Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:06:21 +0100, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be able to generate it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content. What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p). Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) then I think you may just be opening a can of worms purely for the sake of it. Andrew. ** 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] accessible bar charts
Justin Thorp wrote: I am intrigued by the idea and wondered what people thought. I'd be interested in getting a reaction from a screen reader user. As with my early, half-finished experimentation http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/57/ the underlying markup is a clean, structured table. This particular chart does use images, but they have a null ALT attribute. So, in all, this will work like any other data table as far as screenreader users are concerned. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Ian Fenn wrote: Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. This kind of pettiness and misunderstanding of accessibility really gets my goat. It's a damn shame if you ask me ;-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ p.s. no real goats were harmed in this email ** 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] Browser Checks
On Tue February 8 2005 09:22, Andrew Krespanis wrote: What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p). Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like what you intented. Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content. If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design issues. Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode. Your reference to worms is misplaced. Obiviously your opinion differs from mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations. Andy --- Registered Linux user number 379093 --- ** 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] Browser Checks
OOPS! I just swore on list SORRY :) http://leftjustified.net/ ** 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] Browser Checks
Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like what you intented. Compliant html pages styled completely with CSS displaying bugs? Easy, I would make some examples for you now if I wasn't already doing an all-nighter. Table based design with bugs? A little harder to find. Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content. If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design issues. I couldn't agree more, though display bugs can and will turn visitors away. A simple example is a multi-column layout whereby the columns are rendered with a miniscule width -- a common problem with IE mac and complex float layouts (even with all floats having declared widths, as per spec) Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode. Don't bring quircks mode into this, I'm talking solely about 'standards mode' -- there are still bugs in ALL browsers. If you haven't found them, push a little harder, you will :) Your reference to worms is misplaced. Obiviously your opinion differs from mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations. My reference to a 'can of worms' is entirely related to your initial post -- echo opened $what; I had no intention of insulting you, merely disagreeing in a loud fashion. Andrew. Registered shit-stirrer No. 30077. ;) http://leftjustified.net/ ** 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] Site Review...
'Lo Just made a couple of minisites all mostly buzzword compliant, just requesting comments :) http://www.w3bdevil.com/scripts/ http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/ And can I just get some feedback on this older site of mine... http://www.w3bdevil.com/planetearth N.B: I'm aware that /turkeys/ won't validate because I'm still debugging my CMS... I've been having database issues Ciao! -- -David R ** 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] Browser Checks
Andrew Krespanis wrote: OOPS! I just swore on listSORRY :) --- LOL. First time a long while I've actually gotten a laugh from this list. Cheers, Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.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] Site Review...
David, http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/ With a quick once over the only issues I noticed were accessibility ones: 1. Colour contrast appears insufficient? White text on light-grey background. 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background colour combinations provide sufficient contrast [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text]. 2. Linearization of content. Reference is made to the navigation being on the left. With styles off it isn't. Be careful. 6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets 3. A skip to content link may be beneficial. Skips may be required for each navigation block too for AAA conformance. 13.6 Group related links, identify the group, and provide a way to bypass the group. 4. A fieldset on the contact form may be appropriate. Probably superfluous but: 5. Abbreviations. 4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs. Minor points really 'cept for the first one. Hope it helps mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk experiments: http://www.2kool2.com /marquee/blink -Original Message- From: David R [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2005 12:06 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Site Review... 'Lo Just made a couple of minisites all mostly buzzword compliant, just requesting comments :) http://www.w3bdevil.com/scripts/ http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/ And can I just get some feedback on this older site of mine... http://www.w3bdevil.com/planetearth N.B: I'm aware that /turkeys/ won't validate because I'm still debugging my CMS... I've been having database issues Ciao! -- -David R ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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] Site Review...
