[WSG] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Ive added a specials box to my auslegs site using that cute round-corner technique we read about on this list a few days ago. (Mountaintop Corners : http://www.alistapart.com/articles/mountaintop/) Im really pleased with how it works and how good it looks. Except for one page. Can anyone see why the grey horizontal borders on the news page at http://auslegs.com.au/news/index.cfm are going on top of the specials box instead of underneath or stopping to the left? The CSS is at http://auslegs.com.au/styles/Auslegs.css Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com
[WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog
OT I know, but then it is web standards savvy, thanks to Todd Dominey's original template (though I've modified the graphics quite a bit): http://www.headlesshollow.com No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. Just a small start but big modifications in the pipeline, Peter x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office)
Sorry, I'm away Wed for personal leave and Thurs AM for study. I will read your email when I return. For any urgent Intranet queries or assistance please contact Marion Haworth on 02 9230 8542 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Leon Wild. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/04 17:28 OT I know, but then it is web standards savvy, thanks to Todd Dominey's original template (though I've modified the graphics quite a bit): http://www.headlesshollow.com No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. Just a small start but big modifications in the pipeline, Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.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] [OT] UniversalHead blog
Pete, Can you modify blog templates (on Blogger) to your heart's content? -Hugh No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. * 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] What am I doing wrong with the CSS here
I am getting different positions in IE and in Mozilla and now that I have added in a scrolling division, everything has gone wacky??? This is trying to be a completely standards and accessibility compliant site and I keep screwing up somewhere in my CSS for both the intro page and the main site look and causing things to display completely differently in IE and MOZ and now have broken something somewhere. The intro page is at http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/index.php and its css is located at http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/i.css The main page of the site is http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/main.php and its css is http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/s.css Thank you for the help. Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy 918 N. Prescott St. Portland, Oregon 97217 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) Website: http://www.thegrafixguy.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected.
RE: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office)
Can't we do SOMETHING about these Out of office replies? Sheesh! Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: Leon Wild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office) Sorry, I'm away Wed for personal leave and Thurs AM for study. I will read your email when I return. For any urgent Intranet queries or assistance please contact Marion Haworth on 02 9230 8542 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Leon Wild. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/04 17:28 OT I know, but then it is web standards savvy, thanks to Todd Dominey's original template (though I've modified the graphics quite a bit): http://www.headlesshollow.com No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. Just a small start but big modifications in the pipeline, Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.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 * * 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] [OT] UniversalHead blog
Sorry everybody I jumped the gun - it will take several days for this new URL to be recognised worldwide, so you'll probably get a coming soon page for a while - my apologies. Peter x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office)
Making a mail filter similar to this: IF Subject contains : out of office AND Subject contains : [WSG] MOVE TO Trash Works fine for me -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy theGrafixGuy wrote: Can't we do SOMETHING about these Out of office replies? Sheesh! Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: Leon Wild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office) Sorry, I'm away Wed for personal leave and Thurs AM for study. I will read your email when I return. For any urgent Intranet queries or assistance please contact Marion Haworth on 02 9230 8542 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Leon Wild. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/04 17:28 OT I know, but then it is web standards savvy, thanks to Todd Dominey's original template (though I've modified the graphics quite a bit): http://www.headlesshollow.com No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. Just a small start but big modifications in the pipeline, Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.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] [OT] UniversalHead blog
Yes, which is very handy. I know the basic layout is stable and tested and done professionally so it's an excellent start to making your own design. Hopefully after tinkering with it for a while virtually nothing of the original template will remain, but it got me up and running very quickly and the basic framework is nice and solid. Of course all my new graphics are hosted (as is the whole site now) on my own server. Peter On 18/05/2004, at 5:47 PM, Hugh Todd wrote: Pete, Can you modify blog templates (on Blogger) to your heart's content? -Hugh No doubt you all know about the web standards friendly relaunch of Blogger: http://www.blogger.com - which has now made the whole set up process so simple I thought I'd finally launch a blog like everybody else. x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] What am I doing wrong with the CSS here
Hi Brian I've checked your site in both IE Firebird and have run it through the CSS HTML validators (one HTML page fails), but I still can't see the problem. Descriptions such as everything has gone wacky, things to display completely differently and broken something somewhere are not really helping me to identify what you are talking about. Please try to be more descriptive if you really want to get your problem solved. Firstly use a nice descriptive subject line so that people can quickly decide whether or not they are able to assist. Also in the body of your message its important that you go through some basic steps to make sure you're communicating your problem correctly. I find that http://www.mozilla.org/quality/bug-writing-guidelines.html is an excellent resource on how to effectively describe bugs and problems. Also please check out the Asking for help section of this list's guidelines (http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm). http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you might also be helpful. Cheers Mark * 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] FireFox not playing with Height:Auto
Good morning People, Im Just having a mess around on a site, but for sum reason Firefox does not want to work with height:auto on a div that needs to strecth the one it's contained in. I rember someone tellin me before about a tecnique with clear:all that would make the content below where it should be. This is fustrating as im behind a firewall at work and so cant ftp to my website to upload the pages. But below is my code and the bit thats not working is #contentContainer and all within it. HTML - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> CSS - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> I'll try and get the file uploaded so you can see it live If you can help i'd be very greatfull * 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] [OT] UniversalHead blog
Hey Guys All I get is an advertising page. Looks as though your domain name registration hasn't taken yet. You should be able to set up your own local DNS entry to do the job in the interim i, all we need is the IP address from Peter a text editor. 1) Find a file on your computer called hosts (usually in the C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc directory on windows). 2) Open the file in a text editor 3) There should be a line that says: 127.0.0.1 localhost copy paste this line onto a new line. 4) Replace the 127.0.0.1 bit with the IP address you want to point to replace the localhost bit with the domain name you want the to point to. 5) Save close the file you should be right to go. See http://help.hardhathosting.com/question.php/11 for more instructions. Cheers Mark * 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] Validity! (was EMBED tag)
