[WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
Leslie Riggs wrote: What's a person to do? When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs and when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs? I guess I'm looking for a bit of a summarization clarification of this concept. Leslie Riggs The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally) was triggered originally by Georg : write your page as XHTML (1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml. When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'. For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/ I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc. I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages. Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) [1] http://www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site does not validate for css or for HTML 4.01. In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Regards,LynneOn 1/6/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally)was triggered originally by Georg :write your page as XHTML ( 1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml.When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'.For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc.I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages.Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)[1]http://www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Lynne In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Roberto Scano: It is no soo easy to change from text/html to application/xhtml+xml: you need to apply xml rules (es: xml prolog, xml declaration for stylesheets, Namespace, xml:lang instead of lang) and in text/html apply also recommendations in appendix c of xhtml 1.0. These are my two eurocents ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: ?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' ? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd' html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' xml:lang='en' If I look in IE, I get this: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd' html lang='en' Are you getting something different? Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: - Messaggio originale - Da: Lynne In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Roberto Scano: It is no soo easy to change from text/html to application/xhtml+xml: you need to apply xml rules (es: xml prolog, xml declaration for stylesheets, Namespace, xml:lang instead of lang) and in text/html apply also recommendations in appendix c of xhtml 1.0. These are my two eurocents ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: designer[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: [cut] Are you getting something different? Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it ** 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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply
Rowan, I had the same problem when I started my blog. I had to edit the markup in the template as there was a set of p/p that caused the problem. The pages did validate but their search box wasn't labeled. I see now that Blogger added additional elements to their search feature and it no longer validates ... sigh ... Pam -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rowan - RMW Web Publishing Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:32 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a trade off or sheer laziness) should be honest with themselves and stop trying to kid their viewers. Not only are you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the button for everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that would do more harm than good - it's not worth it). On a personal note: I removed my [XHML] [CSS] links from my Blogger hosted blog. Now these were never the W3C buttons (just text links), but I linked to the validator, which was showing invalid due to the invalid code that Blogger was inserting into my otherwise valid template -- Rowan ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: 06/01/06 14.26.37 A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply] - Messaggio originale - Da: designer[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: [cut] Are you getting something different? Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica-Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it What's the point of defining the stylesheet both with the xml-stylesheet instruction AND the (valid, and clearly defined in XHTML 1.1) link element? As far as I was aware, both methods are just as acceptable. Additionally: what's the purpose of the conditional comment in this case? ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? !--[if IE] ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? ![endif]-- -- 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Patrick H. Lauke[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: 06/01/06 16.54.27 A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply] Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it What's the point of defining the stylesheet both with the xml-stylesheet instruction AND the (valid, and clearly defined in XHTML 1.1) link element? As far as I was aware, both methods are just as acceptable. Roberto: Yes, but this is suggested by xhtml 1.1 spec. Patrick: Additionally: what's the purpose of the conditional comment in this case? ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? !--[if IE] ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? ![endif]-- Roberto: Read it as For future ie releases or a bug that i need to fix ;) ** 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 rollover - with current page highlight?
