft is a classic case - it was a desktop app
before it was an online app.

The thing about desktop->web conversions is that programmers were
trained for relatively known environments; so their methodologies are
not geared to something like the web. Plus there's nothing to say they
got any training for the transition so who can really blame them for
using tables - it was what worked at the time and it got them to
go-live.

So anyway the big vendors (and the agencies that implement them) are a
seriously large goal for standards advocacy. They are very hard to
approach (beware, sweeping generalisations ahead):
- they already have the big contracts/business so they don't care
about cost/competition
- the consultants who implement them are paid by the hour so they
don't care about efficiency
- all companies concerned are big enough to just fight accessibility
cases rather than build accessible products
- they have "quality assurance" procedures based around the way
they've been building things for years now; so they may even think
moving to standards would break their QA system and reduce quality.
seriously! :)
- the big companies often leave interface design and development to
the programmers, usually by default of not providing anyone else. it
just gets lumped onto the coders. it's not their job, they're not
trained for it, nor is there any reason to think they enjoy it
(they're there to code!) so no wonder it's rarely done well!

Just some thoughts anyway.

At some point there must be an "in", an opportunity will come up to
win over the big challenges. I'm not quite sure what it will be, but
I'm hoping that the industry grabs it when it comes up! :)

- Ben

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a structural markup question - revisit

[Matthew Pennell]

On 2/12/07, Tee G. Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


My uncertainty is that, within a page, structurally, it  really
should have only one h1, h2 and so on within an ID selector. So
having so many set of + isn't structural.



I guess you're getting that from the HTML spec, where it shows how to
associate content with its preceding heading by wrapping them in a div (or
other block level element).

My approach has always been that, by having a series of headings followed by
content, the content is implicitly associated with the heading that precedes
it, even if they are not enclosed by another element.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a structural markup question - revisit

[Andrew Ingram]

Hi Tee,

There's a bit of debate about correct use of H1, but this explanation is 
based on the using H1 to be equivalent to the title of a book or paper.


You only have one H1 because you only need the title once, if you view a 
document as a tree (not to be confused with the document object model 
tree) then H1 will be the top-level node.  Within a document you can 
have numerous sections or chapters and the title of these would be 
represented by H2 tags, so you can have as many H2 tags as you want.  As 
far as I know there's no reason you can't have multiple H2 tags.


I might structure a document like this:

Title
Article Title
Summary
Article Body
Comments
Appendices (Secondary Content, Sidebar etc)
Sidebar Section, eg Recent Entries
Colophon
Blogroll

Content can go after any of these headings but would structurally be 
linked to the immediately preceding heading.


As for the AListApart example, I think any of the approaches are 
probably ok, but with your idea i'm not so sure about the paragraph tags 
around the heading. I'd either remove the closing tags after the closing 
emphasis so the paragraph continues and just use a line break or i'd use 
one of the other approaches.


I am a little uncertain about the use of headings on AListApart, there 
doesn't seem to be any real rule that they follow.


Regards,
Andrew Ingram

Tee G. Peng wrote:

Hi, I just wanted to make sure I am not overly obsess with DL.

 After I finally learned how to used the DL properly, I have used it 
so sparingly in many websites in the past few months.



I learned, the DL is good for dialogues, for product teasers, but how 
about this (http://www.alistapart.com/topics/code)?



BROWSERS (44 articles)
Does your content travel well?...


CSS (81 articles)
Using Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) ...



I remember the first time I learned about the use of DL was actually 
studying ALAP's source code, and I remember it used to be marked up 
this way in the old site




BROWSERS (44 articles)

Does your content travel well?...>





It is now with  and  tags.

My uncertainty is that, within a page, structurally, it  really should 
have only one h1, h2 and so on within an ID selector. So having so 
many set of + isn't structural.


I am thinking perhaps using the following makes it more structural 
sounds and the  gives more weight for SEO.


