Re: [WSG] XML Declaration
Lachlan Hunt wrote: .html opens normally in any browser .xhtml Firefox will report well-formedness errors, page info dialog will typically show application/xhtml+xml. Just to make sure I've got it (somewhat) right at my end... I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up, so for the last 2 years I've used the following procedure: - Creating an xhtml 1.0 document. - Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'. - Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension '.xhtml' to browsers that can make anything out of it - Opera, Moz/FF, Safari - internally and on line. Info: application/xhtml+xml - no errors - no apparent problems. - Changing the extension down to '.html' to get wide-spread support, with no additional changes to the document. - Run it through any browser I care to support - and maybe a few others and the validator for good measure - no apparent problems. Is this enough 'real world' testing in order to secure quality of code so it can be served as either 'application/xhtml+xml' or 'text/html' by choice ? regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] standards or confusion?
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which (although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of course, I had to overcome the obstacle of thinking in terms of content/presentation and doing away with tables etc, but once I'd got through the trauma of floats etc it all made sense. I imagine that's much the same for all of us. However, just lately (a few months maybe) there has been an increasing number of folk arguing about xhtml and xml and mime types and oh dear dear, headaches all around. The result? I now feel totally confused (I admit I don't really understand all that mime stuff - yet) but more importantly, my confidence has gone. Since Zeldman (and lots of others) told me it was a good idea to write xhml strict I've done exactly that - every site I've done in the last year has been done in xhtml strict. I did it because people were telling me that it was a good thing, so that what I've done was easily portable later on. So have I done a daft thing? I really don't know! I'm absolutely positive I'm not alone in feeling this insecurity and, on the face of it, Lachlan may well have a point about newcomers keeping it simple at first. What I do know is that, like T.R.Valentine, I do wish someone could tell me [definitively] how this xhtml should be presented/marked up so I can feel a bit happier again . . . Just thinking out loud, and emnot/em wanting a mass of mails from different camps all claiming different things are the 'right' answer. -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XML Declaration
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up, so for the last 2 years I've used the following procedure: - Creating an xhtml 1.0 document. - Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'. - Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension '.xhtml' to browsers that can make anything out of it - Opera, Moz/FF, Safari - internally and on line. Info: application/xhtml+xml - no errors - no apparent problems. - Changing the extension down to '.html' to get wide-spread support, with no additional changes to the document. - Run it through any browser I care to support - and maybe a few others and the validator for good measure - no apparent problems. Is this enough 'real world' testing in order to secure quality of code so it can be served as either 'application/xhtml+xml' or 'text/html' by choice ? Yes, because you have developed and tested under both XHTML and HTML conditions, you already know your pages will survive the transition to true XML when the time comes. You would have already worked out any incompatibilities between the handling of scripts, stylesheets, encoding issues, etc. You are clearly not a beginner and you have made a very informed choice, and that is fine. Beginners, however, would not, nor can they be expected to be aware of all these issues and more often then not, develop XHTML in a purely HTML environment. It is this that will cause all the problems in the future, if they ever attempt to switch to true XML, and why I very strongly advocate that beginners start with HTML, not XHTML. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] standards or confusion?
Oddly enough I've been thinking about making a similar post. I would have said all you said and then added two more tidbits. 1. Just read on some blog (pointed to from this list) where doctypes are useful only for validation, otherwise of no use. 2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables and the usual tag soup. I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with the modern way of doing things. To his various questions as to why, I gave all the right answers, but in the end he said if it works, why change? I viewed his site in all my various MAC WIN browsers, it worked just fine in all of them. Bob Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which (although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of course, I had to overcome the obstacle of thinking in terms of content/presentation and doing away with tables etc, but once I'd got through the trauma of floats etc it all made sense. I imagine that's much the same for all of us. However, just lately (a few months maybe) there has been an increasing number of folk arguing about xhtml and xml and mime types and oh dear dear, headaches all around. The result? I now feel totally confused (I admit I don't really understand all that mime stuff - yet) but more importantly, my confidence has gone. Since Zeldman (and lots of others) told me it was a good idea to write xhml strict I've done exactly that - every site I've done in the last year has been done in xhtml strict. I did it because people were telling me that it was a good thing, so that what I've done was easily portable later on. So have I done a daft thing? I really don't know! I'm absolutely positive I'm not alone in feeling this insecurity and, on the face of it, Lachlan may well have a point about newcomers keeping it simple at first. What I do know is that, like T.R.Valentine, I do wish someone could tell me [definitively] how this xhtml should be presented/marked up so I can feel a bit happier again . . . Just thinking out loud, and emnot/em wanting a mass of mails from different camps all claiming different things are the 'right' answer. -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] standards or confusion?