David R wrote: http://www.w3bdevil.com/scripts/ - Check z-index on the headline. Left side link Home is overlapping bottom of W3b's ... in Opera. Fine in FF and IE-win - *All* text with relative font-size for IE-win, please? - Otherwise: just fine. http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/ - No problems here, it seems. - I like this one. And can I just get some feedback on this older site of mine... http://www.w3bdevil.com/planetearth - First impression: good. - Overall impression: good. - The add-box near the top don't like font-resizing in FF, but that's a minor detail. regards Georg ** 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] Web app guidance/site comment
No doctype to be found. pej _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Smith Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:22 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Web app guidance/site comment Greetings all, I'm currently working on a web app that I have created in as much of a web standards karma giving way as I can muster. If I could get some feed back on this little number from the crowd out there I would be most greatful. General tips and pointers are what I'm after. If you look closely enough it might be blatantly obvious who this project is for. Ok, if you're from Sydney Australia and drive a car/have a license that is. https://monitor.hpa.com.au/rta/ https://monitor.hpa.com.au/rta/ This is in no way a live product, and for the most part are just a bunch of static HTML files. Expect no magic within! Or live database for that matter. I have managed to keep the majority of pages valid in both HTML and CSS. (When I typed that I felt I should get a badge or something?) The only quirk I have with it is how some tables will wrap/drop below the menu on IE in tight areas (narrow your browser on the home page). Is this to be expected? Thanks in advance for your time... Brendan attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Without getting into the debate on the correct semantics of the dl, I have one general problem with using it (and tables) for this case: sequential numbering. Placing his list in a dl or table and manually numbering them works, but what about when a new item needs to be added to the list somewhere in the middle? He would then need to manually renumber the rest of the list. Not a big deal for a half-dozen items, but certainly a pain for 100. I'm not sure what the rational for dropping the start= from ol was, and at first glance it seems an odd thing to do. Like others have mention, I can see cases where it would be useful - a results list with 1,000 entry, for example, displaying 50 at a time. Be that as it may, how can we help with this problem? My initial thought, with out getting into crazy things like renumber the list via javascipt, is can you number in more of an outline format? For example: Page 1: 1. blah 2. blah 3. blah Page 2: 1. blah 2. blah 3. blah This gives an association of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Seems semantic and works around the ordered list 'limitation.' Will this work for you? Does this work in general? Am I missing something? Tim = ~ Tim www.tjameswhite.com Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=12227t=1 __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Placing his list in a dl or table and manually numbering them works, but what about when a new item needs to be added to the list somewhere in the middle? I'm assuming a system like this is dynamically handled back-end, so removing this problem. I'm not sure what the rational for dropping the start= from ol was, and at first glance it seems an odd thing to do. Like others have mention, I can see cases where it would be useful - a results list with 1,000 entry, for example, displaying 50 at a time. But you've got to think in terms of a page - the first list item in a page is still the first list item, regardless of where it comes in the multi-page 1,000 results. --- Vivabit Ltd., London http://vivabit.co.uk @media 2005 http://www.atmedia2005.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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:26:26 -, Patrick Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm not sure what the rational for dropping the start= from ol
was, and at first glance it seems an odd thing to do. Like others have
mention, I can see cases where it would be useful - a results list
with
1,000 entry, for example, displaying 50 at a time.
But you've got to think in terms of a page - the first list item in a
page is still the first list item, regardless of where it comes in the
multi-page 1,000 results.
I think that's the point to add this information, that it IS a fragment
of 1000-item list.
For me it's quite silly that you're supposed to make list *look* like
a fragment (css), but list is not allowed to *be* a fragment (xhtml).
There is a practical problem. How stylesheet is supposed to set
initial value for a counter? ul class=starts_at_11?
rant
Oh, I just can't wait till CSS is extended to support this:
ul[start] {counter-reset: item attr(start);}
/rant
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
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] More with the link bullets
Title: Message So I tried using the bullet image as a background on the li and it seemed to work in IE 6 but not Firefox or MAC IE5.1, can anyone take a gander and let me know what they think http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php Cheers Paul
[WSG] Tentative validation
Title: Message When I am validating I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php) , is there something I can add to my code to make it fully validate? Paul
Re: [WSG] More with the link bullets
Paul skrev:
So I tried using the bullet image as a background on the li and it
seemed to work in IE 6 but not Firefox or MAC IE5.1, can anyone take a
gander and let me know what they think
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php
Cheers
Paul
Hi.
remove the extra braklet after .bodylinklist li {{ in your css
mv icaaq
**
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 Strict alternative to ol start=11
Patrick wrote: doesn't work all the time, but as a general rule: when you have this type of inconsistencies, try and be very specific with regards to all margins and paddings. Otherwise, you're leaving the ones you don't specify up to the rendering engine's default, which may well vary from browser to browser. In this instance, all the padding, margin, border, etc. were initially set to zero so that shouldn't be the cause here. In the end I couldn't find the cause of this IE issue, so I've gone with a table. I can always have it changed if I discover the cause and a fix. Thanks for your help everyone. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media http://www.chopstixmedia.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hi Andy, So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. Whilst the guidelines contain explanation for some of its contents, there's nothing about the decision to go with XHTML Strict. The guidelines were drawn up with the RNIB as consultants so they do have some integrity though. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media http://www.chopstixmedia.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 **
[WSG] Not and IE bug?!?
