Re: [WSG] VIRUS!!!
Tim John wrote: Hi, Luckily, I thought it a little strange to receive an email from WSG informing me that I'd been removed from their mailing list. Especially as the email was from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and contained a download - which I ignored! I'm just wondering, as I use MailWasher Pro, I could bounce said email but would not then receive any pottentially legit emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any ideas? Two things, Either 1) the mail server was compromised, or 2) (far more likely) the email was spoofed. I don't have a copy of it, so I can't check myself, but can you see what the email has for IP addresses? Alan Trick __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.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] problem with utf-8 page encoding
tee: These are domains but the one Anders provided does have a path in Japanese character, and it works in FF. http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-iri-3 I looked at ja.wikipedia.org and they use this practise. What doesn't always works well, is links from pages with other charsets than UTF-8. IE and Opera (I have only O8) handles this correct, but not FF. Otherwise this is more of a server-side issue, to handle paths in a correct way. I'm currently developing a site in japanese, so I have to decide wich way to go. I thought I'd go with a-z0-9 in the paths, but now I'm not so sure, as wikipedia apparently thinks japanese characters in the path is stable enough! /Anders ** 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] alt tags and image captions
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:06:32 -0400, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to add to what Alan said... remember to put spaces between images unless their is good reason not to otherwise the following: img src='hello.png' alt=Hello/img src='world.png' alt=World/ will look like HelloWorld Perhaps put the space in the alt *attribute* if you get display problems with the space. Also, if you are going to put captions under the photo, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use an empty alt attribute. Doesn't the caption take its place anyway? Or for that matter, Bert-- if you're going to use a caption, why not get rid of the photo, too? Regards, David Laakso -- http://www.dlaakso.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] problem with utf-8 page encoding
I see that it is possible, but how many folks use it? Like an individual or a small business...is it common enough (yet)?
The below links aren't working in Safari...
I've been researching how alot of open source cms's and blog tools deal with this issue and they don't. Most of them either have some kind of conversion map (that is completely inadequate for the task) or they create urls that have little to do with the page title. For instance...
http://www.site.com/1-eaeraceceac.php // = the eaeraceceac is a botched character conversion from Chinese
or
http://www.site.com/page0001.php // = no reference to the page title whatsoever...
The Chinese websites I have looked up have latin1 style urls...no sign of Chinese text anywhere in there.
Aside of requiring a Chinese to enter in a latin page name for an article/entry/page I can't see any way possible to create urls (clean urls) using Chinese (non-latin) characters.
Ideas?
thanks...v
On Jun 7, 2005, at 1:11 AM, tee wrote:
Hi Vaska, as the w3c links Anders provided, it can. However I will be very
skeptical to using it as obviously browsers are not advance enough to handle
it, but then it maybe the server issue too. Sorry, I am too ignorant on this
matter to tell you anything more.
I did a test on Safari, FF, IE and Opera by entering domain in Chinese, only
FF picks up the address. Wonder how it works on PC browsers.
You may like to try:
Simplified Chinese sites:
A Chinese famous seach engine baidu.com> = ~{0Y6H~}
Or this 163.com> = ~{RWMx~}
Ebay China ebay.com.cn> = ~{RWH$~}
Traditional sites:
tw.yahoo.com> = ~{FfD~}
yam.com> = ~{^,JmLY~}
These are domains but the one Anders provided does have a path in Japanese
character, and it works in FF.
http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-iri-3
tee
From: Vaska.WSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:32:08 +0200
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] problem with utf-8 page encoding
tee, or really any Chinese person on this list,
one thing that I've been cuious about is how do you deal with creating
urls. this could sound extremely naive and i'm sorry for that. it's
my understanding that use of latin1 characters only is allowed to make
a url...or create folders etc...
http://www.this-is-latin1-text.com/and-this-is-a-folder/and-this-is-a-
filename.php
this wouldn't be possible...
http://www.~{6(;[EMAIL PROTECTED]~{Q!Pc~}.com/~{6(;[EMAIL PROTECTED]/~{6(;[EMAIL PROTECTED].php
i've been having to find a way to deal with this issue and so far i've
only come up with workarounds that just don't seem very user-friendly.
