Re: [WSG] you've been framed!
Thanks Thierry,
Your article on frames is the best I've read! An excellent resource, now
bookmarked!
To the other guys who responded: I've had a quick play with overflow : auto,
but couldn't seem to avoid two RH scrollbars! I'm going to look (properly)
over Easter . . .
Thanks,
Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] you've been framed!
designer wrote:
OK, I know about the pitfalls, but the bookmarking thing is easy to
get over - just add 2 short lines of javascript from
www.CodeLifter.com :
if (parent.location.href == self.location.href){
window.location.href = 'whateverframeset.html' }
I don't think this has to do with bookmarking; it is more about calling
the
default frames when a naked page loads in the UA.
And IMO it is better to use the replace() method in this case to avoid
messing with the user browser's back button.
However, what I want to know is, which browsers don't support frames?
And should I be
bothered?
MSIE 2 (Win Mac), AOL 1.0 2.7 (Mac), AOL 1.0 Win
Note that in some browsers (Opera for example) frames can be turned off.
You have the noframes tag to help you deal with frame-challenged UAs
I've written an article about frames, you may find something useful in
there:
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/default.asp
HTH,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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] Firefox bug on mouse scrolling
Thanks Peter, A jpg of what I'm seeing can be found at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/firefox.jpg (Win XP pro (not SP2) - Matrox card and up to date driver :- ) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk - Original Message - From: Peter J. Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Firefox bug on mouse scrolling designer wrote: Hi all, I notice a bug in Firefox (I think it is, anyway) which shows itself as a 2-3 pixel gap appearing in the bottom border of an image when the viewport is altered by scrolling with the mouse wheel. It doesn't affect all the images (strange) only some, and the image must be outside the viewport before scrolling. In other words, an image which is near the top of the 'page' must be scrolled off the page and back on again for the effect to happen. Conversely, images which are low down the page (and hence, below the viewport) appear with the gap on mouse scrolling down. I've googled, and there does seem to be stuff out there about mouse scrolling and Firefox, but the refs seem to relate to Firefox 0.8 and the comments are a bit chaotic to say the least. I was hoping that one of you wizards would know about this, know if there was a fix, or know if the new Firefox has fixed it? You can see the effect by looking at: www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/urban/cv/resume.html - I'm using Firefox 1.0, BTW. I checked out the effect you mentioned with the link you suggested. Honestly, I can't tell anything is wrong on WinXP in FF-1.0.1. What operating system are you on? I'm thinking it could be a video display driver problem with mouse scrolling - have you updated you display driver recently? Maybe a screen shot of what you are seeing might help... .pjf -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing blog :: http://blog.maestropublishing.com 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 ** ** 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] Floated right div gets pushed below the left
Nice. We're currently in a prototype stage so I won't really think about the final solution until next week (but I'm downloading your markups right now). Thanks very much, vaska On Mar 25, 2005, at 12:28 AM, Andrew Hawthorne wrote: Hi Vaska, I think I may have a solution for you -- negative margins. I've used this method before and have had great luck with it. You can read up on Creating Liquid Layouts with Negative Margins for some details on the technique. This is one of my favorite articles on A List Apart. I was bored over lunch so I threw this together for you as an example http://boxmodel.com/wsg/vaska.php . It's a rushed so I apologize. It's tested in IE6, Firefox 1.0.2, Netscape 7.2, and Safari 1.2.4 (v125.12). I hope this sends you in a positive direction. regards, 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 **
[WSG] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
Happy Easter to all! So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed. My problem is (as far as I can see) that one has to specify a height for the div which has overflow:auto, and I don't know how to set the height to fill the viewport space under the menu. Normally I'd set it to 100%, but that gives me all kinds of problems. Firstly, if I pick the 'happy medium' of 1024 by 768 and give the div a height of 500px, it looks great. When I resize to 800 x 600 however, I get 2 vertical scrollbars - the one in the div and the one in the browser itself. So I set the overflow to hidden on the body, and that solved that, but what remains is still a clumsy looking mess. The effect I'm after can be seen by going to: www.kernowproperties.co.uk and when you get in, select the 200k max link. You will see a long list of houses for sale. The list can be scrolled, whilst the menu on the left stays put. Great! However, my attempt ( which can be seen at: http://www.kernowproperties.fsnet.co.uk/propertydetails/noframes_200kmax.html ) shows my problem: I cannot set the height so that it makes good use of the viewport area - what fits in 800 x 600 looks ridiculous in 1240 by 1024. etc etc. OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not, it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all. Your comments, suggestions and general help would be most welcome. Thanks, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:57 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module Trusz, Andrew wrote: Here's how xhtml2.0 defines the text module which includes [sup] [...] Note in particular the phrase in this case it is intended to only have a semantic meaning. That seems pretty clear. While that may or may not be the current definition of [sup], it certainly seems to be headed for a structural/semantic definition since it is defined in this module. So split hairs, in this case *IT* is intended to only have a semantic meaning. The semantic meaning bit only refers to the use of the phrase 'inline level', not to the elements themselves... However, I'm waiting with baited breath to see how they're going to define the semantics of elements which are presentational already in their name, and can contain such disparate types of content as mathematic exponents and french abbreviations. I'll be the 1supst/sup one to cheer when it happens... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ You can let out your breath. The semantic meaning for the inline use is defined for the elements, attributes and content models defined in the module. That's the meaning of the entire paragraph: these are inline elements which have a structural meaning and those meanings are defined in this module. That's what the paragraph says; that's what the rule says. The [sup] element means superscript. The user agent is indicating that some element is a superscript. The content will provide the ontological framework for recognizing which meaning the user should attach to the superscript. So, an aural browser would provide very different renderings of e=mc2 and e=mc[sup]2. When that rendering is seen or heard, the context can be understood: a math expression, a date, a french abbreviation, etc. Language is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It's worth remembering that the point of providing structural/semantic meaning to elements is to make it possible for machines to catch some of the sophistication hidden in that sloppiness. Inevitably, there will be friction between machine precision and human flexibility. Developing rules for every situation would result in a system so cumbersome that it would simply not be used -- which we almost have with sgml. Who knows, different definitions of [sup] may be broken out just as nl is extracted in xhtml2.0 from ul. Practice at times begets theory. drew ** 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] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
Javascript...calculate the height of the window or even a particular div (like the one that the overflow is inside of)...and then apply height to the div in question (based upon the calculated heights of things minus some amount perhaps)...not the most elegant way to things however... What about...I can't find it right now...there's a tutorial out there about creating frameless frames using css...it might be a better solution then you can have your nav on the left and when you scroll it won't move...just your right side content will scroll...v On Mar 25, 2005, at 1:10 PM, designer wrote: Happy Easter to all! So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed. My problem is (as far as I can see) that one has to specify a height for the div which has overflow:auto, and I don't know how to set the height to fill the viewport space under the menu. Normally I'd set it to 100%, but that gives me all kinds of problems. Firstly, if I pick the 'happy medium' of 1024 by 768 and give the div a height of 500px, it looks great. When I resize to 800 x 600 however, I get 2 vertical scrollbars - the one in the div and the one in the browser itself. So I set the overflow to hidden on the body, and that solved that, but what remains is still a clumsy looking mess. The effect I'm after can be seen by going to: www.kernowproperties.co.uk and when you get in, select the 200k max link. You will see a long list of houses for sale. The list can be scrolled, whilst the menu on the left stays put. Great! However, my attempt ( which can be seen at: http://www.kernowproperties.fsnet.co.uk/propertydetails/ noframes_200kmax.html ) shows my problem: I cannot set the height so that it makes good use of the viewport area - what fits in 800 x 600 looks ridiculous in 1240 by 1024. etc etc. OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not, it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all. Your comments, suggestions and general help would be most welcome. Thanks, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
Check this out...not sure if it's what you want, but I found an article about it for you... http://www.stunicholls.myby.co.uk/layouts/frame.html Doesn't work in IE5 but I think if you dig around enough you could find somebody who has solved this problem... good luck...v On Mar 25, 2005, at 1:10 PM, designer wrote: Happy Easter to all! So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed. My problem is (as far as I can see) that one has to specify a height for the div which has overflow:auto, and I don't know how to set the height to fill the viewport space under the menu. Normally I'd set it to 100%, but that gives me all kinds of problems. Firstly, if I pick the 'happy medium' of 1024 by 768 and give the div a height of 500px, it looks great. When I resize to 800 x 600 however, I get 2 vertical scrollbars - the one in the div and the one in the browser itself. So I set the overflow to hidden on the body, and that solved that, but what remains is still a clumsy looking mess. The effect I'm after can be seen by going to: www.kernowproperties.co.uk and when you get in, select the 200k max link. You will see a long list of houses for sale. The list can be scrolled, whilst the menu on the left stays put. Great! However, my attempt ( which can be seen at: http://www.kernowproperties.fsnet.co.uk/propertydetails/ noframes_200kmax.html ) shows my problem: I cannot set the height so that it makes good use of the viewport area - what fits in 800 x 600 looks ridiculous in 1240 by 1024. etc etc. OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not, it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all. Your comments, suggestions and general help would be most welcome. Thanks, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] XML Declaration