Sorry for coming into this thread way late but felt as though I needed to add my 2 cents. 1. I completely agree with Peter, cheating the validator is just that... cheating. A page that squeaks by the validator by writing invalid code at runtime is no more valid than a page that has invalid markup hard coded into it. 2. I have had great success using no embed tag at all... [code] object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=movie.swf width=550 height=400 param name=movie value=move.swf / img src=noflash.gif width=550 height=400 alt=go get flash eh / /object [/code] as was documented here... http://www.ambience.sk/flash-valid.htm hope this helps, and not too late. -- Curtis Peter Firminger wrote: Hi all, The goal in adhering to web standards isn't to pass the validator, it's to write valid code. The validator is just a tool to help achieve this. Fudging to fool the validator is just cheating on a test. If it's not in the spec it shouldn't be on the page, whether it's hard coded or dynamically written by in by the client using JavaScript. P You can use javascript to write the embed tag so that it passes the validator. You can also use several techniques that will allow you to exclude the embed tag altogether (Flash Satay and others). I tend to just let the embed tag go as it is. I will validate my site first, then just drop the embed tag in there. If it is the only thing causing a site not to validate, what harm is it really? * 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] What am I doing wrong with the CSS here
Mark, Thanks for the tip there! Okay in Moz everything on the MAIN page http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/main.php is okay except for the white field with the scrollbars - this div expands pit about 8 pixels further than it should - the white of the menu side should be used as a guide as to what this side should display like. Look Using IE to see how the bottom should line up. In IE the Main http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/main.php the right side displays as it should and the bottom of the left side is correct, however the top of the left side drops about 8 pixels as the blue and orange bars should line up perfectly as they do on the top in Mozilla For the index page or entrance page http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/ , IE diplays as it SHOULD display - In Mozilla, my two areas of single line text are dropping about 15 pix or so lower than it does in IE. Additionally the photo creeps up a couple of pixels, the lighter blue bar under the picture I think is in the right spot if the phot were but the lighter blue bar to the left of the photo has a left border that it is NOT supposed to have. I hope that is detailed and accurate enough - I look forward to the help Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: Mark Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] What am I doing wrong with the CSS here Hi Brian I've checked your site in both IE Firebird and have run it through the CSS HTML validators (one HTML page fails), but I still can't see the problem. Descriptions such as everything has gone wacky, things to display completely differently and broken something somewhere are not really helping me to identify what you are talking about. Please try to be more descriptive if you really want to get your problem solved. Firstly use a nice descriptive subject line so that people can quickly decide whether or not they are able to assist. Also in the body of your message its important that you go through some basic steps to make sure you're communicating your problem correctly. I find that http://www.mozilla.org/quality/bug-writing-guidelines.html is an excellent resource on how to effectively describe bugs and problems. Also please check out the Asking for help section of this list's guidelines (http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm). http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you might also be helpful. Cheers Mark * 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 *
[WSG] XHTML v HTML (also a question about GoLive)
A potential client asked me: How does a xhtml site differ from an html site and will I be able to make modifications myself using a program such as Adobe Golive which creates html pages? It's the second half of the question with which I'm having a problem since I have no experience with GoLive. While the thought of a WYSIWYG touching my code horrifies me, anyone know the answer? In regards to the first half, while I'm able to answer it, I was hoping for some feedback either to answer better, or in case I overlooked something. Besides the purely technical differences, what come to mind is the following: Since the rules are stricter, it forces code to be cleaner; It must be well formed, therefore it's more machine readable and more SE friendly; It's XML and can be treated as data; and XHTML replaces/is the newest version of HTML and therefore more geared to the future. Thanks in advance.
[WSG] javascript form submission
Hi, This is my first post on this list and I'd like to say that I find it really really useful and intersting! I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. Gianfranco Todini Front-end developer TWI Interactive Limited Hogarth Business Park One Burlington Lane Chiswick London, W4 2TH Tel:+44 (0) 20 8233 6212 Fax:+44 (0) 20 8233 6101 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit www.twii.net for news and information on TWIi's solutions and services (see below). TWIi is part of the Mark McCormack Group of companies DISCLAIMER - The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or have otherwise received it in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. The contents of this communication do not necessarily represent the views of this company. * 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] FireFox not playing with Height:Auto
Hey, there is no CLEAR: ALL method... http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_class_clear.asp I think you mean: CLEAR: BOTH... Mark Harwood WebMail wrote: Good morning People, Im Just having a mess around on a site, but for sum reason Firefox does not want to work with height:auto on a div that needs to strecth the one it's contained in. I rember someone tellin me before about a tecnique with clear:all that would make the content below where it should be. This is fustrating as im behind a firewall at work and so cant ftp to my website to upload the pages. But below is my code and the bit thats not working is #contentContainer and all within it. HTML - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> CSS - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> I'll try and get the file uploaded so you can see it live If you can help i'd be very greatfull * 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] XHTML v HTML (also a question about GoLive)
No idea about Adobe Golive but Dreamweaver MX 2004 ver 7.01 can be set to output XHTML compliant code. -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mordechai Peller wrote: A potential client asked me: How does a xhtml site differ from an html site and will I be able to make modifications myself using a program such as Adobe Golive which creates html pages? It's the second half of the question with which I'm having a problem since I have no experience with GoLive. While the thought of a WYSIWYG touching my code horrifies me, anyone know the answer? In regards to the first half, while I'm able to answer it, I was hoping for some feedback either to answer better, or in case I overlooked something. Besides the purely technical differences, what come to mind is the following: * Since the rules are stricter, it forces code to be cleaner; * It must be well formed, therefore it's more machine readable and more SE friendly; * It's XML and can be treated as data; and * XHTML replaces/is the newest version of HTML and therefore more geared to the future. Thanks in advance. * 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] FireFox not playing with Height:Auto
D'oh! Thats the badger! Clear:Both not clear:all... Sorry brain dead moment On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39 , Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Hey, there is no CLEAR: ALL method... http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_class_clear.asp I think you mean: CLEAR: BOTH... Mark Harwood WebMail wrote: Good morning People, Im Just having a mess around on a site, but for sum reason Firefox does not want to work with height:auto on a div that needs to strecth the one it's contained in. I rember someone tellin me before about a tecnique with clear:all that would make the content below where it should be. This is fustrating as im behind a firewall at work and so cant ftp to my website to upload the pages. But below is my code and the bit thats not working is #contentContainer and all within it. HTML - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> CSS - http://pastecode.net/?action=""> I'll try and get the file uploaded so you can see it live If you can help i'd be very greatfull 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 * 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] javascript form submission
Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote: where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same _javascript_ function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. If you care at all about the valididy of your data, NEVER EVER rely upon cleint side validation. NEVER! Server side validation is the ONLY reliable form of data validation. It's too easy to bypass client side validation. Get strings can be typed manuelly. Post data, while better, isn't that much harder to forge. Even to forge a full header isn't rocket science. As a rule of thumb: Client side scripting is for the benifit of the client; server side scripting is for your benifit.