On 04/12/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bob, please understand any blunt or straightforward response is by no means a personal attack on you, but I feel the rant mode growing inside of me :-) Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which (although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of course, I had to overcome the obstacle of thinking in terms of content/presentation and doing away with tables etc, but once I'd got through the trauma of floats etc it all made sense. I imagine that's much the same for all of us. As grown-ups, I assume everybody should be aware that in life and human tasks, things ain't hardly ever rosy in the garden. The ways of the world are subtle and web design, being part of the world, has its number of subtle and complicated issues. Did you expect otherwise? That said, may I remember everybody that using for example HTML 4.01 + CSS 2.1 as standards, together with best practices as semantic markup, is well regarded all across the universe. Even people who think that XHTML is ready for prime time won't frown upon a HTML Strict DOCTYPE, methinks. Some people will frown upon XHTML Doctypes. That's because there's a theoretical discussion among us, practicioners of this craft. That's not a headache. That's a natural part of any art, craft or science. And frankly, the issues involved, whichever your take, are not really that hard to grasp. A couple of hours reading some blog posts and specs will give you a clear panorama of the problems and 'hot issues' being discussed. I find very amusing people who want to be 'future-proof' but don't want to bother with 'mime types and all that complicated stuff'. If someone really can't, or don't want to, deal with the current level of complexity, I claim she's hardly 'future-proof', because that mindset, the 'I want easy answers' mentality, is gonna crash hard with XHTML 2, XForms, etc. And sorry if you thougth that doing what guru X is doing was gonna save you from taking your own decissions or doing your homework. It doesn't work this way, never has and never will. Zeldman can't take you from the hand all the time. No one can. Some I won't tell you which option is better. I'm just warning you that complaining yourself away from the learning process isn't gonna work. Good web design is beautiful, but it's hard. The more the possibilities grow, the higher the complexity of the tasks. It happens with everything. It's up to the individual to consider if it's worth the effort or a career shift is in order :-) Thanks for putting up with my rant. Excuse my english (I hope it's at least comprehensible) -- Manuel a veces :) a veces :( pero siempre trabajando duro para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 ¡Ah! y escribiendo en Logicola: http://logicola.simplelogica.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] standards or confusion?
On 04/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables and the usual tag soup. I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with the modern way of doing things. To his various questions as to why, I gave all the right answers, but in the end he said if it works, why change? I viewed his site in all my various MAC WIN browsers, it worked just fine in all of them. Are you asking for the benefits of standards-based design or the ROI of it? It's on like 100 trillions of documents and books written since 2001. Give him a Zeldman or Cederholm book for Christmas :-) -- Manuel a veces :) a veces :( pero siempre trabajando duro para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 ¡Ah! y escribiendo en Logicola: http://logicola.simplelogica.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] standards or confusion?