i was looking at conversion maps but it became a completely crazy
exercise...
v
**
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 so web standard question, but close
tee wrote: How does Asp/PHP works if amp' replace to because the '' is generated by the server. He said he can't find any information on PHP official website. This article from w3c might help in reference to PHP http://www.w3.org/QA/2005/04/php-session Regards Jason ** 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] absolute positioning, objects inputs
Title: absolute positioning, objects inputs http://www.engineerrecords.com/abspos.htm This page is a quick example, it's got form inputs and a flash file with nothing done to them, then OVER THE TOP of that, is a blue absolutely positioned div. In IE - The select appears above the div In Mozilla - The flash appears above the div Does anyone know a decent way around this?
Re: [WSG] please un subscribe me from this group
You can unsubscribe yourself at any time by going to http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/ (log in and select your preferences). -- ~john Just fair-weather words from a four-letter friend. ** 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] Valid characters in ID attribute
Hi, I'm writing a function to do all manner of clever stuff and need to create very complex ID attributes for links. As far as I know the only valid characters you can use in an ID (and as a class name, too) are: A-Z, a-z, 0-9, _, - Is that true? Are there any other valid characters that I can use in my IDs, without going the whole hog and creating a new DTD? Example of a link, just to make it clear which bit I mean: a href=index.html class=TheFunction id=TheFunction_%6237%6882/34_923%4623%4-234+6+3-2343Click here to run The Function/a Many thanks in advance Chris ** 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] Valid characters in ID attribute
Hi, Chris As from W3C: ID and NAME tokens must begin with a letter ([A-Za-z]) and may be followed by any number of letters, digits ([0-9]), hyphens (-), underscores (_), colons (:), and periods (.). But I'd avoid using underscore for id/class names... I've already had intermitent bugs with IE6 because of it (specially for links). Cheers, Angela -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Chris Taylor Envoyé : mardi 7 juin 2005 12:12 À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Objet : [WSG] Valid characters in ID attribute Hi, I'm writing a function to do all manner of clever stuff and need to create very complex ID attributes for links. As far as I know the only valid characters you can use in an ID (and as a class name, too) are: A-Z, a-z, 0-9, _, - Is that true? Are there any other valid characters that I can use in my IDs, without going the whole hog and creating a new DTD? Example of a link, just to make it clear which bit I mean: a href=index.html class=TheFunction id=TheFunction_%6237%6882/34_923%4623%4-234+6+3-2343Click here to run The Function/a Many thanks in advance Chris ** 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] Suckerfish IE woes
Can you repost that link for me Mike? It's not working atm... On 6/7/05, Mike Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://mlol.signify.co.nz/templates/searchtest.html In IE6 I can't fully fully mouseover the dropdown menu items before they disappear. It works in IE5 and Mozilla. The HTML and CSS validate. And the problem isn't consistent - sometimes I can mouseover most of the dropdown menu, other times none of it. Any ideas, before I lose the rest of my hair and look like Russ :) I'm hoping it's just something simple I've missed. Thanks Mike ** 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 **
[WSG] RE: absolute positioning, objects inputs - FIXED
Title: RE: absolute positioning, objects inputs - FIXED Sorry, cancel that! Have fixed it, you have to place an iframe directly below the absolutely positioned div on a lower z-index to fix selects showing through in IE. http://www.engineerrecords.com/abspos2.htm In my case (not the example above) I need _javascript_ to dynamically set it's x,y,width and height, but the above will fix it. I read that for flash in mozilla you have to set wmode=transparent. Jamie Mason -Original Message- From: Jamie Mason Sent: 07 June 2005 10:05 To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: absolute positioning, objects inputs http://www.engineerrecords.com/abspos.htm This page is a quick example, it's got form inputs and a flash file with nothing done to them, then OVER THE TOP of that, is a blue absolutely positioned div. In IE - The select appears above the div In Mozilla - The flash appears above the div Does anyone know a decent way around this?
