Re: [WSG] CSS - Fixing PNG Transparency Issues in IE?
Well, hmmm I try it with java disabled in IE, and it still works. 2005/12/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 12/8/05, Matthew Cruickshank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Srecko Micic wrote: But what if Java is disabled in browser ? Then it won't work anyway, because all methods I've seen use progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader() which is itself a call via Javascript. (fairly sure that's the case) I'm not sure you are right. I thought DX was a call to DirectX, not Javascript, so the filter relies on the user having DirectX installed. If JS is off it should still work. Anyone else concur? -- -- 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 ** ** 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] CSS - Fixing PNG Transparency Issues in IE?
On 12/9/05, Srecko Micic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, hmmm I try it with java disabled in IE, and it still works. That's what I thought. Of course, if your users don't have DirectX, the filter won't work, but what's the likelihood of that? -- -- 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] Dynamic Styles - Inline? What?
Definitly .htaccess 2005/12/9, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]: .htaccess maybe? On 12/9/05, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not so. It depends on Apache and how it's configured. You can check how PHP is set up by creating a new PHP page and just inlcude the following: ?php phpinfo() ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Stagg Sent: Friday, 9 December 2005 11:25 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Dynamic Styles - Inline? What? In fact, I chickened out and used the IMG tag solution. however My web host uses PHP as a CGI module, I think, therefore, that it only handles files with .php extension? Stephen Linda Harms wrote: Stephen, Several options actually are available on the PHP side. -- you CAN script the CSS to select the appropriate background image. -- multiple css files, use php to call the appropriate one. I have an example available if you're interested. Linda (breaking away from normal lurk mode) - Original Message - From: Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WSG wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: [WSG] Dynamic Styles - Inline? What? One site that I'm currently coding (http://www.minimology.co.uk/everest) uses some simple PHP to manage a few dynamic elements on the pages. One of these elements (will be | is) 2 Sponsors logos at the top of each page which will go into the template. I want the links to be randomly selected from a list and to use an FIR derivation to show the relevant company logos in an accessible manner. I also, however, want the user to be able to edit an xml file describing the attributes of the various sponsors and to add new ones. Normally I would define the FIR images in a linked x.css file but this is not scriptable. How does the list suggest the tags should be styled in this case? * Inline stylesheets? * Linked .php with content-type of text/css? * style= attribute? Any thoughts?? Thanks Stephen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 12/7/2005 ** 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 ** -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your feeds. ;) From the article itself: This is a spoof article. Please compare it with the original and you will see how little it has been changed. From the blogosphere: http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=5150 http://adactio.com/journal/display.php/20051208103827.xml http://tinyurl.com/9vowd (adactio.com - Why Nielsen Sucks (Most of the Time)) Cheers, Collin Christian Montoya wrote: Ajax based applications like that make me think of: http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html When companies are using Ajax, they usually have already thrown accessibility out the door. It's not often you see Ajax applications with good, accessible fallbacks. ** 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 09/12/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote: Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards. See, thats where I differ - I think that to say 'we do this other stuff thats Good, so we don't have to worry about something as trivial as Web Standards'[1] undermines all our work, which we like to think makes the world a Better Place. By declining to support Standards they implicitly state that it isn't important, and as I think it Is important, I feel they are not doing good, they are doing... that other thing ;) By being a big company (and by golly by market valuation they are absolutely Huge these days!) they implicitly make a massive statement about the value of something simply by ignoring it :( Lea [1] And, I must point out, in fact, they don't say any such thing - as usual they don't say anything at all about the matter. No one knows why they've never spent the 2.5 hours required to bring at least the home page up to standards... Lea de Groot Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.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 **
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Good Day! I will be out of the office December 9 for the Capstrat annual meeting. If you require an immediate response please contact me on my cell phone: 919-475-7706. Otherwise I will respond to your email on Monday. Thanks and have a great day! Best Regards, Virginia
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your feeds. ;) Sorry, I should have made it more clear I was kidding. They do remind me of that article though :) -- -- 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html Hey, cool stuff! :) I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html Hey, cool stuff! :) I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( Lea Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a good idea even before the example. -- -- 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
... I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) ... You can also remove html,/html,head,/head,body,/body, ps and /lis and still be valid HTML4.01 strict. 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] Problems styling dl's