BROWSERS

Does your content travel well?...>



But I just can't get over with the DL :-)



tee



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Site Check - amplify.com.au

[Gav....]

Nice site,

 

You never asked I know but .

 

There's a few '&' in the code instead of '&'

 

There some hacks causing your CSS to be invalid that I think anyway are not
necessary.

 

That 'Strategy' Volume graphic is just asking to be pressed, couldn't you be
different and style

Your Navigation around that graphic.

 

Gav.

 

  _  

From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Scott Swabey
Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 7:33 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Site Check - amplify.com.au

 

Hi all

We have just completed a redesign/redevelopment of the www.amplify.com.au
website, and would appreciate any feedback, especially from Mac users.

 



Many thanks

-- 
Scott Swabey
www.lafinboy.com
www.thought-after.com 
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0

[Lachlan Hunt]

Gav wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

There are numerous, significant problems with XHTML 2.0, which make it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement interoperably in
the real world...


Hi Lachlan, Over at Apache Forrest, our next version of the Web Publishing 
Framework is to be based around XHTML 2.0. 


For this reason alone, I would like to quote to the members your message
Above. Can I do that ?


Sure.  There's no need to ask permission for that.


If yes would you rather it be to a public or Private list.


I don't mind.  You could just send them a link to the copy in the WSG 
archive, which is already public.


http://mail-archive.com/listdad@webstandardsgroup.org/msg08110.html

This other comment of mine mentions a few other issues with XHTML 2.0 
that might be useful for you.


http://www.robertnyman.com/2007/02/05/html-5-or-xhtml-2/#comment-34198

If you need any more information, let me know.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] ATO's (lack of) standards awareness

[Mordechai Peller]

Vicki Stanton wrote:

∙   Netscape Navigator/Communicator version 6.0 or later.
Please note that Mozilla is only able to be used if certain system 
requirements are met. However, Mozilla is an open source application 
and the chance of it being supported is unlikely.
Netscape 6+, but not Mozilla? Never mind that they're willing to support 
a browser used by <1%, but not one used by >12%. Does this mean they go 
out of their way to break the site for Gecko browsers which aren't 
Netscape!?!? How could they let anyone so clueless near a computer?



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] blockquote in xhtml strict

[Frank Palinkas]

Hi tee,

Please don't feel bad about using English. I understand everything you're
saying. I'm an American down here in South Africa. Every time I ask "please
turn on the faucet", people run to the satellite TV Series station and look
for re-runs of Charlie's Angels. :-)

 

Frank



From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tee G. Peng
Sent: Monday, 12 February, 2007 9:32 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] blockquote in xhtml strict

 

 

On Feb 11, 2007, at 11:09 PM, lisa herrod wrote:





 

On 12/02/07, John Faulds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> Hmmm I thought the dash would have thrown an error...? No?

It depends whether it's been typed in directly via your keyboard (the key 
next to the 0) or whether it's a character that's been copied from another
program (like Word) and needs converting to something like – .

 

Thanks john, yes.

 

So Tee, which was it?

 

 

Hi Lisa, John's assumption has its place ( have experienced that quite often
whenever clients sent me texs in Word) but not with this particular case. I
had the  tag wrapped inside the  tag. It should be other
around as George, Christian, Dylan and Mike pointed out.

 

Always have difficulty to understand the error message the markup validator
shows, English as the third language has making it even worse; I am always
grateful I can  seek for help from this list.

 

 

Regards,

 

tee

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] a structural markup question - revisit

[Tee G. Peng]

Hi, I just wanted to make sure I am not overly obsess with DL.

 After I finally learned how to used the DL properly, I have used it  
so sparingly in many websites in the past few months.



I learned, the DL is good for dialogues, for product teasers, but how  
about this (http://www.alistapart.com/topics/code)?



BROWSERS (44 articles)
Does your content travel well?...


CSS (81 articles)
Using Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) ...