Sigurd Magnusson wrote: Is there any situation where IE6 renders in standard compliance mode with the ?xml ... preamble? Juergen Auer responded: If IE6 finds an Xml-Declaration, he switchs in BackCompat. If my understanding is correct, then this should be phrased somewhat differently. If IE6 sees *anything* before the DOCTYPE, then it switches to quirks mode. It does not look for the XML prolog specifically, and you'll get the same effect by placing a comment there or any other text. (Of course, anything other than the prolog would be invalid, but that's a separate matter.) -- Martin Lambert [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 **
CLOSED Re: [WSG] 3.2
Hi Thread closed, no more please. Keep your gripes off the list. Thanks WSG admin On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:56:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry. Your Highness. http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribing The list administrators reserve the right to unsubscribe any member from the list. Reasons include: * Unfriendly, abusive, disrespectful or rude behaviour * Profanity or smut on-list * Repeatedly replying to threads that have been closed * Ignoring list guidelines despite warnings - especially 'read' and 'delivery' receipts and vacation messages ** 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] XML Declaration
Collin, Then why would W3C use it on their own site? This is the first 4 lines of their source code for their home page: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en-US lang=en-US head profile=http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/#;meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / I'm not being argumentativejust curious. -- Carol Collin Davis wrote: Patrick: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ It clearly states that HTML 4 SHOULD be served as text/html, XHTML 1.0 (HTML compatible) MAY be served as text/html and XHTMl 1.0 (other) and XHTML Basic / 1.1 SHOULD NOT be served as text/html ** 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] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
G'day Vaska.WSG wrote: What about...I can't find it right now...there's a tutorial out there about creating frameless frames using css...it might be a better solution then you can have your nav on the left and when you scroll it won't move...just your right side content will scroll...v I know it exists, can't find it either. But I have implemented it on some sites. www.stopsmoking.com.au (not yet 100% valid) works in MSIE6, Firefox and Opera 7 on PC (don't know about Mac) www.bwdzine.com/bwdt/ is another way to do it - has problems in Mozilla browsers (scrolling with mouse scroll wheel doesn't work) but does what it's supposed to do in MSIE6 (built it quite some time ago, when I basically built for MSIE). Works in Opera 7 I'll see if I have some more examples (that validate) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://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] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
designer wrote: So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed. OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not, it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all. I've never had a lot of success with that overflow idea either. The other way to go at it, though, is to use position:fixed on the menu, and let the rest of the page scroll normally. IE can be made to emulate fixed positioning through several different means. I've taken your source and modified it using IE's expressions to get what I think you're looking for: http://homepage.mac.com/martinlambert/test/kernow.html The one problem I can see is that IE users with Javascript turned off will have the menu scroll with the rest of the page. Up to you whether or not that's a deal breaker... -- Martin Lambert [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] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
Patrick, Perhaps you spend a little more time with syntax and a little less time spouting about perfect semantic markup. Personally, I could care less about sending XHTML 1.0 to IE as text/html. Or sending self-closing element tags either. It's a borked browser on so many fronts to begin with anyway. URI: http://www.salford.ac.uk/ This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict! lia href=http://shop.salford.ac.uk;Online shop/a/ul Oops! What's even more laughable is you're sending 1.0 Strict to the validator as text/html because, as everyone knows, even though the W3C validator understands XTHML perfectly, it does not send the correct Accept header when it makes the request for your page. Which is pretty much moot since you're not even closing your li tags anyway. Ouch! -- Douglas Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://loadaveragezero.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] XML Declaration