Hiya, Long-time lurker, first time poster. I'm debugging a just-about-to-go-live site, and have run up against something I've never seen before. The problem has to do with a disappearing background image in Safari/Mozilla. It shows in IE, and I can make it show in Safari/Moz if I change the structure around, which causes new problem in ie... The structure goes like this: ...a bunch of other stuff... home-bg home title/title /home home-right /home-right /home-bg footer/footer With this setup, the home-bg is visible in ie, but not safari/moz. If I do this: ...a bunch of other stuff... home-bg home title/title /home home-right /home-right footer/footer /home-bg - note this is now below the footer home-bg is visible in all browsers, but sticks down a couple pixels below the footer in ie. The page validates (except for some soon-to-come flash-satay cooking), as does the css. I'm stumped. Anyone? ps. I know there are other accessibility issues with the site, which will be addressed once I get the home page working. Thanks, Peter Flaschner Flashlight Design www.flashlightdesign.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] Tentative validation
Paul wrote: When I am validating I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php ) , is there something I can add to my code to make it fully validate? Well, the validator actually tells you exactly what's wrong and how to fix it... http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A//www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is impossible to reliably validate the document. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Tentative validation
Paul skrev: When I am validating I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php ) , is there something I can add to my code to make it fully validate? Paul Hi. Try adding at content-type meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 mv icaaq ** 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 Strict alternative to ol start=11
In this instance, all the padding, margin, border, etc. were initially
set
to zero so that shouldn't be the cause here. In the end I couldn't
find the
cause of this IE issue, so I've gone with a table. I can always have
it
changed if I discover the cause and a fix.
Hi Ian. I don't know if I've missed something, but in your original
example:
dldt99./dtdda href=Article title/a/dd
dt100./dtdda href=Article title/a - span
class=newNEW/span/dd
/dl
and:
dt { float:left; }
dd { margin:4px 8px; }
The problem is in your margin for the dd's and nudging them out of line
with the dt's. Try margin: 0 8px 4px 8px; instead, or applying some
kind of combination of margins to the dt's (or first dt).
---
Vivabit Ltd., London
http://vivabit.co.uk
@media 2005
http://www.atmedia2005.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: Ian Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Patrick wrote:
doesn't work all the time, but as a general rule: when you have this
type of inconsistencies, try and be very specific with regards to
all
margins and paddings. Otherwise, you're leaving the ones you don't
specify up to the rendering engine's default, which may well vary
from
browser to browser.
In this instance, all the padding, margin, border, etc. were initially
set
to zero so that shouldn't be the cause here. In the end I couldn't
find the
cause of this IE issue, so I've gone with a table. I can always have
it
changed if I discover the cause and a fix.
Thanks for your help everyone.
All the best,
--
Ian Fenn
Chopstix Media
http://www.chopstixmedia.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] Print Stylesheet Bug Using IE Conditional Expressions
A raised this query a few weeks ago, to no avail. However, chatting with another developer tonight who had experienced a similar challenge with print stylesheets, I was offered a resolution: the !important directive. Slapped it in the print stylesheet on the offending ID for the container and bingo!, all is well with the print world :o) IE doesn't handle the !important directive too well but in this instance use of it resolved the errant the stylesheet-specific override for the browser action. Today has been a good day to markup :o) Cheers all, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Pepper Sent: 21 January 2005 16:24 To: WSG Subject: [WSG] Print Stylesheet Bug Using IE Conditional Expressions I'm using a print stylesheet on http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com/ which worked fine ... until I used an HTC conditional expression as max-width emulation in IE. Now the printed output is cropped on page right. Any width adjustment is ignored by IE (FF et al work just fine). It's the expression causing the problem. I tried moving the stylesheet load order in the markup to appear after the IE specific load but it makes no difference. Anybody come across this behaviour and have a resolution? Cheers, Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.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] More with the link bullets
Paul, I just checked your layout in IE 5.1.7 Mac (OS 9), on Firefox (OSX). Both of them look the same and fine. If you'd like a screen shot, I'll send them off list, just give me an email address. The page is coming along nicely. Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Not and IE bug?!?