I remember the first time I learned about the use of DL was actually  
studying ALAP's source code, and I remember it used to be marked up  
this way in the old site




BROWSERS (44 articles)

Does your content travel well?...>





It is now with  and  tags.

My uncertainty is that, within a page, structurally, it  really  
should have only one h1, h2 and so on within an ID selector. So  
having so many set of + isn't structural.


I am thinking perhaps using the following makes it more structural  
sounds and the  gives more weight for SEO.


BROWSERS

Does your content travel well?...>



But I just can't get over with the DL :-)



tee













***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0

[Gav....]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 8:37 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
> 
> Paul Ross wrote:
> > I was there at the WSG Sydney meeting last Thursday and was very
> > interested to hear Lachlan Hunt ("the tallest WSG member" according
> > to Russ) talking about the "Future of HTML".
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. :-)
> 
> > Lachlan's talk raised a lot of questions (which I wished I'd asked at
> > the meeting but felt like a noob at the time).
> 
> HTML 5 was new to most people at the meeting, there's no need to feel
> like a noob when everyone else around is too. :-)
> 
> > Is this a fork in the specs road or a "standards war" in the making?
> 
> No, I wouldn't call it a standards war, the major browser vendors have
> already unanimously decided what they will be implementing.  It is a
> minor fork in the road, but it's not a big issue since the other
> alternative is a dead end.  XHTML 2.0 is effectively dead and is
> relatively safe to ignore.  HTML 5 is the most relevant spec.  In many
> ways, it's already far more relevant than HTML 4.01.
> 
> There are numerous, significant problems with XHTML 2.0, which make it
> extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement interoperably in
> the real world.  Although, we recognise the fact that there are some
> features in XHTML 2 that people like, and many of them have already been
> incorporated in, or being considered for, HTML5.

Hi Lachlan, Over at Apache Forrest, our next version of the Web Publishing 
Framework is to be based around XHTML 2.0. 

For this reason alone, I would like to quote to the members your message
Above. Can I do that ? If yes would you rather it be to a public or
Private list.

Thanks.

Gav...

> 
> If anyone is interested in learning more about, or getting involved
> with, HTML5, there are several things that you can do.  Read the blog,
> FAQ or wiki; ask questions in the forum, #whatwg on IRC or the new
> whatwg help mailing list; or read the specs and contribute to the main
> mailing list.  More information about these is available from the WHATWG
> home page.
> 
> http://whatwg.org/
> 
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/
> 
> 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 2/10/2007



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Accessibility - display: none v.s. left: -9999px

[Gav....]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Blake
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 5:20 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] Accessibility - display: none v.s. left: -px
> 
> Which is more accessible to screen readers and the like?
> 
> display: none;
> 
> or
> 
> position: absolute;
> left: -px;
> 
> I think I've read that screen readers will read content that is
> positioned off-screen, but will not read content that is set to
> display: none.

Yep, correct on both counts.

Gav...

> 
> --
> Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/
> 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 2/10/2007



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Accessibility - display: none v.s. left: -9999px

[Blake]

Which is more accessible to screen readers and the like?

display: none;

or

position: absolute;
left: -px;

I think I've read that screen readers will read content that is
positioned off-screen, but will not read content that is set to
display: none.

--
Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] blockquote in xhtml strict

[David Dorward]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:57:53PM +1100, Dylan Lindgren wrote:
>http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp
> 
> Differences Between HTML and XHTML
> 
>  The  tag is supposed to contain only block-level
>  elements within it, and not just plain text.

I see that W3Schools have managed to maintain their usual level of
quality (i.e. do not trust W3Schools, they make far, far too many
mistakes).

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdorward.me.uk%2Ftmp%2Fblockquote%2Fstrict.html
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdorward.me.uk%2Ftmp%2Fblockquote%2Fstrict.xhtml
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdorward.me.uk%2Ftmp%2Fblockquote%2Ftransitional.html
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdorward.me.uk%2Ftmp%2Fblockquote%2Ftransitional.xhtml

-- 
David Dorward  http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***