Carol, For one thing, as Patrick put it so well: [quote] I was suggesting that simply saying the W3C use it on their site is not an argument that holds too much weight. [/quote] Also, per the terminology defined by RFC 2119, none of the terms used for specifying MIME types are anything more than recommendations. It's really more of a best practices sort of question, as the XHTML Media types document states: [quote] Authors who wish to support both XHTML and HTML user agents MAY utilize content negotiation by serving HTML documents as 'text/html' and XHTML documents as 'application/xhtml+xml'. Also note that it is not necessary for XHTML documents served as 'application/xhtml+xml' to follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines. [/quote] That's the entire point I was making in my first response, when I said I didn't understand why people send XHTML as text/html, when it's so very simple to use content negotiation to serve HTML 4.01 as text/html to UAs that can't handle XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml (the proper way). I don't know if you read the article I linked to by Ian Hickson, but he brings across some very important points about serving XHTML as text/html. Basically, what it boils down to for me, is a lack of understanding as to why everybody who is jumping on the web standards bandwagon, with the desire as I understand it, to do things the right way - overlook or ignore the whole MIME type issue. I'll be the first to admit, when I first started with the web standards way of doing web pages, I served my XHTML pages as text/html, simply because I wasn't aware of the MIME type issue. Just seems odd to me (and even as far as the W3C site goes - but hey... how can you say what they're going to do next huh?) that the same people that tout web standards as the way to go, because it's the right way to do things, seem not to want to go all the way. (Also, I'll be the first to admit also that not all of the pages on all of the sites I maintain are using content negotiation - some are still XHTML being served as text/html). Always remember also - HTML 4.01 is still a valid standard - albeit not the newest one. Well, that's about the end of my little rant for now. Off for a four day weekend and to celebrate my birthday - take care :) Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products 903.454.0904 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] w http://www.strombergarchitectural.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carol Doersom Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:32 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] XML Declaration Collin, Then why would W3C use it on their own site? This is the first 4 lines of their source code for their home page: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en-US lang=en-US head profile=http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/#;meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / I'm not being argumentativejust curious. -- Carol ** 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] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow
Thanks Martin - that looks intriguing! Leave it with me and I'll attach the 'proper' menu and see how it all looks. Thanks too for all the other advice/help from you folks. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk - Original Message - From: Martin J. Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] you've been framed! - Pt2 : overflow designer wrote: So I've done some fiddling with overflow : auto, and failed. OK, maybe I'm missing a trick here (do please tell me!) but if not, it looks as though this solution isn't one, after all. I've never had a lot of success with that overflow idea either. The other way to go at it, though, is to use position:fixed on the menu, and let the rest of the page scroll normally. IE can be made to emulate fixed positioning through several different means. I've taken your source and modified it using IE's expressions to get what I think you're looking for: http://homepage.mac.com/martinlambert/test/kernow.html The one problem I can see is that IE users with Javascript turned off will have the menu scroll with the rest of the page. Up to you whether or not that's a deal breaker... -- Martin Lambert [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 ** ** 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] XML Declaration
Hi, I currently use php content negotiation and found the following article very informative and the script digestable: (http://loadaveragezero.com/vnav/labs/PHP/DOCTYPE.php) C PS Collin, Happy Birthday On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Collin Davis wrote: Carol, For one thing, as Patrick put it so well: [quote] I was suggesting that simply saying the W3C use it on their site is not an argument that holds too much weight. [/quote] Also, per the terminology defined by RFC 2119, none of the terms used for specifying MIME types are anything more than recommendations. It's really more of a best practices sort of question, as the XHTML Media types document states: [quote] Authors who wish to support both XHTML and HTML user agents MAY utilize content negotiation by serving HTML documents as 'text/html' and XHTML documents as 'application/xhtml+xml'. Also note that it is not necessary for XHTML documents served as 'application/xhtml+xml' to follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines. [/quote] That's the entire point I was making in my first response, when I said I didn't understand why people send XHTML as text/html, when it's so very simple to use content negotiation to serve HTML 4.01 as text/html to UAs that can't handle XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml (the proper way). I don't know if you read the article I linked to by Ian Hickson, but he brings across some very important points about serving XHTML as text/html. Basically, what it boils down to for me, is a lack of understanding as to why everybody who is jumping on the web standards bandwagon, with the desire as I understand it, to do things the right way - overlook or ignore the whole MIME type issue. I'll be the first to admit, when I first started with the web standards way of doing web pages, I served my XHTML pages as text/html, simply because I wasn't aware of the MIME type issue. Just seems odd to me (and even as far as the W3C site goes - but hey... how can you say what they're going to do next huh?) that the same people that tout web standards as the way to go, because it's the right way to do things, seem not to want to go all the way. (Also, I'll be the first to admit also that not all of the pages on all of the sites I maintain are using content negotiation - some are still XHTML being served as text/html). Always remember also - HTML 4.01 is still a valid standard - albeit not the newest one. Well, that's about the end of my little rant for now. Off for a four day weekend and to celebrate my birthday - take care :) Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products 903.454.0904 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] w http://www.strombergarchitectural.