Re: [WSG] javascript form submission
Hi Todino Welcome to the list. Yes, it is far better to do validation on the server side because, with JS turned off, you don't get any form validation. Regarding the button to do the job, an input type=submit or input type=image will do the job for you. Remember: 1. When you submit an image button it's buttoname_x and buttonname_y that turn up on the server 2. You should add alt text to an image button for users with images turned off. Cheers James Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote: Hi, This is my first post on this list and I'd like to say that I find it really really useful and intersting! I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. * 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] javascript form submission
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:20:48 +0100, Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote: I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. One site I did recently, I added code similar to: noscriptinput type=submit/noscript to the form. The regular javascript submits work if js is on, and the button appears if it isn't. All your client-side validation would be missing, but thats duplicated server-side and is only on the client for user-convenience, right? :) HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Web Design (Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine Optimisation) in Brisbane, Australia * 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] javascript form submission
Ideal situation is to have an onload in the form tag, to allow for quick checking of the form without the user having to submit to the server. However, you always need server-side validation, as anyone without javascript will be always be able to circumvent your client-side form checking. Ideally: both; minimal: server side. -- Cameron Adams W: www.themaninblue.com --- Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, This is my first post on this list and I'd like to say that I find it really really useful and intersting! I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. Gianfranco Todini Front-end developer TWI Interactive Limited Hogarth Business Park One Burlington Lane Chiswick London, W4 2TH Tel: +44 (0) 20 8233 6212 Fax: +44 (0) 20 8233 6101 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit www.twii.net for news and information on TWIi's solutions and services (see below). TWIi is part of the Mark McCormack Group of companies DISCLAIMER - The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or have otherwise received it in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. The contents of this communication do not necessarily represent the views of this company. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ * 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] javascript form submission
I come from a programming rather than a design background, so my opinion may not be the correct one as far as accessability is concerned. In most of my web sites, when a user submits form data, that data is usually processed and stored in some kind of database. I believe that it is good practice to never trust any data that is submitted from a form so I always validate it on the server. The consequences of incomplete or invalid data being inserted into a database could be devastating. Moving on, as I am generally very lazy when coding, I don't really see the point in validating the data on the client, if it has to be validated on the server. I guess you could claim that javascript is quicker to highlight errors in the form. I have always found a stream of javascript alerts when submitting a form to be quite annoying. That said, something I find even more annoying is a large form that is validated on the server, which when presented again if there is a validation error, has lost half the data you had submitted. Ned On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:20 pm, Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote: Hi, This is my first post on this list and I'd like to say that I find it really really useful and intersting! I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. Gianfranco Todini Front-end developer TWI Interactive Limited Hogarth Business Park One Burlington Lane Chiswick London, W4 2TH Tel: +44 (0) 20 8233 6212 Fax: +44 (0) 20 8233 6101 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit www.twii.net for news and information on TWIi's solutions and services (see below). TWIi is part of the Mark McCormack Group of companies DISCLAIMER - The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or have otherwise received it in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. The contents of this communication do not necessarily represent the views of this company. * 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 *
[WSG] Re: javascript form submission
I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. Do it on the server - I'm sick of sites I can't use becasue they assume javascript will be available. Personally I use PHP on the server. Alan * 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] javascript form submission
Moving on, as I am generally very lazy when coding, I don't really see the point in validating the data on the client, if it has to be validated on the server. I guess you could claim that javascript is quicker to highlight errors in the form. I have always found a stream of javascript alerts when submitting a form to be quite annoying. There was a similar discussion on CFAussie - and I agree with you totally. Not what I consider user-friendly. Aaron (It will be interesting to see if the same reaction to these sentiments propagates here...) * 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] [OT] UniversalHead blog (Out of office)
so how'd you get this thread? hehe sorry. thanks for the tip, I'm setting it up now (so I won't hear your reply to my smart-ass comment I guess) ;) Neerav wrote: Making a mail filter similar to this: IF Subject contains : out of office AND Subject contains : [WSG] MOVE TO Trash Works fine for me * 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] What am I doing wrong with the CSS here
Hey Brian
Okay in Moz everything on the MAIN page
http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/main.php is okay except for the white
field with the scrollbars - this div expands pit about 8 pixels further than
it should - the white of the menu side should be used as a guide as to what
this side should display like. Look Using IE to see how the bottom should
line up.