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through trying to get a complicated layout to work in as many browsers. I'm all for standards and everything else this list is about, but I do feel we might be spending a lot of time preparing for a State Dinner when what we are really going to attend is a come-as-you- are BBQ in the backyard. On 04/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables and the usual tag soup. I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with the modern way of doing things. To his various questions as to why, I gave all the right answers, but in the end he said if it works, why change? I viewed his site in all my various MAC WIN browsers, it worked just fine in all of them. Are you asking for the benefits of standards-based design or the ROI of it? It's on like 100 trillions of documents and books written since 2001. Give him a Zeldman or Cederholm book for Christmas :-) -- Manuel a veces :) a veces :( pero siempre trabajando duro para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 ¡Ah! y escribiendo en Logicola: http://logicola.simplelogica.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 ** ** 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] standards or confusion?
designer wrote: Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which (although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. Yes, that is a very good idea. I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of course, I had to overcome the obstacle of thinking in terms of content/presentation and doing away with tables etc, but once I'd got through the trauma of floats etc it all made sense. I imagine that's much the same for all of us. Yes, we all face those obstacles to begin with and you've done well to get this far already. However, just lately (a few months maybe) there has been an increasing number of folk arguing about xhtml and xml and mime types and oh dear dear, headaches all around. The result? I now feel totally confused Confusion amongst beginners about all of these issues is one of the primary reasons why XHTML is not suitable for beginners, because an understanding of them is required to be learnt by anyone attempting to use XHTML. However, the biggest problem is not that XHTML is complicated, anyone can learn it if they put in the effort, it's that those of teaching the beginners are not united on the issue. With different information coming at you from all different sides, there is no wonder you are confused by it all. (I admit I don't really understand all that mime stuff - yet) but more importantly, my confidence has gone. It's important that you don't lose your confidence, as I said you've done extremely well to get where you are and you should be proud of yourself and your efforts. By far, the most important issue facing beginners with regards to standards is the separation of semantics, presentation and behavioural layers into well structured, valid, non-presentational markup; CSS and javascript, respectively, and it sounds like you've already made significant steps toward these goals already. The other major issue involved, and the one we have been discussing that has resulted your confusion and lack of confidence, relates to in-depth technical issues of the medium. MIME types are perhaps one of the most confusing, as they don't seem to directly relate to how you perceive the way the web or your development tools work. I will briefly discuss them for you at the end of this e-mail. Since Zeldman (and lots of others) told me it was a good idea to write xhml strict I've done exactly that In theory, authoring in XHTML does have significant benefits over HTML. However, the information often left out by those advocating its use by beginners can have significant consequences (many of which have been discussed in recent threads). Authoring XHTML requires it be developed in an XML environment and at least tested extensively under XML conditions (even if it will eventually be served to the world as HTML). The fact is that precisely none of the purported benefits of XHTML are sustained in a purely HTML authoring environment, and that is precisely how the vast majority of beginners, including yourself, actually end up developing XHTML, simply because a) information is left out and b) as evidenced by your e-mail today, beginners cannot be expected to understand it all anyway. every site I've done in the last year has been done in xhtml strict. I did it because people were telling me that it was a good thing, so that what I've done was easily portable later on. So have I done a daft thing? I really don't know! Firstly, to be clear, I do believe XHTML is a very good thing and there are significant benefits to using it. So, people telling you to use XHTML is not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is that you were not ready for it at the time. Given your current experience, however, you may now be ready to start learning it all. I don't think you have done a daft thing, we all need to learn some how. Whether or you not learned in the most ideal way can be, and is being, questioned; but regardless of the answer you've still learned very valuable lessons with regards to standards based development, and as I said, that is the most important thing. MIME Types As I promised, this is a (not so) brief discussion of MIME types and how they relate to this discussion of HTML vs. XHTML. Mime types are the means by which applications should determine how to handle the content they receive from the web. Despite popular misconceptions (and the behaviour of some broken web browsers in some cases), file extensions are not supposed to used by the browser to determine what to do with the file, file extensions are supposed to be meaningless in the context of the web. This may seem confusing at first because when you write an HTML file, you give it a .htm or .html extension and that seems to be how it knows what type of file it is. In many ways, this is indeed the case, but there is a
Re: [WSG] standards or confusion?