Re: [WSG] Ten questions for Russ
On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... [Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it is, after all, XHTML. [Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML. What? ... I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with sensational headlines like XHTML is dead is irresponsible and fear mongering. This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making their products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of WSG members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the prize. Yes. Only critical thing for the Web standards is _understanding_ them (and HTML4 _is_ a standard, you know?), not just using something that is cool and much talked about. And understanding includes knowing pros and cons and when and _why_ to use each. What many miss is the fact, that Ian's article and fears is based on the way things work in the real life: oh, let's try something cool, oh it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares. And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot. So advocate semantics, advocate clean coding, advocate separation of content and presentation, advocate standards - not just a bunch of letters with that sexy X in front. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] Valid characters in ID attribute
Great, thanks. I'm very pleased that I can use periods and colons, that makes it much easier. Because this system will only be reading the ID through the DOM and not referring to it for style reasons I'm going to stick with the underscores. However I'll remember that advice for the future. Many thanks. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Gleitzman Sent: 07 June 2005 14:02 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Valid characters in ID attribute On 7 Jun 2005, at 9:35 PM, Ricci Angela wrote: But I'd avoid using underscore for id/class names... I've already had intermitent bugs with IE6 because of it (specially for links). Ditto for Safari... earlier versions, anyway. More recent versions may have been fixed, but I avoid them (underscores) anyway. N ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.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 ** ** 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] Valid characters in ID attribute
Chris Taylor wrote: Great, thanks. I'm very pleased that I can use periods and colons, that makes it much easier. Not sure this applies to your case but note that colons are fine in HTML but forbidden in XHTML. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.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] Valid characters in ID attribute
Thanks, obviously ideally I'd like my function to be XHTML-compliant as well. Fortunately I've worked out a way I can do what I want to do using just dashes, periods and alphanumeric characters. Thanks for all the help. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon Sent: 07 June 2005 16:22 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Valid characters in ID attribute Chris Taylor wrote: Great, thanks. I'm very pleased that I can use periods and colons, that makes it much easier. Not sure this applies to your case but note that colons are fine in HTML but forbidden in XHTML. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.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] Ten questions for Russ
Web standards should not be an exclusive club for those that do everything right from the get go. We need to welcome everybody to the club who makes an effort. And if they don't get it right the first time or the second time, that is okay! Thank you i needed to hear that. ** 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] Ten questions for Russ
Apparently the MIME/DOCTYPE argument of XHTML vs HTML has been going on for a while, a bit out of my scope. I only have one argument to contribute, which I don't believe I've seen before and may be of some value. On Jun 7, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Yes. Only critical thing for the Web standards is _understanding_ them (and HTML4 _is_ a standard, you know?), not just using something that is cool and much talked about. And understanding includes knowing pros and cons and when and _why_ to use each. I (my company, my team, my clients) am interested in standards only so far as they make the future more predictable. To make the future more predictable, my code today needs to be more regimented. HTML is a standard; it is broadly supported today, but its future is a predictable dead end. Any future versions of a document coded in HTML will need to be coded from scratch, or a custom parser will need to be made to convert it to some future standard (or close enough that hand-tweaking the rest is ok). Because HTML is more loosely defined, it is more difficult for teams to code to a regimented standard, making the prospects of even a custom parser unlikely in the future. Things don't *have* to become sloppy just because the team codes in HTML, but it will be difficult to tell if they are becoming sloppy -- so the future is not as predictable. XHTML is a standard; it is poorly supported today, but its future will allow it to be predictably converted to any other XML standard through standardized tools (offline, regardless of MIME type or DOCTYPE). It is a highly regimented standard, with tools already built to help coding teams make their code more predictable. XHTML is useful to me because I can swap out the DOCTYPE and serve it as HTML, because it *is* HTML, giving it broad support today while giving it a predictable and flexible future. This is, essentially, XHTML-compatible HTML 4.01 Strict. One of the central tenets of the arguments that we should be coding to HTML instead of XHTML is that the only or primary purpose of using XHTML is that you need XML-based abilities (namespaces, etc.). This is something I agree with. However, it is a mistake to believe that these abilities will be used today, when the document is created, or even tomorrow when it is served from your web server. It might be 5 years from now when the document is inserted as-is into an XML database archive, or 7 years from now when converted to XHTML2, or later this year when you get around to syndicating that content you've been marking up for the past 5 years. We are coding and serving HTML today; by coding it as XHTML-compatible we can extend the life of the document indefinitely. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** 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] Ten questions for Russ