Other way around (I think) - Moz is getting it right, IE is getting it
wrong. But yes there is a difference of exactly 10px there between the
two browsers, but I don't think the difference is where you think it
is. If you overlay two screen grabs one over the other you will notice
that the width from the extreme left of the white area to the scroll
bars on the right (total width of d5) is identical in both browsers.
The difference in how they are rendering is that IE is expanding the
containing divs, while Firefox is not.
I you measure the width of d1 in Firefox its exactly what you are
saying it should be in the CSS, but in IE its 10px wider. I am
guessing that this is because your math is out slightly somewhere -
haven't found exactly where yet :)
Try reducing the widths of your inner divs, one at a time moving
outwards and you should find the culprit. Alternatively take a
screenie measure it all up in photoshop.
I just reduced the width of d5 to 528px and that seemed to fix it but
that might just be luck. I also did the height of d5 down to 429px and
this fixed Moz but IE is now too short (edit: no the right col is too
long). My rule of thumb is don't use vertical layouts in CSS... ever.
This probably has nothing to do with your issue but its worth knowing
anyway.
Why?
Firstly past CSS specs have been pretty ambiguous in their definition
of how to handle it (I stopped paying much attention about 12 months
ago so I don't know about 2.1 3 are like in this regard).
Secondly browser support is rubbish so you are asking for a world of
pain hacks to get anything to look right.
Thirdly there is a theoretical reason that I understood once, I've
just spent 30 minutes trying to understand it again but I think I'm
more confused than ever now. I know its something to do with viewport
visible height of the document vs. the total height of the document
the fact that web documents are streamed to the browser and
rendered on the fly. If you are interested in looking further, check
out http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1070385285count=1,
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/dave/archives/2003_05.html#003191,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Aug/0040.html and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Jul/0028.html
In IE the Main http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/main.php the right side
displays as it should and the bottom of the left side is correct, however
the top of the left side drops about 8 pixels as the blue and orange bars
should line up perfectly as they do on the top in Mozilla
The height adjustment I mentioned earlier actually goes some way to
fixing this. I think the right hand col was too pushing up too high,
rather than the left one being too low.
I also had to adjust the height of d8 down by 10px in IE to get the
bottoms lined up, but this borks Firefox. Maybe a math mistake? Maybe
a browser bug? A hack should get you round it if you are only
interested in these two browsers.
Again ...vertical layouts are best avoided.
For the index page or entrance page http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/ ,
IE diplays as it SHOULD display - In Mozilla, my two areas of single line
text are dropping about 15 pix or so lower than it does in IE. Additionally
the photo creeps up a couple of pixels, the lighter blue bar under the
picture I think is in the right spot if the phot were but the lighter blue
bar to the left of the photo has a left border that it is NOT supposed to
have.
You really like to make life difficult for yourself don't you :)
I'm sorry I can''t get my head around that at this time of night -
excessive use of negative margins can cause fits.
I did make a slight improvement by adding:
p {margin:0;padding:0}
but that's not the whole story. IE Moz are going very different
things with that d9 div. Try using some background colours on your
div's p's to see where the browsers think things actually are.
I hope that is detailed and accurate enough - I look forward to the help
Huge improvement!
Apart from the above - can I just make some general comments about
your code approach in general.
- The web is never going to be pixel perfect, getting the type of
designs that you are going for working consistently across even the 5
most common browsers is going to be extremely difficult. This is not
print, this is the web - content is king, design is sugar. Keep things
as simple as possible.
- Don't use pt's for font sizes for screen - they are meaningless. A
pt is 1/72 of an inch, inches don't translate onto screens at all. As
far as I'm concerned - in a perfect world - pixels are the right unit
of
Re: [WSG] javascript form submission
Ned Lukies wrote: I come from a programming rather than a design background, so my opinion may not be the correct one as far as accessability is concerned. Since the issue is data validity, programming is what's important. That said, something I find even more annoying is a large form that is validated on the server, which when presented again if there is a validation error, has lost half the data you had submitted. That's just lazy programming. It is very easy to preload a form before shipping out to the browser. I recently had to reload a form completely client side, which is slightly trickier. (Needed to use JS and cookies, but since it was for a controlled audience, I could dictate the requirements.) * 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] javascript form submission
Dear All, This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for form submission, but I want to find a javascript and/or php versions of form submissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windows based server. I am also weak with javascript and no nothing about php. Can you point me to some good URLS and/or books that could help me out? Thanks in advance, Nancy Johnson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] javascript form submission Ned Lukies wrote: I come from a programming rather than a design background, so my opinion may not be the correct one as far as accessability is concerned. Since the issue is data validity, programming is what's important. That said, something I find even more annoying is a large form that is validated on the server, which when presented again if there is a validation error, has lost half the data you had submitted. That's just lazy programming. It is very easy to preload a form before shipping out to the browser. I recently had to reload a form completely client side, which is slightly trickier. (Needed to use JS and cookies, but since it was for a controlled audience, I could dictate the requirements.) * 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] javascript form submission
Don't know if this helps or not, but I stumbled across a standard-compliant, server-side form validation tool caleld VDAEMON (http://www.x-code.com/vdaemon_web_form_validation.php) that has so far worked great for me. There is a free version for download, or you can buy the Dreamweaver extension for $11 (us). The script seems to be based on what Simon Willison describes in one of his blog entries (http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/06/17/theHolyGrail). It uses some XML tags to mark up your form fields and display error messages, and it uses PHP to validate the information in the forms. Everything on the front end is valid XHTML. Will Chatham Webmaster Ingles Markets ooOo-o 828.669.2941 - ext.534 www.ingles-markets.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] javascript form submission