Stephanie Sullivan has a good tutorial on how to do what Zachary suggested at: http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=9 (Especially useful if you use Dreamweaver but the principles and basic process applies regardless.) Project VII also has their Uberlink Menu tutorial which takes a slightly different approach (and is what I cut my own CSS menu teeth on - it's a great intro to CSS menus for anyone who wants to learn how to do them): http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css_menus/list_01/index.htm Stef's method involves adding the id to the page when it's created, with no need to touch the menu - useful if you're using includes for the menu. Al's method involves adding the id to the menu itself. It is your call, whatever works best for you. (You can get either to work with your particular menu.) HTH, -- Vicki Berry DistinctiveWeb Web: http://www.distinctiveweb.com.au Blog: http://www.unheardword.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] New to web standards and CSS
Hi Everyone, I've been lurking on this list for a while now, reading and learning. I am not a professional anything - reluctantly I think I'd be in the category of Aunt Betty - although I don't feel that old yet! I rashly volunteered to update a website for a local charity, and decided it would be a good idea to learn CSS and better web standards at the same time. So far so good. The front page for the site is here: http://www.btcvnp.tsohost.co.uk/test/index.htm The CSS page is here: http://www.btcvnp.tsohost.co.uk/test/btcv2.css But I am having huge problems with this page: http://www.btcvnp.tsohost.co.uk/test/footpaths3.htm I want to be able to put a series of images down the page - some left and some right aligned, and text in the opposite spaces. It would be easy using tables - but I want to be able to use CSS for it. And everything I try seems to end up in a bigger muddle! I would also like to 'stick' the captions to the images - is there an (easy) way without using image programmes? Any and all help and suggestions would be warmly welcomed, Rosemary, Northumberland 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] New to web standards and CSS
hello, hey nice page -sorry i only have a question for list members about something i noticed on your page wich im having trouble with also. http://www.btcvnp.tsohost.co.uk/test/index.htm On the left hand nav bar the list link footpaths resizes in ie6 on the first rollover. Its very subtle on your page but i have recently built a page with the same problem but more pronounced. Any idea on what causes this and how to fix it? It only happens once then you need to refresh to see it again. thanks kvnmcwebn ** 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] missing image in ie
hello,
trying to get my portfolio site presentable. just made some changes to my
stylesheet and lost a 1px repeating background image in ie. renders fine in
ff. notice the missing drop shadow on the right side of the middle box.
www.mcmonagle.biz/gildeas2.htm
here is the div that contains the bg image.
something with the margins and padding in ie...
* html #content{width:750px;
background-image: url(../bodyback.gif);
background-repeat:repeat-y; }
#content
{ background-image: url(../bodyback.gif); background-repeat:repeat-y;
/*\*/
position: absolute;
/* Exclude abs positioning for Mac IE5 */
padding: 25px 25px 0 25px;
width: 706px;
/*\*/
top: 115px;
bottom: 55px;
left: 40%; height: 600px;
margin: 0;
margin-left: -240px;
/* Exclude all previous props for Mac IE5 */
/*\*/ overflow: hidden; /* no neetd for Mac IE5 to see this */
}
got the code from frames w/o frames site and its become a bit messy as ive
been editing it, changing ems to pixels and so on. any help would be
appreciated.
thanks
kvnmcwebn
**
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] New to web standards and CSS
Hi Rosemary This article by Eric Meyer may help keep the images from escaping from their containing blocks: http://www.complexspiral.com/publications/containing-floats/ Cheers Peter Rosemary Probert wrote: I want to be able to put a series of images down the page - some left and some right aligned, and text in the opposite spaces. It would be easy using tables - but I want to be able to use CSS for it. And everything I try seems to end up in a bigger muddle! -- Peter Asquith http://www.wasabicube.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] New to web standards and CSS
Rosemary Probert wrote: http://www.btcvnp.tsohost.co.uk/test/footpaths3.htm I want to be able to put a series of images down the page - some left and some right aligned, and text in the opposite spaces. It would be easy using tables - but I want to be able to use CSS for it. And everything I try seems to end up in a bigger muddle! Tables might do just fine, but if you don't like them then the same can be achieved without actual tables. Maybe this is it: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_example_01_02.html ...or a suitable combination of 'next to floats' and 'containing floats': http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_example_01.html Several alternative solutions and demo/info pages are linked in. 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] XHTML again
Hi Lynne, Thanks for your comments. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's the point. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag, but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type. Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be invalid when using the w3c checker. . . ?? If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues will tell me? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk Lynne Pope wrote: I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site does not validate for css or for HTML 4.01. In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Regards, Lynne On 1/6/06, *designer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally) was triggered originally by Georg : write your page as XHTML ( 1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml. When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'. For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/ I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc. I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages. Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) [1] http://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] New to Standards.