On 6/7/05, Ben Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... XHTML is useful to me because I can swap out the DOCTYPE and serve it as HTML, because it *is* HTML, giving it broad support today while giving it a predictable and flexible future. This is, essentially, XHTML-compatible HTML 4.01 Strict. _Only_ because most popular browsers failed to implement SHORTTAG YES. If that would not be the case we could spares some flame-wars... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] Suckerfish IE woes
Jason sorry about that. I managed to get it working and took it down. The problem was I hadn't added a background colour for the ul and that was affecting the dropdown in IE. Imagine! :) Mike Jason Foss said: Can you repost that link for me Mike? It's not working atm... On 6/7/05, Mike Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://mlol.signify.co.nz/templates/searchtest.html In IE6 I can't fully fully mouseover the dropdown menu items before they disappear. It works in IE5 and Mozilla. The HTML and CSS validate. And the problem isn't consistent - sometimes I can mouseover most of the dropdown menu, other times none of it. Any ideas, before I lose the rest of my hair and look like Russ :) I'm hoping it's just something simple I've missed. Thanks Mike ** 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] Gecko based (CSS?) issue - Mac only
I am using a Simple View Flash gallery created by http://www.airtightinteractive.com/simpleviewer/ Everything works fine except on Gecko based browsers on Mac. It's unlikely that problem is caused by the swf file or XML data, so the only reason I could think is CSS Please see the screenshot here: http://greatgallery.net/ff.jpg The page: http://www.greatgallery.net/simpleviewer/figure_1.html When I click on (any of the) thumbnail or the big navigation arrow, the problem disappear but as soon as I point the cursor to address bar or click refresh, it comes back again. By the way, this page is not validated for good reason and I can live with it. I first tried a Flash Stay method but it creates unexpected result in IE 5.2 Mac (blue background occurs), IE 6 (big navigation arrow not function) and freezes the Opera. There isn't really good reason to used satay method for validation' sake, unless of course you can help me solve the problem (grin!) and enlighten me why it must validate. http://greatgallery.net/simpleviewer/figure_satay.html Note: I did my homework on Satay method long time ago and used it on many sites and have read the comment of the article (ALA) from page 1 to page 27 thoroughly few hours ago. I do not find a solution. Regards, tee ** 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: Possible Virus
Yeah thanks, we know. No need to repost it or send it to us. I'm trying to find a solution that won't screw up a lot of member's filters. Please just delete these if they continue. A word of advice. NEVER open any attachment from this list. We don't allow attachments (it's in the guidelines) so any attachment is probably a virus. Peter ** 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] A test
I have just blacklisted the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and this is to check that the list actually still works (as that is the list owner account). Sorry, no other way to test it and this is the only solution I can think of without changing the address it's sent from which may affect the filters people use. Fingers crossed! Regards, Peter Firminger *** http://webboy.net/ info@webboy.net +612 49983388 +614 12932269 *** ** 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] resizing problem
Title: Sec: u resizing problem Hi I've got a 3-column page: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~persia/final/saf_test/demo.html When reducing the width of the window below c. 930 pixels in IE 6, the content in the centre column jumps down the page about 500 pixels. In Firefox, it behaves as you would expect, just keeps reducing. Can anyone suggest the cause of this behaviour and a remedy? TIA Robin Gallagher
Re: [WSG] resizing problem
G'day Gallagher, Robin wrote: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~persia/final/saf_test/demo.html http://home.vicnet.net.au/~persia/final/saf_test/demo.html When reducing the width of the window below c. 930 pixels in IE 6, the content in the centre column jumps down the page about 500 pixels. In Firefox, it behaves as you would expect, just keeps reducing. Can anyone suggest the cause of this behaviour and a remedy? Apart from 22 validation errors, problematic javascript and the document being served with the wrong mime type for xhtml1.1? The problem is likely in your use of pixels for sizing the right column, plus the width of the image in the centre column. Together they take up too much space. One remedy would be to give images in the centre column a % width rather than fixing it in pixels. You could add a max-width and max-height as well, so it doesn't get too big (in browsers that support max-width and max-height) There are still a lot of people with browser windows that are 760px or less in width. 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 **