Thanks for your advises, I'm definetly going to develop a server side validation functionality. I think a client side validation is still useful even when there is a server side validation as it permits to avoid a lot of traffic/requests to the server; I'm gonna fix my forms in this way. Here is the question: if I use the onsubmit event in my input type image button for javascript enabled browser, will the form be submitted without javascript support? (it should as the input type image submits the form by default...) Cheers, Gianfranco -Original Message- From: Ned Lukies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 May 2004 12:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] javascript form submission I come from a programming rather than a design background, so my opinion may not be the correct one as far as accessability is concerned. In most of my web sites, when a user submits form data, that data is usually processed and stored in some kind of database. I believe that it is good practice to never trust any data that is submitted from a form so I always validate it on the server. The consequences of incomplete or invalid data being inserted into a database could be devastating. Moving on, as I am generally very lazy when coding, I don't really see the point in validating the data on the client, if it has to be validated on the server. I guess you could claim that javascript is quicker to highlight errors in the form. I have always found a stream of javascript alerts when submitting a form to be quite annoying. That said, something I find even more annoying is a large form that is validated on the server, which when presented again if there is a validation error, has lost half the data you had submitted. Ned On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:20 pm, Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote: Hi, This is my first post on this list and I'd like to say that I find it really really useful and intersting! I need to do some changes on a website to improve accessibility and one of the issue that I need to solve is the way the form are submitted, which is done by a javascript function called from the onclick event on an Anchor tag. And we know that this is wrong because if a user has got javascript disabled, he won't be able to submit the form. I'm going to add an input type=image button which will do the job but, where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same javascript function that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on the server-side to have a proper accessible form? Thanks everyone. Gianfranco Todini Front-end developer TWI Interactive Limited Hogarth Business Park One Burlington Lane Chiswick London, W4 2TH Tel: +44 (0) 20 8233 6212 Fax: +44 (0) 20 8233 6101 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit www.twii.net for news and information on TWIi's solutions and services (see below). TWIi is part of the Mark McCormack Group of companies DISCLAIMER - The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or have otherwise received it in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. The contents of this communication do not necessarily represent the views of this company. * 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 * DISCLAIMER - The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or have otherwise received it in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. The
[WSG] Re: javascript form submission
I am also weak with javascript and no nothing about php. Can you point me to some good URLS and/or books that could help me out? Try http://www.phpfreaks.com to get you started. Alan * 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] javascript form submission
Nancy Johnson wrote: Dear All, This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for form submission, but I want to find a _javascript_ and/or php versions of form submissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windows based server. I think PHP is the way to go, since it works on almost all servers out there, including Windows. (Does anyone happen to know it doesn't work?) I am also weak with _javascript_ and no nothing about php. Can you point me to some good URLS and/or books that could help me out? A good place to start is php.net. Besides the online manual, which is very good, there are links to tutorials and articles, as well as other lists of links. At many of those sites you should also find some good js info as well. I have a book I like, _javascript_: The Definitive Guide, 3rd Ed. by David Flanagan (O'Reilly, 1998). While some of the browser related info is hopelessly out of date, much of it is still surprisingly relevant.
RE: [WSG] Tables are dead?
Thanks for all the help, people. Unfortunately none of the examples given solve the basic problem, which is that with anything other than tables, I cannot get multiple boxes across the screen that have the same height on every row, without specifying a fixed height. Mike's example (http://www.english-sofas.co.uk/contemporary_leather_sofas_0.htm) is nice and clean but it won't work in my case - the boxes do not have a predictable amount of text (can be one, two or many lines). Patrick's example that basically turns the table on its side (http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/details?id=36) is clever, but has the same problem (and will only work for a small portion of visitors). (But thanks for the tip - when viewed this way, it's quite obvious that I am in fact dealing with tabular data) I'll stick with a table but will try to cut out the empty spacer cells. Hmmm -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * 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] javascript form submission
Ned Lukies wrote: I guess you could claim that javascript is quicker to highlight errors in the form. I have always found a stream of javascript alerts when submitting a form to be quite annoying. Only one alert, at most, is useful (one could argue zero is better). Beyond that, there are two techniques which work well. One is marking the errors with an red asterisk or some other visual clue. The second, and in some ways better, is to list the errors with label tagged text. Then all they need to do is click on the message and the cursor will jump to the field. * 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] PHP is OT (was: javascript form submission)
That'll do for the PHP stuff now thanks folks. There are plenty of resources available online. Use google to locate them. Something like http://www.google.com/search?q=php+form+validation P * 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] PHP is OT (was: javascript form submission) (Out of office)
Sorry, I'm away Wed for personal leave and Thurs AM for study. I will read your email when I return. For any urgent Intranet queries or assistance please contact Marion Haworth on 02 9230 8542 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Leon Wild. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/19/04 00:16 That'll do for the PHP stuff now thanks folks. There are plenty of resources available online. Use google to locate them. Something like http://www.google.com/search?q=php+form+validation P * 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] Tables are dead?