Bob Schwartz wrote: None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through trying to get a complicated layout to work in as many browsers. So is the core of the issue not designing with CSS vs tables, rather than with the standards themselves? -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.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] Newcomers and Web Standards
[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some other method.] You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about 15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to people doing this but I would not waste CPU cycles for this. [Lachlan wrote: ...it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools] Now, let's have a race; I'll write code to convert XHTML to HTML using XML tools and you write code to convert HTML to XHTML using SGML tools. Sorry, I'm kidding; just wanted to illustrate the ease of use of XML tools over SGML tools :-) [Lachlan wrote: I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.] Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 12/3/2005 11:25 PM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data because it is not easily parsable from a content management perspective. Yes it is, it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools. This all comes down to using the right tool for the job. Content written in HTML cannot easily be re-purposed. If you have 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in all of them, it is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If the documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT. The same is true of HTML, it just requires that you use SGML tools to process it, rather than XML tools, and SGML tools have been available for much longer than XML tools; they're just not so widely deployed because HTML is rarely treated as an application of SGML anyway. Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some other method. So we need to start writing content in XML and if it's content destined for the Web, then XHTML is perfect. The next step is: if you write it in XHTML, then why not serve it in XHTML (even if right now it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML). Such use cases require XML tools, with a CMS that uses such tools to guarantee well-formed input and output. It also requires that the author be competent enough to develop and test and a completely XML environment, even if it's delivered to the world as text/html. I do agree that XHTML on the back end does have significant authoring benefits for those experienced and competent enough to do so, but we're talking about beginners who are unlikely to have such tools at their disposal and are extremely likely to be developing and testing in an HTML environment. As I have said many times, learning XHTML that way is not a good idea, and it is the responsibility of those of us teaching it to make sure it is learned correctly, not incorrectly as you seem to be pushing. Additionally, how many commonly used, off-the-shelf CMSs that claim to output XHTML as text/html, or in fact any CMS regardless of its output, actually make use of XML tools? WordPress certainly doesn't, it uses string substitutions and doesn't guarantee well-formed output, as do others such as MovableType, Blogger, etc. I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools. As of yet, I have not found any that do, let alone guarantee 100% well-formed output. ** 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] Newcomers and Web Standards
On 12/4/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.
Though the moment that someone starts doing some scripting they are
doomed probably. (As it differs.) Or body { background:#eee } in
CSS...
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
**
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] standards or confusion?
On 04/12/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So is the core of the issue not designing with CSS vs tables, rather than with the standards themselves? Yes, there's an ongoing confusion between standards compliance (validation) and observance of good practices (css layouts, etc.) -- Manuel a veces :) a veces :( pero siempre trabajando duro para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 ¡Ah! y escribiendo en Logicola: http://logicola.simplelogica.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] Newcomers and Web Standards
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Lachlan wrote: I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools. Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard. I meant on the back end. The use of XStandard on the front end doesn't guarentee well formed input or output from all sources. What about user's leaving comments with embedded markup, trackbacks, pingbacks, etc. What about stripping and replacing named entity references? What about handling character encoding issues properly, which is supposed to cause fatal well-formedness errors (although it doesn't in Gecko). What if a user doesn't install the XStandard plugin and just uses a text area for input? All of these issues require proper XML processing on the back end, and you can't seriously claim that all CMSs using XStandard on the front end, do so on the back end too. Plus, you still run into trouble when the user includes scripts and styles written for text/html and untested in XML. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards - ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED Please do not reply to this thread on list. If you wish to answer the original question, please do so offlist. Reason for closure: This thread has moved a long way from the original question. It has now moved into the area of strongly held personal opinions. This is just one step away from things getting messy. If you are concerned about the closing of this thread, do not express your opinion/concern/anger/joy to the list. Instead, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks you Russ I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools. Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard. I meant on the back end. The use of XStandard on the front end doesn't guarentee well formed input or output from all sources. ** 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
- Creating an xhtml 1.0 document. - Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'. - Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension '.xhtml' to browsers that can make anything out of it - Opera, Moz/FF, Safari - internally and on line. Info: application/xhtml+xml - no errors - no apparent problems. - Changing the extension down to '.html' to get wide-spread support, with no additional changes to the document. - Run it through any browser I care to support - and maybe a few others and the validator for good measure - no apparent problems. Greetings everyone: line 2 above, how do you convert to xml? I have Tidy installed on mozilla/fx but i don't see anyway to convert. More explanation would be appreciated! i'm really appreciating these threads. i've been sticking with html4.01 until i understand what i'm doing, maybe that time is approaching? maybe... i ran into the information about how complicated all this was about 7 months ago, 3 months or so after i started learning css-p. so i don't have any new websites as xhtml. anyways, some elaboration by you Georg or anyone else obviously, on your methods would be appreciated. Thanks! Donna ** 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] standards or confusion?