Well, I'm overwhelmed for your help, thanks everyone! I'll check all the links, and please if you find any more info please send it too. Thanks again! AlvAro - 2006/1/5, Côcu [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.alistapart.com/ 2006/1/5, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Alvaro -- .: marcello.côcu ..: IPwd - stúdio de webdesigner ...: http://ipwd.ppg.br ** 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 **
[WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Didn't see my first message hit the list so I thought I'd try again, excuses if it did arrive the first time. Is anyone able to tell me why in Internet Explorer the "read more..." link is not positioned where it should be? The li itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the li item not outside the ol item, in FireFox it looks good but not in IE. Link:http://testing.pacificfox.com/price/ CSS:http://testing.pacificfox.com/_resource/css/default.css Any help much appreciated. PS. it validates.. Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive OfficerPacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 Web Design and Development SMS Solutions, including developer API Domain Registration, .COM for as low as fifteendollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollarstwo years! BlackBerryBusiness Solutions www.OzBlackBerry.com We endorse PayPal, accept payments online now! Seamless Merchant integration
RE: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Not sure about your layout issue, but you may want to consider changing all those read more links. WCAG 1.0 point#13.1 says: Clearly identify the target of each link. This means someone who uses a screenreader and skips links by tabbing through them will actually have an idea about where the link leads you. PS. it validates.. :) Probably does, but not with all standards ;) Cheers, good luck Nic ** 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] Position problem.
Hi, as some may already know, I'm just begining with Web Standards and
I'm having this problem:
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=jsltgk
As you can see, I have a header under a h1 tag, then a tag fecha
defined by me and a p tag.
I managed (mybe not in the most standart-compliant way) to move up the
fecha text, but the p text is too low. I could do the same, but I
don't know if it's the right way to do this.
Here's the CSS:
h1 {
font: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;
font-weight: bold;
padding-left: 4px;
}
fecha {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 9px;
padding-left: 2px;
position: relative;
top: -10px;
}
p {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
}
Thanks,
AlvAro
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
Hi Bob,Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors: Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.cssLine: 6 Context : html Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper Line: 62 Context : #container Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaperIt does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE?Cheers,Lynne On 1/7/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne,Thanks for your comments.Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's thepoint. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag,but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type. Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be invalid when using the w3cchecker. . .??If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagueswill tell me?--Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
The li triggers white space issues in IE. You will need to add some conditional statements to insert an IE workaround for this issue.Cheers,LynneOn 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't see my first message hit the list so I thought I'd try again, excuses if it did arrive the first time. Is anyone able to tell me why in Internet Explorer the read more... link is not positioned where it should be? The li itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the li item not outside the ol item, in FireFox it looks good but not in IE. Link:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/price/ CSS:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/_resource/css/default.css Any help much appreciated.
RE: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Hi Lynne, thanks a million, and I not familiar with conditional statements, are you able to give me an example? Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive OfficerPacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 Web Design and Development SMS Solutions, including developer API Domain Registration, .COM for as low as fifteendollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollarstwo years! BlackBerryBusiness Solutions www.OzBlackBerry.com We endorse PayPal, accept payments online now! Seamless Merchant integration From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lynne PopeSent: Saturday, 7 January 2006 12:03 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be The li triggers white space issues in IE. You will need to add some conditional statements to insert an IE workaround for this issue.Cheers,Lynne On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't see my first message hit the list so I thought I'd try again, excuses if it did arrive the first time. Is anyone able to tell me why in Internet Explorer the "read more..." link is not positioned where it should be? The li itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the li item not outside the ol item, in FireFox it looks good but not in IE. Link:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/price/ CSS:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/_resource/css/default.css Any help much appreciated.
Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Conditional statements are, in my opinion, the best way to handle IE hacks (especially with the likely introduction of more problems to deal with when IE7 is released). You can just take the route of adding IE hacks into your css if you are not familiar with the if, then, else types of conditional scripting. An example conditional statement is: !--[if IE] style /style ![endif]-- - with your IE styling included between the tags. Note: you put this into the pages either by hardcoding or calling through an include. I hope this helps. Lynne On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne, thanks a million, and I not familiar with conditional statements, are you able to give me an example? Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive Officer Pacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 … Web Design andDevelopment SMS Solutions, including developerAPI Domain Registration, .COM for aslow as fifteen dollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollars twoyears! BlackBerry(r) BusinessSolutions www.OzBlackBerry.com We endorse PayPal, acceptpayments online now! Seamless Merchantintegration
RE: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Thanks, so this conditional style will only work in Internet Explorer is that right? Sorry, just never used anything like this, if something didn't work I just did it another way, never implemented a hack for something. Question; is there some reading material in regards to this problem that I am having that you know off? Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive Officer Pacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 … * Web Design and Development * SMS Solutions, including developer API * Domain Registration, .COM for as low as fifteen dollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollars two years! * BlackBerry® Business Solutions www.OzBlackBerry.com * We endorse PayPal, accept payments online now! * Seamless Merchant integration -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lynne Pope Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2006 1:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be Conditional statements are, in my opinion, the best way to handle IE hacks (especially with the likely introduction of more problems to deal with when IE7 is released). You can just take the route of adding IE hacks into your css if you are not familiar with the if, then, else types of conditional scripting. An example conditional statement is: !--[if IE] style /style ![endif]-- - with your IE styling included between the tags. Note: you put this into the pages either by hardcoding or calling through an include. I hope this helps. Lynne On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne, thanks a million, and I not familiar with conditional statements, are you able to give me an example? Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive Officer Pacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 … Web Design andDevelopment SMS Solutions, including developerAPI Domain Registration, .COM for aslow as fifteen dollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollars twoyears! BlackBerry(r) BusinessSolutions www.OzBlackBerry.com We endorse PayPal, acceptpayments online now! Seamless Merchantintegration NŠ²žµ†ÿnv¢®y¶Áµj‚¦þ—‰Šq¢™žž¶¶z¶¶… ** 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] absolute positioned a not where it should be
On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, so this conditional style will only work in Internet Explorer is that right? It depends on how you write a conditional statement but the example I gave you is for IE, yes. It says, if IE, then do something. Sorry, just never used anything like this, if something didn't work I just did it another way, never implemented a hack for something. Question; is there some reading material in regards to this problem that I am having that you know off? Yes, just do a Google search for white space issues with IE. You will get thousands of pages of informaton. Cheers, Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
designer wrote: If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues will tell me? Bob, I don't think you are missing anything !important so far :-) Lynne Pope wrote: Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors: Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.css - Line: 6 Context : html Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper - Line: 62 Context : #container Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper Hope not :-) as that would be the same as if the CSS validator recognized the proprietary 'display: -moz-inline-box;' as valid. It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. --- No wonder some web developers are confused, and others warn strongly against using XHTML. Even those who happen to know how XHTML may/should be made to work might find themselves sidelined for no good reasons at all :-) To exemplify... All the following are valid XHTML and can be validated as such: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.html http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xml ...they will even work as XHTML in XML compliant browsers. All the following are non-valid XHTML, and the validator will tell you so: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.html http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xhtml http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xml ...only the first will survive in any browser - as tag-soup. Don't bother to check the CSS, as that isn't even supposed to pass validation. Also, unless one has a keen eye, it might be a little hard to figure out where all the 'IE/win-only garbage' is hidden away. The entire site these 6 almost identical pages are in, is a testbed for what works and what doesn't. The difference *may* be quite interesting to know at times, when dealing with buggy browsers. Even the validators are under constant attacks, and they are far from flawless :-) 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] XHTML again
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. Conditional statements are not hidden, they just do whatever you code them to do. They are a valid markup. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. True. However, if we are coding to standards then it pays to be aware of any coding errors in css. You can't look at each standard in a vacuum. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. And your point is? I made the comment that the site does not validate as HTML 4.01, did you see me say how I validated it? Anyone designing a site to render as one DOCTYPE in some browsers and another DOCTYPE for other browsers, and who wishes to have the pages validate against both DOCTYPES would, I assume, check the validation for both. This can be done in many ways, such as entering the source code, or in cases where the person looking at the code is sufficiently experienced, just looking can show there are errors. The validators themselves tell you that they have limitations. A page can validate according to the W3C online service but, in fact, not be valid. It all comes down to how closely any developer wishes to adhere to standards and how much of a purist anyone is when it comes to correct coding ;) Cheers, Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