It's the height aspect that's the bugger. One way to achieve this may be to use a CSS background image to force a minimum height. Make if a few bytes 2-colour (transparent) gif. Then explain to the client that Tolstoy is a great read if you've got the time and impose a maximum character limit which will likely not exceed box height. This way you can retain control of a max box height. If you can do that, you're home and dry. Alternatively, it may be possible to use a bit of back-end sniffing before the page proper is served if, as you say, you're going for a database driven site. I use ASP (simply because I've got years of VBA under my belt) but you can use PHP (or another) to deliver the pages. The idea being you parse the associated product description string character length then base the size on a look-up table that describes a minimum height (and width if you're going fully elastic -- which I'd advise against, unless it be to permit variable product columns whilst maintaining strict box width) requirement. It'll still be a best guess because there's no accounting for word length or wrap. I was trying to figure a dynamic solution which displayed a dummy or hidden page that would permit interrogation of the DOM tree, find the max height of the various product boxes then go back and serve up the page proper to that height, knowing each product box will be of identical height. Then I re-entered normal space and though How? The trouble, I believe, is there are too many unknowns which creep in when you let those horrible client-type-things free to muck up the design ;o). There has to be a simple solution and I'm convinced it's along the lines of determining the max box height then serving all to suit by adjusting the vertical image height of a bg gif. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bert Doorn Sent: 18 May 2004 15:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Tables are dead? Thanks for all the help, people. Unfortunately none of the examples given solve the basic problem, which is that with anything other than tables, I cannot get multiple boxes across the screen that have the same height on every row, without specifying a fixed height. Mike's example (http://www.english-sofas.co.uk/contemporary_leather_sofas_0.htm) is nice and clean but it won't work in my case - the boxes do not have a predictable amount of text (can be one, two or many lines). Patrick's example that basically turns the table on its side (http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/details?id=36) is clever, but has the same problem (and will only work for a small portion of visitors). (But thanks for the tip - when viewed this way, it's quite obvious that I am in fact dealing with tabular data) I'll stick with a table but will try to cut out the empty spacer cells. Hmmm -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * 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] XHTML/HTML
If you use ! DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd; html *** XHTML 1.1 *** And remember close your code br br/ or br/ then you should not have any problem. XHTML strict see more http://www.w3c.org and all code you make should be in lowercases eks. meta /meta Allan * 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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Second try I didnt see anyone post about this yesterday everyone was too busy debating PHP and _javascript_ instead. Perhaps today then .. Ive added a specials box to my auslegs site using that cute round-corner technique we read about on this list a few days ago. (Mountaintop Corners : http://www.alistapart.com/articles/mountaintop/) Im really pleased with how it works and how good it looks. Except for one page. Can anyone see why the grey horizontal borders on the news page at http://auslegs.com.au/news/index.cfm are going on top of the specials box instead of underneath or stopping to the left? The CSS is at http://auslegs.com.au/styles/Auslegs.css Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com
Re: [WSG] back to basics
The voices are telling me that James Ellis said on 5/18/2004 6:06 AM: I have a feeling apos; won't work in IE for Windows. I've used #039; everywhere with success. Right you are. You can tell how often I fire MSIE up on this box. Slap an XML header on it, rename it foo.xml, and MSIE renders it like a charm. Boy, Microsoft sure pays attention to them DTDs, don't they? :-( -- Rev. Bob Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * 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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
G'day, it looks fine to me. FF0.8, Win98SE, 1280x1024. Something I found (not related to this problem) is with the vertical menu on the products page. The text needs i little more padding on the left as it's overlapping the grey bullets, no biggy. Site displayed fine apart from that. I haven't tested in IE (I suspect that's were the problems emerge?) Darian Michael Kear wrote: Second try I didnt see anyone post about this yesterday everyone was too busy debating PHP and javascript instead. Perhaps today then .. Ive added a specials box to my auslegs site using that cute round-corner technique we read about on this list a few days ago. (Mountaintop Corners : http://www.alistapart.com/articles/mountaintop/) Im really pleased with how it works and how good it looks. Except for one page. Can anyone see why the grey horizontal borders on the news page at http://auslegs.com.au/news/index.cfm are going on top of the specials box instead of underneath or stopping to the left? The CSS is at http://auslegs.com.au/styles/Auslegs.css Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Internet Explorer sucks at rendering floats correctly. It looks fine in Mozilla/Firefox. I had the same problem a few weeks back when starting to redesigning my blog and I specified widths in percentages for the floated element and the elements that were to wrap around the floated element and it worked fine in IE and Mozilla/Firefox. See if that helps any. From: Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2004/05/18 Tue PM 06:02:44 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Lines on top - anyone see why? Second try - I didn't see anyone post about this yesterday - everyone was too busy debating PHP and javascript instead. Perhaps today then ... I've added a 'specials' box to my auslegs site using that cute round-corner technique we read about on this list a few days ago. (Mountaintop Corners : http://www.alistapart.com/articles/mountaintop/) I'm really pleased with how it works and how good it looks. Except for one page. Can anyone see why the grey horizontal borders on the news page at http://auslegs.com.au/news/index.cfm are going on top of the specials box instead of underneath or stopping to the left? The CSS is at http://auslegs.com.au/styles/Auslegs.css Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com Michael Rainey Blog: http://raineym.dyndns.org/ Resume: http://mrainey.dyndns.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 *
RE: [WSG] back to basics
Naughty, Bob, you just stuck it into quirks mode. I presume you mean the xml prelude? Mike Pepper Accessible (but happy cuz the Mrs let him off the leash tonight) Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Sent: 18 May 2004 23:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] back to basics The voices are telling me that James Ellis said on 5/18/2004 6:06 AM: I have a feeling apos; won't work in IE for Windows. I've used #039; everywhere with success. Right you are. You can tell how often I fire MSIE up on this box. Slap an XML header on it, rename it foo.xml, and MSIE renders it like a charm. Boy, Microsoft sure pays attention to them DTDs, don't they? :-( -- Rev. Bob Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * 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 *
[WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
So what, If it doesn't work in IE and its many flavours you are doing zilch for your client and your usability, let alone accessibility. Explorer is used by 94% of the Internet browsing world. I run my own stats; in fact I write my own log analysis software because I need to monitor trends and swings ... and basically deliver to as wide an audience as possible for my clientele. Thunder[Fire]bird is an extemporary browser whose execution of W3C compliance is second only to Opera's ... but we have a duty to our client, not to our ego-preened selves. Get it right in business and we will then apply a gentle lobby to standards compliance and accessibility. I'm a pragmatist. I have to be, else my clients will go elsewhere. Far too many developers wage a war of blog attrition against the standards-illiterate development world. I design for accessibility; I design to W3C standards. But first and foremost I design for the businesses who are realists in a market-driven economy. Would that I might write for a Gecko world ... but I can't. This is not an argument, it is a consideration that we must spread standards without disregard for the real world. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or body to whom they are addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton AntiVirus for the presence of computer viruses. If this message is received in error, please accept our apologies. * 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] XHTML v HTML (also a question about GoLive)