You need to clear your floats. Check this: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html (technique discovered by WSG member Tony Aslett ;) Andrew. -- http://leftjustified.net/ ** 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Andy Budd wrote: So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. This kind of pettiness and misunderstanding of accessibility really gets my goat. It's a damn shame if you ask me ;-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict. Firstly, the term strict implies the strict separation between content and presentation. This is meant to have benefit for both user and developer (in an ideal world). It is meant to free up both the user and designer. Normally with think STRICT, those W3C Nazis (like I saw recently on another list:-), but the whole idea behind Strict is the strict separation of content and presentation, ultimately aiming for both users and designers worlds to be much more free and flexible. That's the point. Using strict frees the markup of attributes that are bound to the content layer. This ideally frees the web pages to accommodate more flexible designs. With strict you could develop alternate style sheets, one with absolute units (to satisfy client requirements), and one with relative units (to satisfy accessibility requirements), whatever you want. If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is transitional between the aim of separating content and presentation, and mixing them together. It's basically a compromise. From a developer's point of view, in large content systems, one of the major problems is separating content from presentation. It is very difficult to regenerate sites with fresh designs if this issue is not addressed at the foundation level. This also aids addressing accessibility issues. We just have to look at any of our own work, when better user agent support arrives in the future, and the customer requires a redesign, will we be able to leave the HTML/XHTML as is, and just modify the CSS, or will it require an overhaul of both? Regards Geoff Deering ** 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict. [...] If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is transitional between the aim of separating content and presentation, and mixing them together. It's basically a compromise. I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional doesn't make certain elements illegal, but that doesn't mean that developers can't do nicely separated content/HTML and presentation/CSS which happen to have a transitional doctype. There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. XHTML (and strict in particular) being more accessible than HTML (and particularly transitional) is a myth. Conscientious coders can use exactly the same approach (tableless etc) in both. Sorry, ended up being a cyclic argument, but you see what I mean...and *that's* what Andy meant (if I may be so bold as to make an educated guess) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Can I just offer an opinion here. When thinking of semantics it sometimes helps to go back 20 years and use pen and paper. If you were writing a big list (numbering each item) in a small notepad you would, on successive pages, keep the numbering going. So on the second page, the first item may be number 11. Putting that into a search result context, the 500 results from a search are one list. If you are kind enough to break that into pages, the list is still the same one so starting the list on the second page from record 11 and numbering it that way is, in my view, correct. Now, depending on how you do it you can only make that page only available to someone that already saw the first page (using form method post) however most of us have search results that can be linked to (using method get in a form or dynamically writing a link with a query string). E.g. http://www.seaslugforum.net/list.cfm?startrow=31 You'll note the text Messages 31 to 60 of 8740 to put the list in context. I see no problem with this. In fact if the list on the second page started at 1 I think it would be more confusing. 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional doesn't make certain elements illegal, but that doesn't mean that developers can't do nicely separated content/HTML and presentation/CSS which happen to have a transitional doctype. There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. Just as a C programmer thinks what will the compiler do with this code, there needs to be some understanding of what is happening at the parser level. That's also why this list exists, because, from what I can see is that most of us need a list like this so that we can deal with the bugs that are in the parsers and rendering engines. But I'm also talking about working with bug free parsers, even if that is in the future. In that case there is quite a bit of difference with the way a parser will work with the same design in Strict as it will in Transitional. If we fail to understand that we are failing to understand what is happening with DOCTYPE parsing and rendering. I can understand why you'd use Transitional, where you could use Strict, ie where there may be a lack of browser support for a particular design implemented in Strict, but not supported properly, so you'd use Transitional. But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I'm surprised both of you, who have more knowledge than I do in the design area, have not come across this very problem. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. And it has very little to do with the deprecated elements. The real lose is the attributes for elements found in both DTDs, which are not part of Strict, because they are presentational by nature. XHTML (and strict in particular) being more accessible than HTML (and particularly transitional) is a myth. Conscientious coders can use exactly the same approach (tableless etc) in both. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? Regards, Geoff Deering ** 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] Not and IE bug?!?