Can't recall seeing an answer to this post, so I thought I'd have a look at the issue. Eg. http://www.business.ecu.edu.au/schools/mtl/staff/index.htm and http://www.business.ecu.edu.au/schools/mtl/staff/spettigrew.htm In IE I get the 3px jog and in FF dd's that are shorter than their corresponding dt float upwards messing up the alignment. ... Is this doable or should I be looking for an alternative way to make lists? I would like to make it work. I did some experimenting and can't make the 3px jog disappear either with the current (x)html structure. However, if you put a list (ul) with list-style:none; into each dd that has more than one name, rather than using multiple dd's per dt, you may be able to solve the dilemma. Float the dt left, give the dd a corresponding margin-left and a height:1% (hack) for MSIE. See example at http://www.bwdzine.net/test/ecu.html 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Michael Cordover's comments were the correct answer. :)Here is an excerpt from an Interview with Matt Cutts, Google engineer, just last month:Q: In more general terms, what do you think is the relationship between Google and the W3C? Do you think it would be important for Google to e.g. be concerned about valid HTML?A: I like the W3C a lot; if they didn't exist, someone would have to invent them. :) People sometimes ask whether Google should boost (or penalize) for valid (or invalid) HTML. There are plenty of clean, perfectly validating sites, but also lots of good information on sloppy, hand-coded pages that don't validate. Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. Will the world end because Google doesn't put quotes around color attributes? No, and it makes the page load faster. :) Eric Brewer wrote a page while at Inktomi that claimed 40% of HTML pages had syntax errors. We can't throw out 40% of the web on the principle that sites should validate; we have to take the web as it is and try to make it useful to searchers, so Google's index parsing is pretty forgiving. http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-11-17-n52.htmlI suppose the real issue now is - can someone build the Google page so that it does work in all browsers; so that it validates; and so that the resultant code is 'ligher' and saves more bandwidth? After all - Google are saying there is a commercial benefit to their invalid codebase - the only way they'd consider achange - in my opinion - is for a greater commercial benefit.
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Chris Dimmock wrote: *Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. So, he's saying font color=red loads faster than font color=red ? I'd like to see some documented proof of this. The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet they have inline javascript instead of external cached/linked scripting.. I think their /saving precious bytes/ comment is full of itself. ** 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Multiply those two by millions of hits every day and we're talking big bandwidth! --- Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Dimmock wrote: *Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. So, he's saying font color=red loads faster than font color=red ? I'd like to see some documented proof of this. The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet they have inline javascript instead of external cached/linked scripting.. I think their /saving precious bytes/ comment is full of itself. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Francesco Sanfilippo Web Architect and Software Developer http://www.blackcoil.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 402-932-5695 home office 402-676-3011 mobile Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience. Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography. Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month. ** 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Francesco wrote: Multiply those two by millions of hits every day and we're talking big bandwidth! Good point. I didn't even think about it like that. I wonder how many visits google gets in a day... ** 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] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I wonder how many visits Google gets in a day...? Brian - I'm not sure how many visits Google gets in a day,but Danny Sullivan reported on the Nielsen netratings numbers back in Julythat Google has 46.2%market share of 4.5 billion searches/ month http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156451 ...percentage of online searches done by US home and work web surfers in July 2005 that were performed at a particular search engine. Internal site searches, such as those to find material within a particular web site, are not counted in these totals. The activity at more than 60 search sites makes up the total search volume upon which percentages are based -- 4.5 billion searches in this month. So - using these numbers - 46.2% (Google's market share) x 4.5 billion searches/ mth= 2.079 billion/ month. I'm reading this as 'US home work web surfers' - not a global number of searches. Also, Alexa says that the average Google session is 6.2 pageviews http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=url="" Another numberI read once was that there were approximately 320 - 350 million searches per day on the web. I can't quote you a source on that. But taken in context of Google's market share - its a huge amount of bandwidth. Either way - small coding issues (and vaildation/ use of semantic code etc) are going to meana lot of bandwidth when looked at in light of that kind of volume... Best Chris a href="" href="http://www.cogentis.com.au/">http://www.cogentis.com.au/Cogentis Internet Marketing/a
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Chris Dimmock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either way - small coding issues (and vaildation/ use of semantic code etc) are going to mean a lot of bandwidth when looked at in light of that kind of volume... You all act like you don't know how much bandwidth can be saved with external stylesheets and javascript files. A lot more than . And why does Google have javascript on the main page? What is it doing? Can anyone tell me? They comment is full of itself... often times you find a solution to a problem and think you've solved it, when you have only really found a partial solution and not the best solution possible. If no one else does it I'll do that Google page Monday when my exams are over. -- -- 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 **