Mordechai, I think the XHTML/HTML issue has been canvassed by more knowledgeable members in the past on this list, with some advocating for the use of HTML 4.01 for reasons you may like to search in the archives. (Look particularly for posts by Peter Firminger.) That said, you are probably more concerned to reassure the client about the effect on the display of the site, and in that regard there are no issues that should cause concern, unless it involves something like pop-up windows. Your other concern is over the use of GoLive or another WYSIWYG editor. This is more difficult, because you will have set up your CSS so that it works cross-browser, and touching it in one place could affect the display of your work. The question I would have in this situation is, does the client want to be involved in the site's design, or merely content maintenance? * If in design, then the client is really going about things in a back-to-front way. The design should be finalised between you before you break it down into HTML/CSS. This is what you are paid to do, in the same way that an architect is paid to understand the client's needs and translate them into working plans. * If in content maintenance only (and you are talking about a static site), I would recommend using Macromedia Contribute or the Adobe equivalent. You can set it up to allow the client to enter content, with access to particular styles (hn, p, ul/li, img etc) and not to others, and you can provide templates for them to use. Hope this helps. -Hugh Todd A potential client asked me: ...will I be able to make modifications myself using a program such as Adobe Golive which creates html pages? It's the second half of the question with which I'm having a problem since I have no experience with GoLive. While the thought of a WYSIWYG touching my code horrifies me, anyone know the answer? * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Pepper Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 9:39 AM To: WSG Subject: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' So what, If it doesn't work in IE and its many flavours you are doing zilch for your client and your usability, let alone accessibility. Explorer is used by 94% of the Internet browsing world. I run my own stats; in fact I write my own log analysis software because I need to monitor trends and swings ... and basically deliver to as wide an audience as possible for my clientele. Thunder[Fire]bird is an extemporary browser whose execution of W3C compliance is second only to Opera's ... but we have a duty to our client, not to our ego-preened selves. Get it right in business and we will then apply a gentle lobby to standards compliance and accessibility. I'm a pragmatist. I have to be, else my clients will go elsewhere. Far too many developers wage a war of blog attrition against the standards-illiterate development world. I design for accessibility; I design to W3C standards. But first and foremost I design for the businesses who are realists in a market-driven economy. Would that I might write for a Gecko world ... but I can't. This is not an argument, it is a consideration that we must spread standards without disregard for the real world. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or body to whom they are addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton AntiVirus for the presence of computer viruses. If this message is received in error, please accept our apologies. * 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] Extra border/padding on a checkbox
I am trying to get rid of the extra border/ padding on a checkbox in an IE browser. A checkbox is a UI element and, as such, is under the control of the Browser (and/or operating system) to render. It isn't under the control of CSS/HTML. A checkbox on a Mac will probably look different to one on Windows or Linux. So - even if one browser lets you do it on one operating system that is not likely to be the case across the board. Gary Menzel Web Development Manager IT Operations Brisbane -+- ABN AMRO Morgans Limited Level 29, 123 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 PH: 07 333 44 828 FX: 07 3834 0828 To unsubscribe from this email please forward this email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition includes reading, printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in reliance on the information. If you have received this email in error, we request you contact ABN AMRO Morgans Limited immediately by returning the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy the original. We will refund any reasonable costs associated with notifying ABN AMRO Morgans. This email is confidential and may contain privileged client information. ABN AMRO Morgans has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all its communications, including electronic communications, but accepts no liability for materials transmitted. Materials may also be transmitted without the knowledge of ABN AMRO Morgans. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited its directors and employees do not accept liability for the results of any actions taken or not on the basis of the information in this report. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited and its associates hold or may hold securities in the companies/trusts mentioned herein. Any recommendation is made on the basis of our research of the investment and may not suit the specific requirements of clients. Assessments of suitability to an individual?s portfolio can only be made after an examination of the particular client?s investments, financial circumstances and requirements. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited (ABN 49 010 669 726 AFSL 235410) A Participant of ASX Group * 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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
I should have been a little more specific. Sorry . It looks fine in Firefox to me too. However the client looks at his site in IE6, and that's where the problem manifests itself. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 8:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Lines on top - anyone see why? Internet Explorer sucks at rendering floats correctly. It looks fine in Mozilla/Firefox. * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Craig Stump Sent: 19 May 2004 01:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Pepper Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 9:39 AM To: WSG Subject: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' So what, If it doesn't work in IE and its many flavours you are doing zilch for your client and your usability, let alone accessibility. Explorer is used by 94% of the Internet browsing world. I run my own stats; in fact I write my own log analysis software because I need to monitor trends and swings ... and basically deliver to as wide an audience as possible for my clientele. Thunder[Fire]bird is an extemporary browser whose execution of W3C compliance is second only to Opera's ... but we have a duty to our client, not to our ego-preened selves. Get it right in business and we will then apply a gentle lobby to standards compliance and accessibility. I'm a pragmatist. I have to be, else my clients will go elsewhere. Far too many developers wage a war of blog attrition against the standards-illiterate development world. I design for accessibility; I design to W3C standards. But first and foremost I design for the businesses who are realists in a market-driven economy. Would that I might write for a Gecko world ... but I can't. This is not an argument, it is a consideration that we must spread standards without disregard for the real world. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or body to whom they are addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton AntiVirus for the presence of computer viruses. If this message is received in error, please accept our apologies. * 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 * * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Mike, I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. Here is why that might not be an ideal solution. Unless you are exceedingly careful, you may well have something that works in IE because of bugs in IE you have consciously or unconsciously utilised. It can be a serious nightmare putting that back on track. Keep in mind too, that almost all the differences between and more standards compliant browsers are bugs in IE. Bugs get fixed. So you are guaranteeing that your code will break in the future. HTH John John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * 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] javascript form submission
If you are an ASP coder and want to move to Linux then why not use ASP.NET? It will be a much easier learning curve than PHP. FYI: Many ASP.NET pages run on Mono [C# compiler for Linux] including web services, and many DotNet apps run without modification. The Mono website is http://mono.org. woric Original Message - Nancy Johnson wrote: Dear All, This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for form submission, but I want to find a _javascript_ and/or php versions of form submissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windows based server. I think PHP is the way to go, since it works on almost all servers out there, including Windows.