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables and the usual tag soup. I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with the modern way of doing things. To his various questions as to why, I gave all the right answers, but in the end he said if it works, why change? I viewed his site in all my various MAC WIN browsers, it worked just fine in all of them. Tables + tag soup = hacking. Your friend really needs to get with it. Validation is not the main issue, it's accessibility. Speed is important too. If you can convince him to use CSS (if you can't, you have a lot to learn too, or he is dumb) then he will want to get browsers out of quirks mode, since that is where the real differences show. Then he will have to have a doctype, to make sure that browsers (mostly) follow the rules. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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
Donna Jones wrote: - Creating an xhtml 1.0 document. - Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'. ... line 2 above, how do you convert to xml? I have Tidy installed on mozilla/fx but i don't see anyway to convert. More explanation would be appreciated! I use a rather old version of Tidy for my own work... HTML Tidy for Windows (vers 1st January 2002), see www.w3.org ...and set it like the following. Tidy Script editor - tidy-mark: false wrap: 120 quote-marks: true uppercase-tags: false fix-backslash: false literal-attributes: true numeric-entities: true output-xml: true - A short list with only the commands I'm interested in ATM. I'm a minimalist, and these commands does the job for me - for now. See the last line in that list - and the others too. Similar command-options can be found for Tidy in http://www.tswebeditor.tk/ (that I use when debugging other people's pages). Other editors, that has Tidy integrated, should give access to these command-options too, I guess. More about how I use editors and Tidy... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_07.html regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] standards or confusion?
My biggest reason for following standards originally was selfish: vastly increased ease of maintainability. When you separate content from presentation, you can change the presentation aspect of the site once and it goes into effect across the entire site. I really, really liked that aspect of it. Pages load faster thanks to smaller file sizes, and site visitors notice that. There are other benefits, but those were what convinced me. Leslie Riggs None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through trying to get a complicated layout to work in as many browsers. I'm all for standards and everything else this list is about, but I do feel we might be spending a lot of time preparing for a State Dinner when what we are really going to attend is a come-as-you- are BBQ in the backyard. On 04/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables and the usual tag soup. I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with the modern way of doing things. To his various questions as to why, I gave all the right answers, but in the end he said if it works, why change? I viewed his site in all my various MAC WIN browsers, it worked just fine in all of them. Are you asking for the benefits of standards-based design or the ROI of it? It's on like 100 trillions of documents and books written since 2001. Give him a Zeldman or Cederholm book for Christmas :-) -- Manuel a veces :) a veces :( pero siempre trabajando duro para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 ¡Ah! y escribiendo en Logicola: http://logicola.simplelogica.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 ** ** 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
Lachlan Hunt said: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up, so for the last 2 years I've used the following procedure: - Creating an xhtml 1.0 document. - Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'. - Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension '.xhtml' to browsers that can make anything out of it - Opera, Moz/FF, Safari - internally and on line. Info: application/xhtml+xml - no errors - no apparent problems. - Changing the extension down to '.html' to get wide-spread support, with no additional changes to the document. - Run it through any browser I care to support - and maybe a few others and the validator for good measure - no apparent problems. Is this enough 'real world' testing in order to secure quality of code so it can be served as either 'application/xhtml+xml' or 'text/html' by choice ? Yes, because you have developed and tested under both XHTML and HTML conditions, you already know your pages will survive the transition to true XML when the time comes. You would have already worked out any incompatibilities between the handling of scripts, stylesheets, encoding issues, etc. You are clearly not a beginner and you have made a very informed choice, and that is fine. Beginners, however, would not, nor can they be expected to be aware of all these issues and more often then not, develop XHTML in a purely HTML environment. It is this that will cause all the problems in the future, if they ever attempt to switch to true XML, and why I very strongly advocate that beginners start with HTML, not XHTML. Well, it took some time, but I'm glad we've cleared that up. This is certainly more imformative for a beginner than simply telling them to use HTML. Perhaps this post can be bumped again with a more appropriate title: [SUMMARY] HOW TO USE XHTML IN 2005 complete with the shouting ;-) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] standards or confusion?
