Re: [WSG] Yay! Pretty Colors
Joseph Bernhardt wrote: I have been using the hex value light gray color #EE on two of my websites for almost a year without complaint. Recently, I shocked a friend of mine by showing her one of the sites on a different monitor than her own. Supposedly her monitor could not display this gray color (even with brightness/contrast adjusted) and the site looked very bad, almost to the point of being unusable. I find this odd and must assume that the occurrence is rare. Google even uses this color (#EE) on multiple occasions! Has anyone else ran into any problems like this before? Is this something I truly need to worry about? 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 ** The opening page of www.marscovista.com has the title 'URBAN WHISPERS', and the 'whispers' text is #ee (to emphasise the quiet, whispering aspect). I saw this on someone else's monitor and it showed the title: 'URBAN' (nothing else!!) I tweaked the monitor and all was well . . . (O.K., yes, it means it's an accessibility danger zone, but I think it's worth risking as it isn't a disaster if some folk don't set their monitor properly, and it won't ruin the site if they don't/can't read that bit!) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] injecting a bit of humor into your css
Geoff Pack wrote:
.webStandardistas {position:absolute; margin:0;}
Hah! But surely you forgot one:
.webStandardistas {position:absolute; margin:0; important!}
:-D
--
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
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] text/html and application/xhtml+xml
Steve Olive wrote: [snip] Are we wrong? If so, why is this so wrong? Should we go back to teaching HTML 4.01? Hi Steve, When I first started on standards (ca 18 months ago), I read a lot of things which told me I should be converting to XHTML. so I did. But, like most 'new' people, I served it as text/html. (But it did seem 'cool' :-) More recently, thanks to Lachlan and others, I've come to learn that this is primarily pointless, insomuch as you really need to do it 'properly' to get any benefit from it. And, if you do it properly (served as application/xhtml+xml) you'll have a lot of headaches, not least of which is IE, as you say. The only way around that I know is to use PHP to serve the correct mime types etc to the browser being used, and indeed I've done this (purely as an exercise) on my site below. However, I wouldn't dream of doing this on a 'real world' site for a commercial outlet, so that approach ultimately doesn't get us anywhere - at the moment. But what of the future? Do we want to be 'ready'? Personally (and that's all it can be) I like Georg's approach, which is to construct in strict xhtml (1.0 or even 1.1) and do it properly. This way will highlight whether your stuff is 'well-formed' or not (see: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed Then, when you are happy with it, you can serve it as text/html, confident that all is well! It is a valuable discipline! So, my feeling is that, whatever path you choose (html4.01 or xhtml) you should keep to 'strict' doctypes. If you only have one choice, it's sensible to stick to HTML4.01 strict. The important point, as the others have said, is that the student fully understands the implications. Just my 2p's worth. Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] substitute for iframes?
Lindsey Hardegree wrote: I'm very new to the world of web standards, and I've just been asked to design a site. The only way I know to display the customer's site the way she wants it is to use iframes, but I know that they are not valid according to web standards. What is a substitute I could use? -Lindsey As far as I know, iframes are valid in (X)HTML transitional, though some folk will complain about accessibility issues. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#h-16.5 -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] Vertical Centering
Tom Livingston wrote: Listers, I recall someone posting a very easy method of vertical centering a block in a viewport a while back. Seemed straight forward - positioning with percentages and a little negative margin nudging. Googled but came up empty. Can anyone point me to this? How cross-browser is it? Thanks a bunch. -- Tom Livingston http://mrclay.org/web_design/vertical_centering_by_the_specs.html http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/centered/both/ http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/thebox/deadcentre4.html http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/30/vertical-centering-with-css http://www.bugimus.com -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