Re: [WSG] back to basics
Excuse me for possibly subtracting from the sum of human knowledge, but I don't recall reading in the original problem statement that it had to be a *semantic* single quote, which means the entity apos; would do just fine. My apologies, I presumed that Justin had already checked the existing XHTML entities and couldnt find one. You are correct that apos; is available in XHHTML and is defined as character 39... though only when you are using ISO Latin character sets. So, yes, apos; is a better solution than the one I posted. Perhaps somebody can tell me whether or not it's an urban legend (for once the Microsoft XML documentation is obscure) that putting on an XML header automatically gets you apos; regardless of DTD? Using ?xml version='1.0'? only gets you 3 entities... lt; gt; and amp; All extra entities must be declared in a DTD but the XHTML DTD declares alot of them so using a XHTML DTD gets you all the entities you should need... inlcuding apos; woric * 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] [OT] UniversalHead blog
You could use free bannerless place temporarily if you like http://www.xaxax.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Universal Head Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] UniversalHead blog Sorry everybody I jumped the gun - it will take several days for this new URL to be recognised worldwide, so you'll probably get a coming soon page for a while - my apologies. Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 10:49 AM, Mike Pepper wrote: I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. If you start with IE then patch to Mozilla et al, then your thinking is too near-sighted. The standards are there, let's use them, then apply patches to make non-compliant browsers behave nicely. What happens in X years time when IE6 is irrelevant, and you've got to re-visit a whole bunch of stylesheets and bastardised mark-up getting rid of all the IE-centric bloat to ensure it works on the popular browsers of period. I know IE is a *huge* market leader, and I *do* make sure my sites work in IE, but I most definitely tackle 99%-compliant browsers as a whole (Mozilla family, Safari, Opera, Omni, etc) first, because it's a FORWARDS compatible business practice. I use zero hacks, and try and keep the style sheets as simple as possible. THEN I create a separate style sheet for IE 6 (linked after the main sheet, so cascading applies to it), which is hidden inside an IE-only conditional comment. THEN (if needed) I create an IE 5/5.5 style sheet (which cascades over the top of the other two) which deals with older versions of IE. Again, this is done with a conditional comment, so that only older IE browsers download it and read it. What I'm achieving is a definite separation of long term, forwards compatible, future-ready style sheets from those which patch up older or less compliant browsers and will have a shorter life cycle. In X years time when IE5/5.5/6 has disappeared off the radar, I can quite easily drop the stylesheet(s) all together, or make amendments without hacks and complex rules. If you start with IE browsers, you're investing your time (and your clients money) in non-standard (or at least bloated) stylesheets which may create a burden in the future. How will your hacks and IE-centric rules be interpreted by future compliant browsers and useragents (the ones which haven't even been invested yet)? That's the whole point of standards -- you don't have to worry about that. IMO, develop to the standard, then apply simple patches for difficult browsers for a pleasant future -- less bloat, simpler stylesheets, zero hacks, less dependance on *today*'s market leader. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] hiding styles from Mac IE5 : fixed
Hi all
The suggestions all worked, didn't affect other browsers. For future
reference if anyone is interested in supporting this agent:
*used the \*/ hack - very good although it bloats the CSS
*added some fixed widths on floats
*killed text-align : inherit and letter-spacing : -0.1px in the same {}
stanza which was crashing IE5 on Mac.
Some funny things still happen with this magnificent piece of software:
*tabbing through the login fields causes two characters to appear when
one is typed but only when the label surrounds the input/label,
Tab twice and everything is ok. Click in the fields and everything is
ok. Doesn't happen with anything else so it's not my code :D
*It attempts to render the tfoot tag directly below the thead even
though this should occur below tbody. Have hacked HTML to stop this
resulting in non valid markup :(
*header background colours stretch out of the containing box width. Have
hidden this from IE5 Mac.
Site is at http://my.spamtrap.net.au/ - minor markup furphy in the login
form stopping validation but that is fixed for next version already.
feedback welcome (off list if it strays from the topic).
Cheers
James
James Ellis wrote:
Hi
Thanks everyone for the tips, I'll try them out and report back.
If at the end of the day the solutions don't work I'll happily hide the
stylesheets from it.. this browser is in the same basket as NN4 - not
being updated anymore and population decreasing. At least then the
content will be usable for those visitors.
That said, I *will* try, as it is the only useful browser for OS8 - 9,
apart from Mozilla 1.0x from 2002.
thanks again
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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Thanks anyway. I guess no one has any ideas how I can make the lines go underneath the floated box on my page in IE. I don't suppose it's impossible? Surely not. I can't use percentages in the float because it has to be fixed 130px width, because of the graphics creating the round corners. I guess I'll have to tell the client that the design isn't possible and we'll have to change it. Pity. First time I've asked a question here and had no answers except one that I can't use. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 8:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Lines on top - anyone see why? Internet Explorer sucks at rendering floats correctly. It looks fine in Mozilla/Firefox. * 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] Lines on top - anyone see why?
Michael Kear skrev: Thanks anyway. I guess no one has any ideas how I can make the lines go underneath the floated box on my page in IE. Try position:relative; on the floated box(#heading) / m a r t i n -- http://visitkortet.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 *