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carol Doersom Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:32 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] XML Declaration Collin, Then why would W3C use it on their own site? This is the first 4 lines of their source code for their home page: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en-US lang=en-US head profile=http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/#;meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 / I'm not being argumentativejust curious. -- Carol ** 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 true measure of ignorance is thinking intelligence is the solution to everything. -ck Chris Kennon Principal ckimedia (www.ckimedia.com) e-mail: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) blog: (http://thebardwire.blogspot.com/) ph: (619)429-3258 fax: (619)429-3258 ** 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 bug on mouse scrolling
designer wrote: Hi all, I notice a bug in Firefox (I think it is, anyway) which shows itself as a 2-3 pixel gap appearing in the bottom border of an image when the viewport is altered by scrolling with the mouse wheel. It doesn't affect all the images (strange) only some, and the image must be outside the viewport before scrolling. In other words, an image which is near the top of the 'page' must be scrolled off the page and back on again for the effect to happen. Conversely, images which are low down the page (and hence, below the viewport) appear with the gap on mouse scrolling down. I've googled, and there does seem to be stuff out there about mouse scrolling and Firefox, but the refs seem to relate to Firefox 0.8 and the comments are a bit chaotic to say the least. I was hoping that one of you wizards would know about this, know if there was a fix, or know if the new Firefox has fixed it? You can see the effect by looking at: www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/urban/cv/resume.html - I'm using Firefox 1.0, BTW. Many thanks for any help. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk P.S. Not often that Firefox is 'wrong' and IE 'right' ! :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** I've seen this happen when I scroll the page during downloading of a large image. I'm on a dial-up and if the image is large enough for me to watch it render, if I scroll the page while the image is still downloading, I may see gaps in the image. The gaps may stay there after the image has completed downloading, but, if I scroll it off the screen and back on, the whole image will be there. I'm not sure Id call this a bug. It's a feature. :-) Carl. ** 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 1.1 Presentation Module
Pardon me for continuing this off-topicness, but this just caught my attention BIG TIME. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:12:54 +, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, thank you for the usual Chewbacca defense...when a discussion on standards doesn't go the way you like, just point the validator at one of the other person's sites and point at their errors. The fact that one of my team (oh yes, team...or did you think I was the only one working on a large University site?) borked a recent change obviously diminishes any of the points I made in the discussion...*sigh* Worse is picking a personal/corporate site and think that showcases someone's abilities. Pardon me, but my markup doesn't show that I know all specs quite well, and funnily enough, people haven't even started to me on that. They know that sometimes you don't get to showcase your (maybe even supreme) knowledge through a personal site, or even worse, a client's site. Sorry people, but this is ridiculous. Patrick, hope you will just ignore this from now on. We oughta know better than that. (Respect to Chewbacca though.) -- Cheers, Rob. http://zooibaai.nl | http://digital-proof.org | http://chancecube.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] A web page crashing FireFox 1.01
Angus, I didn't have any trouble with that page using FF1.0.1. There are several malformed or missing as and /as in your html but I wouldn't expect that to cause your PC to crash. Maybe something else is going on. You might check the Firefox general forum at http://forums.mozillazine.org/index.php to see if anyone there has any ideas. Carol InfoForce Services (Angus MacKinnon) wrote: I have been working on upgradeing http://choroideremia.org to web standards. When I use FireFox 1.01 to go to http://choroideremia.org , my PC crashes and all I can do is a cold boot. Anyone know why? ** 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] A web page crashing FireFox 1.01
G'day I have been working on upgradeing http://choroideremia.org to web standards. When I use FireFox 1.01 to go to http://choroideremia.org , my PC crashes and all I can do is a cold boot. Anyone know why? I won't visit the site with Firefox as I'm not interested in crashing my PC. However, I ran it through the validator and it shows an immediate error in your DTD: Line 2, column 63: character / invalid: only delimiter , delimiter [, CDATA, NDATA, SDATA and parameter separators allowed ...p://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd / I suggest you remove the space and / from the end of the DTD (it should not be there) and see if the problem persists. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://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 **