Hi Lachlan, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [snipped] MIME Types As I promised, this is a (not so) brief discussion of MIME types and how they relate to this discussion of HTML vs. XHTML. I will certainly read and inwardly digest this! Many thanks, Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] standards or confusion?
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through trying to get a complicated layout to work in as many browsers. I'm all for standards and everything else this list is about, but I do feel we might be spending a lot of time preparing for a State Dinner when what we are really going to attend is a come-as-you- are BBQ in the backyard. If it's HTML 2.0 I assume it's got numerous font tags mixed in with the multiple nested tables. I guess you and you're friend only create web sites as a once of service and don't maintain them for your clients because maintaining tag soup is not fun and that is the biggest advantage of CSS and tableless layouts. Sure when you first start out creating tableless layouts they take a while, but it gets easier and faster the more you do it - probably like when you first learn how to design layouts using tables. -- Ben Wong e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.onehero.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] 2-col question
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this list's archives, or on the web. I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px). Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width doesn't seem to work for IE. Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column slides under the righthand column. Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells, this is a no-brainer. I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at the moment. ** 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] 2-col question
body
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
ivanovitch wrote:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a
fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column
contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to
take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px).
Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break
the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width
doesn't seem to work for IE.
Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my
efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very
small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column
slides under the righthand column.
Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right
column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells,
this is a no-brainer.
I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at the moment.
**
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] 2-col question
Instead of trying to float the columns next to each other, you could avoid much pain to the brain by wrapping the fixed image column inside the content column. -- | ||| | ||| | main | image || | content||| | ||| | ||| -- Or you could always just apply a 190px right-margin to your content float. ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ivanovitch Sent: Monday, 5 December 2005 9:32 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] 2-col question Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this list's archives, or on the web. I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px). Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width doesn't seem to work for IE. Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column slides under the righthand column. Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells, this is a no-brainer. I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at the moment. ** 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] 2-col question
ivanovitch escribió:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a
fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column
contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to
take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px).
Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break
the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width
doesn't seem to work for IE.
Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my
efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very
small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column
slides under the righthand column.
Have you checked something like...
div#right {float:right; width:190px}
div#left {margin-right:190px}
?
**
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] 2-col question
Samuel Richardson wrote:
body
div id="sidebar"/div
div id="content"/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
This is the exact design of my site http://www.smashignred.com except
the side bar is on the left. I wrap the content and the sidebar in a
pagewrapper and then do as above. The numbers are different though. I
have the sidebar width of 180px and the left margin of the content box
is 220px which gives me a simple space without having to ad padding.
Jay Gilmore
Developer/Consultant
Affordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for
Real Small Business.
SmashingRed Web Marketing
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ivanovitch wrote:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm
asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a
fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column
contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to
take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px).
Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break
the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width
doesn't seem to work for IE.
Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my
efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very
small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column
slides under the righthand column.
Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right
column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells,
this is a no-brainer.
I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at
the moment.
**
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] 2-col question
I forgot to add, if you want to apply a background image or footer then
wrap then
body
div id=contentwrap
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
div style=clear : both;nbsp;/div
/div
/body
Add background images to the #contentwrap for a faux column effect, also
if you add a footer div after #contentwrap it will automatically appear
after whichever column is the longest out of #sidebar or #content. Their
are also better ways of putting content inside the clear div (firefox
requires something to be in it to work) in the nbsp; (see the CSS
content-after)
Samuel
Samuel Richardson wrote:
body
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
ivanovitch wrote:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a
fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column
contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to
take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px).
Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break
the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width
doesn't seem to work for IE.
Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my
efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window very
small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left column
slides under the righthand column.
Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right
column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells,
this is a no-brainer.
I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at
the moment.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] 2-col question
If you have any problems the clear div being applied after the column divs
(as I did) you can try applying the following to the contentwrap div, and
any other container that holds floats.
/* *** Float containers fix:
http://www.csscreator.com/attributes/containedfloat.php *** */
.clearfix:after {
content: .;
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
}
.clearfix{display: inline-table;}
/* Hides from IE-mac \*/
* html .clearfix{height: 1%;}
.clearfix{display: block;}
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2005 10:02 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] 2-col question
I forgot to add, if you want to apply a background image or footer then wrap
then
body
div id=contentwrap
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
div style=clear : both;nbsp;/div
/div
/body
Add background images to the #contentwrap for a faux column effect, also if
you add a footer div after #contentwrap it will automatically appear after
whichever column is the longest out of #sidebar or #content. Their are also
better ways of putting content inside the clear div (firefox requires
something to be in it to work) in the nbsp; (see the CSS
content-after)
Samuel
Samuel Richardson wrote:
body
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
ivanovitch wrote:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if
this sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in
this list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column (sidebar) is to be a
fixed width (190px). This is entirely because the right column
contains an image in every instance. But I want the left column to
take up the remainder of the space (viewport width - 190px).
Everything that I've seen or reviewed works fine if I wish to break
the columns by percentage, or pixel widths on both. And min-width
doesn't seem to work for IE.
Having divved up some non-table examples using the usual suspects, my
efforts result in my finding that when making the viewport window
very small (or when enlarging the text to huge sizes), the left
column slides under the righthand column.
Do I need to use double-divs to set a width for the troublesome right
column? The most frustrating part of this is using tables and cells,
this is a no-brainer.
I'd show you an example of where I'm at, but my test site is down at
the moment.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] 2-col question
There's a simpler way of clearing floats without using the clear
attribute.
If you apply overflow: hidden; to the container DIV it will then
expand to contain all the floats (as long as a height hasn't been
specified, then it will possibly clip the floats).
The only issue with this is that IE needs a width (a few other
attributes work as well) to make its special float rendering engine
kick in, so I generally give the DIV a width of 100%; which DIVs do by
default so there are unusually no adverse effects.
Here's the code:
-
.expand
{
width: 100%;
overflow: hidden;
}
-
For a more detailed description of the above method look at
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html;, which includes the names
of who first found this method.
Paul Noone wrote:
If you have any problems the clear div being applied after the column divs
(as I did) you can try applying the following to the contentwrap div, and
any other container that holds floats.
/* *** Float containers fix:
http://www.csscreator.com/attributes/containedfloat.php *** */
.clearfix:after {
content: .;
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
}
.clearfix{display: inline-table;}
/* Hides from IE-mac \*/
* html .clearfix{height: 1%;}
.clearfix{display: block;}
--
Mark White
Implementation Specialist
Squiz.net
T: 02 9568 6866
F: 02 9568 6733
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.squiz.net | http://matrix.squiz.net
. Open Source - Own it - Squiz.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] Newcomers and Web Standards
I'm going to have to go with Lachlan on this one. IE has as much support for XHTML as it does for application/foo-bar. If I serve my application/foo-bar as text/plain, IE will display the page as plain text. If it 'looks' correct that is only a coincidence. More importantly IE's HTML parser is not just a standard SGML parser for certain cases. Try using a DTD and specifying extra entities. HTML has been broken because people did not follow the specs. Indeed, if browsers started treating entities properly there would be an increadible amount of pages broken for missuse of . If you want another potentially good thing gone bad from missuse you don't have to look any furthur than RSS and it's 9 (I think, but it could easily be higher) almost completely incompatible versions. And for each version there's people sending it with at least 3 different mime-types. Sometimes people escape they're encoding and sometimes they don't. It's no wonder that you'll often see lt;emgt; and such in rss