Aha. Thanks. Clearing ought to do the trick. Peter On 8-Feb-05, at 7:30 PM, Peter Asquith wrote: Hi Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just-about-to-go-live site, and have run up against something I've never seen before. The problem has to do with a disappearing background image in Safari/Mozilla. It shows in IE, and I can make it show in Safari/Moz if I change the structure around, which causes new problem A little more information about your CSS would be useful. This is pure speculation but could it be that the home and home-right are floating blocks that are collapsing the home-bg block? When you introduce the footer block into the body of the home-bg you're giving it some height again. Maybe you need to clear the floats after the home-right block. Cheers Peter -- Peter Asquith http://www.wasabicube.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hey, I'm new here :-) In response to Geoff's email, XHTML is the web standard of the future. If we implement it now, we are just helping move it along faster. A friend of mine recently created a php script that makes your XHTML into HTML for browsers that cannot support it. You can check it out at http://blog.geoffers.uni.cc/archives/2005/01/07/xhtml-html . It sends application/xhtml+xml to browsers who can take it..and text/html to browsers that cannot. On transitional DTDs, they are meant to transitional, eh? So that you can blend your old methods into brand new ones without using invalid code. If you're going to use new methods only, there's no point of using a transitional DTD. XHTML was first introduced in 2000, and we're still transitioning. Ugg.. Regards, Andrew Sutherland ** 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:49:55 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? Depends on the client and how they'll be maintaining their site; I've handed sites over to clients before who were going to use something like Frontpage or Composer to write bits of content which they would then drop into their page template, and going Transitional can keep them valid where Strict wouldn't. Then there are clients who I'm setting up with a CMS that I can set up to generate content which is always valid in Strict, so I'll use Strict. In other words, there is no hard and fast always use foo rule for DOCTYPEs. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. Ok, let's narrow down the field to the core issue: what are the rendering differences between XHTML1.0 Transitional and XTHML1.0 Strict? Ok, now the clincher: provided that these differences are not show stoppers (i.e. all of a sudden a browser trying to render XHTML1.0 Transitional makes everything disappear, overlap, scale down to infinitesimal size, etc), how are they having a majorly detrimental effect on accessibility? I can understand why you'd use Transitional, where you could use Strict, ie where there may be a lack of browser support for a particular design Not talking design (as in visual design), but features relating to the markup/content itself (i.e. the start attribute on OL). But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. In certain edge cases (like this one we're discussing) I think it does indeed make sense. By dropping start you are losing semantic information. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I do. Did a redesign on a fairly large University site and rolled out the first phase as XHTML1.0 Transitional, and only later moved to Strict once the legacy systems were changed to spit out clean markup. Most of the web authors across the University are still using my Transitional template (for various reasons - mainly them having their own legacy systems to contend with). No problems in maintenance (over 1 1/2 years now) and no reports of accessibility problems on the grounds of my DOCTYPE choice. I'm surprised both of you, who have more knowledge than I do in the design area, have not come across this very problem. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. If we're talking purely from a visual layout point of view, of course settling for Strict is the only way to fly. However, this discussion revolves around the accessibility. I still haven't seen any evidence that Transitional (which, granted, can have subtle differences in its *visual* rendering) is less accessible than Strict (all other things being equal, i.e. tableless layout, no use of deprecated or presentational elements, etc). There's no killer feature in Strict which instantly makes it more accessible. Nada. And it has very little to do with the deprecated elements. The real lose is the attributes for elements found in both DTDs, which are not part of Strict, because they are presentational by nature. Again, just because the attributes are in the DTD, doesn't mean that I have to use them. I can write Transitional avoiding all the presentational attributes, and it's still Transitional if I so declare it. The main point is that there are a few things (like the start attribute) which have been thrown out of the window in Strict which are *not* presentational. Yes, in the utopian world of W3C standards, CSS will take care of things like numbering. However, for accessibility reasons, the page still needs to make sense without stylesheets...so, in actual fact (and bringing it down to the concrete example again) using ol without start and relying on CSS in Strict is *less* accessible than using ol start=... in Transitional. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? That's the point: in this instance, it does NOT work just as well. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On 9 Feb 2005, at 00:49, Geoff Deering wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. That is a misconception. Provided the XHTML document has been extended and that the correct content-type header has been sent for the document (application/x) there are *no* benefits. Pages don't load faster because no current browser will incrementally load the page. Mozilla themselves even recommend that you do *not* send it as application/xhtml+xml because of the slower rendering. With a HTML document (strict or otherwise) the rendering occurs incrementally There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. No. There are differences in the way things such as box models are handled and the like. This is to do with Quirks mode and not to do with benefits of XHTML strict over HTML strict. That's also why this list exists, because, from what I can see is that most of us need a list like this so that we can deal with the bugs that are in the parsers and rendering engines. If you think that this list will deal with parsing and rendering bugs you are probably mistaken. You could probably discuss them and talk by all means but the real work gets done when you submit bug reports to bugzilla and the like. But I'm also talking about working with bug free parsers, even if that is in the future.In that case there is quite a bit of difference with the way a parser will work with the same design in Strict as it will in Transitional. Considering that Internet Explorer are reported to have said that they didn't want to change the IE engine because it would 'break the WWW' and also considering that Mozilla even chose to *have* a quirks mode I think that you will see the existence of quirks mode for a long time to come. But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. Reverse this statement and realise that it means nothing. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I have seen some real messes in my short time and I know that HTML transitional can be just as accessible as XHTML strict. All the elements available to XHTML strict are available in HTML transitional. A perfectly validating XHTML strict document has just as much chance to be inaccessible as a HTML transitional. Try creating an XHTML Strict document which validates and then convert it to a HTML document (by removing the forward slashes from self-closing elements) and then change the DTD to HTML transitional. Open both in a text only browser and compare them. If you see any differences then let me know. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. Once again you are saying that a HTML transitional document can't contain all the same elements as an XHTML strict document. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? As before, reverse the two subjects and see that the statement is still true: Please explain why you would use a Strict DTD where a transitional one is valid and works just as well? -- Paul Connolley AccessPlanIT LWDP Data Manager Phone 01524 389541, Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use transitional or strict. However, that *was* the point of the original question. To recap: something can't be done in strict which is not presentational, but nevertheless has been dropped from the DTD. It can be done in transitional, but some shortsighted policy maker in the company decided that their guidelines should absolutely require strict. Which then prompted the (admittedly more general) question of whether or not strict has any accessibility advantages over transitional so as to warrant it being made mandatory in an accessibility policy. I still stand by the idea that there is nothing intrinsically more accessible to strict over transitional - and in very rare cases such as this one, transitional *is* more accessible than strict. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:50:56 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a document that validates as doctype Strict, then why declare it as transitional? For what reason are such decisions made? That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use transitional or strict. I don't want to re-open the can of worms that is the XHTML MIME-type, but I lean toward using Transitional on any XHTML that gets sent as 'text/html'. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] different hover for visited links than unvisited?
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the feeling there is no way to achieve this? I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go. Has anybody found a way of getting this to work? Thanks! Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Phone: (03) 9417 0468 Mobile: (0411) 097 038 http://www.addictiveMedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development ** 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] different hover for visited links than unvisited?
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go.
Has anybody found a way of getting this to work?
I'm answering my own questions here: it seems combining pseudo classes
will work in Firefox and Opera, but not IE:
a:visited:hover{background-color:#C21313; color:#fff}
Not bad, but not great either.
**
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] different hover for visited links than unvisited?
Yes, heres the code
a:visited:hover {
**styles**
}
Not sure about its browser compatibility, but I've never seen it not work :p
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:40:34 -0800, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go.
Has anybody found a way of getting this to work?
Thanks!
Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant
Phone: (03) 9417 0468
Mobile: (0411) 097 038
http://www.addictiveMedia.com.au
Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
Get Firefox!
Visit - Jalenack.com - My blog!
**
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] different hover for visited links than unvisited?
a:visited:hover {
...styles...
}
OR
a:visited::hover { ... }
(double colon is CSS3 syntax)
Untested, but theoretically it should work...
Andrew.
http://leftjustified.net/
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:40:34 -0800, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go.
Has anybody found a way of getting this to work?
Thanks!
Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant
**
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] different hover for visited links than unvisited?
Is there a way to use the DOM to scan the page for visited links and
assign them a class? I don't know enough about the subject to offer up
a solution myself - I'm not even sure that's possible. Can the DOM
check the 'visitedness' of an a element?
If it can that would be a cross-browser solution.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:51:36 +1000, Andrew Krespanis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a:visited:hover {
...styles...
}
OR
a:visited::hover { ... }
(double colon is CSS3 syntax)
Untested, but theoretically it should work...
Andrew.
http://leftjustified.net/
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:40:34 -0800, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go.
Has anybody found a way of getting this to work?
Thanks!
Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
Jason Foss
http://www.almost-anything.com.au
http://www.waterfallweb.net
Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Rockhampton, Queensland, 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
**