headlines. Finally XHTML is XML that looks like HTML, not the other way around. I don't think it's a good idea to teach newcomers about XHTML until they have a fairly good grasp of what XML is - otherwise they'll just be doing glorified HTML with /'s at the end of empty elements. On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 09:50 -0500, Vlad Alexander wrote: [Lachlan wrote: IE has no native support for XHTML at all.] So it's not native support but there _is_ support. How can you tell if there is support, well, you do test-cases. If one can produce a test-case of valid XHTML served as HTML to IE and IE parses it correctly, then there is support. Why should we care if IE use an SGML or an XML parser to process the markup? The main thing is that markup is parsed correctly and there is no data loss. How can IE do this reliably? Because valid XHTML markup written to comparability guidelines is a sub-set of HTML. __ 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 **
[WSG] The closed XML editor thread (Newcomers and Web Standards)
This closed discussion is quite welcome and appropriate to continue on the CMS list. If you are not on this list, log in to http://webstandardsgroup.org/ and follow the link Edit your login details and mail list subscriptions then select the Full CMS list radio button to participate. Regards, Peter Firminger *** http://webboy.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +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 **
Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards
Alan Trick wrote: If you want another potentially good thing gone bad from missuse you don't have to look any furthur than RSS and it's 9 (I think, but it could easily be higher) almost completely incompatible versions. It was 10 at last count, 9 mentioned here http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss plus RSS 1.1 which was developed a little more recently. http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/01/rss-11 That leaves Atom 1.0 as the only feed format people should bother using, now that Atom 0.3 is officially deprecated. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards- THREAD CLOSED
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED AGAIN! ** 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] 2-col question
Thanks everyone: it was the float clearing that proved to be the thorn
in my side (right side). And the IE-Mac fix is also appreciated.
Only one more nut to crack with the site. I'll return for assistance
with another right floater if I can't use what I've just learned.
Thanks again: a terrific resource!
On 05/12/05, Mark White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a simpler way of clearing floats without using the clear
attribute.
If you apply overflow: hidden; to the container DIV it will then
expand to contain all the floats (as long as a height hasn't been
specified, then it will possibly clip the floats).
The only issue with this is that IE needs a width (a few other
attributes work as well) to make its special float rendering engine
kick in, so I generally give the DIV a width of 100%; which DIVs do by
default so there are unusually no adverse effects.
Here's the code:
-
.expand
{
width: 100%;
overflow: hidden;
}
-
For a more detailed description of the above method look at
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html;, which includes the names
of who first found this method.
Paul Noone wrote:
If you have any problems the clear div being applied after the column divs
(as I did) you can try applying the following to the contentwrap div, and
any other container that holds floats.
/* *** Float containers fix:
http://www.csscreator.com/attributes/containedfloat.php *** */
.clearfix:after {
content: .;
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
}
.clearfix{display: inline-table;}
/* Hides from IE-mac \*/
* html .clearfix{height: 1%;}
.clearfix{display: block;}
--
Mark White
Implementation Specialist
Squiz.net
T: 02 9568 6866
F: 02 9568 6733
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.squiz.net | http://matrix.squiz.net
. Open Source - Own it - Squiz.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
**
**
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] Oracle/Peoplesoft and accessibility/standard code
Hi there, - Does anyone know of an accessible PeopleSoft built application? I haven't heard of one which is what I would call accessible :) - Has the issue of PeopleSoft generated code been an issue or is the responsibility that of the company using it? The PS code is all tables and bad markup - so, it's the code, not the client. - Does anyone know if, besides white papers, Oracle/PeopleSoft are actually working on standard code that is accessible? Can't say for sure. PS claim their current product is accessible, so it's very difficult to evaluate any claim they make :) I have heard hope for better in Fusion, since the current code base would just take too long to overhaul. - How customizable is the HTML PeopleSoft spits out? You can customise bits and pieces, but overall it's not customisable. PS would say otherwise; and you can probably customise it with a vast injection of time and money; but in a practical sense with a real-world budget no, it's not customisable. You might be able to change a few colours and a logo. You can probably tell I'm not a fan of PS :) cheers, h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
