Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 -- Regards, Steve *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Steve, The other aspect of XHTML Strict DTD, the client won't even know unless I take my time to explain everything but this target stuff is something they will notice if they ask me to open certain links in new window. That's why I need arguments against this. :) XHTML Strict and 1.1 has no target attribute, I do not know why the HTML 5 is keeping it? Steve Olive wrote: On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] an inline element (inside a block element) sibling of another block element
div A line of plain text. pA paragraph./p Another line of text. /div Now a question, Is this actually valid?? I recently recieved some templates of another designer and this was scattered all throughout the pages. I went through and put p around them BUT is it valid??? Or is it a case of in Transitional DTD its ok but Strict DTD it is not?? Why not to check it? From HTML 4.01 Strict DTD: Let's see DIV: !ELEMENT DIV - - (%flow;)*-- generic language/style container -- Ok, now let's look up what is %flow: !ENTITY % flow %block; | %inline; Checking %inline: !ENTITY % inline #PCDATA | %fontstyle; | %phrase; | %special; | %formctrl; Just to make sure - %special: !ENTITY % special A | IMG | OBJECT | BR | SCRIPT | MAP | Q | SUB | SUP | SPAN | BDO Woohoo, A is here. Case closed. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Using target=_blank
That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Sparber Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:45 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank From: David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. What's easy to use when you wind up with a bunch of spawned windows that must be closed one by one? I'm not advocating popup windows, but with a simple script is very easy to open popup windows while reusing the same window. That is, maximum number of windows possible (not counting the main site window) = 1. -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Extending Dreamweaver - Nav Systems | Galleries | Widgets Authors: 42nd Street: Mastering the Art of CSS Design *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike As someone said last week, the original idea of target was for use in framesets. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Usefulness of JSDoc
I personally wouldn't use it for production websites because it inflates the size of the Javascript file, therefore forcing the user to download more. Also it would tempt others to steal code by making it easy to understand. As a way of documenting code during development and for future reference it would be useful, but well written code should be self-documenting (well named functions) and easy to understand. On 7/25/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all! I have been wondering about the (absent) standard for documenting JavaScript: JSDoc. In PHP one can expect any seasoned developer to use PHPDocumentor (or something similar, like Doxygen). In JAVA one would expect Javadoc to be used by most. However, except for Foundations of Ajax (ISBN 1-59059-582-3) I see *no* other book on the market using or promoting the use of JSDoc. And as far as I know YUI is the only major library to use it. Gurus like David Flanagan, John Resig, Christian Heilmann, Dean Edwards and PPK are all silent on this matter, and do not use JSDoc in any code I've seen them write. Admittedly they write a lot, but JSDoc are absent from their books and blogposts, at least. 1. Is JSDoc not a good idea? If so, why not? 2. If it is, why has it not caught on? Coming to JS from a back-end developer perspective I find this very strange. Lars Gunther P.S. References: http://jsdoc.sourceforge.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSDoc *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Ben Wong e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.onehero.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Usefulness of JSDoc
Hi all! I have been wondering about the (absent) standard for documenting JavaScript: JSDoc. In PHP one can expect any seasoned developer to use PHPDocumentor (or something similar, like Doxygen). In JAVA one would expect Javadoc to be used by most. However, except for Foundations of Ajax (ISBN 1-59059-582-3) I see *no* other book on the market using or promoting the use of JSDoc. And as far as I know YUI is the only major library to use it. Gurus like David Flanagan, John Resig, Christian Heilmann, Dean Edwards and PPK are all silent on this matter, and do not use JSDoc in any code I've seen them write. Admittedly they write a lot, but JSDoc are absent from their books and blogposts, at least. 1. Is JSDoc not a good idea? If so, why not? 2. If it is, why has it not caught on? Coming to JS from a back-end developer perspective I find this very strange. Lars Gunther P.S. References: http://jsdoc.sourceforge.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSDoc *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Usefulness of JSDoc
-Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Wong I personally wouldn't use it for production websites because it inflates the size of the Javascript file, therefore forcing the user to download more. Also it would tempt others to steal code by making it easy to understand. As a way of documenting code during development and for future reference it would be useful, but well written code should be self-documenting (well named functions) and easy to understand. So does it make code easy to understand or not? Make your mind up!! Personally, I do try and make use of it, but there are some limitations which I am attempting to work around by writing a script to run at a higher level. Also, code bloat is not a problem, as I run all CSS, HTML and JS through a compaction process as I take it live (automated release system) For most small projects it probably doesn't give much advantage, but I don't really understand how any of the arguments against using JSdoc are different to using JavaDoc. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
frames for simplicity, ease of navigation ?! for u i think!! u cant just think that's right just because u do it's easy for u... On 25/07/07, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike As someone said last week, the original idea of target was for use in framesets. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [Spam] Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
I'm not sure who wrote the below, but I'm hoping it was a sarcastic comment and not someone's real impression of real users. I've never met a user who even liked frames, and that includes me. Also, perhaps I missed a thread, but I've wondering if the increasing use of tabs has overcome any new window reluctance. I have FF set to open new windows in tabs and it looks like IE 7 does the same. Is that correct? Christie Mason .. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Usefulness of JSDoc
On 7/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does it make code easy to understand or not? Make your mind up!! Well, that would depend on the quality of the documentation, not on JSDoc. :) Personally, I do try and make use of it, but there are some limitations which I am attempting to work around by writing a script to run at a higher level. Also, code bloat is not a problem, as I run all CSS, HTML and JS through a compaction process as I take it live (automated release system) For most small projects it probably doesn't give much advantage, but I don't really understand how any of the arguments against using JSDoc are different to using JavaDoc. Yep, you're right, the arguments aren't any different. But for those of us who don't have that extra step of compacting the code before deploying, we would have to add it in if we decided to use JSDoc. Whereas, for JavaDoc (and the other doc tools for other languages mentioned) you wouldn't have to worry about it, because the code is not as accessible to the end user as the Javascript because they're run server side or compiled. -- Ben Wong e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.onehero.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Usefulness of JSDoc
On 25/07/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all! I have been wondering about the (absent) standard for documenting JavaScript: JSDoc. In PHP one can expect any seasoned developer to use PHPDocumentor (or something similar, like Doxygen). In JAVA one would expect Javadoc to be used by most. However, except for Foundations of Ajax (ISBN 1-59059-582-3) I see *no* other book on the market using or promoting the use of JSDoc. And as far as I know YUI is the only major library to use it. Gurus like David Flanagan, John Resig, Christian Heilmann, Dean Edwards and PPK are all silent on this matter, and do not use JSDoc in any code I've seen them write. Admittedly they write a lot, but JSDoc are absent from their books and blogposts, at least. 1. Is JSDoc not a good idea? If so, why not? It's a pretty good idea, but with many of the same arguments against it as for JavaDoc. But if you ask me, it's not the right tool. A tool based on JavaDoc will miss some fundamentals of ECMAScript, especially with ES4 coming soon. Some examples: - In a world where both class-based inheritance and prototype-based delegation exist, both must be distinct. A constructor function, an interface and a class do not represent the same relations, and do not work in the same way. This is true also for ECMAScript 3 which doesn't have class-based inheritance, because implementations have environments that use class-based inheritance. (E.g. in Mozilla the implementation of the HTMLElement interface is placed on the direct implementor class. Overriding properties on HTMLElement.prototype will not work when the actual implementation lies on HTMLSpanElement class) - It doesn't make distinctions where distinctions should be made. A parameter is not the same as an argument. - It fails to take the closure concept into consideration, together with the privacy facility it provides. - It fails to take the fact there are three different kinds of object typing that can be used into account: * There are primitive types/value types (number, boolean) and compound types/reference types (objects, functions) and a primitive type with copy-on-write semantics (string). * There are classes (String, Object, Number, Array, one each for most DOM interfaces etc. ) * There are constructor function/prototype chains (Which are NOT the same as the above classes) 2. If it is, why has it not caught on? For several reasons. One, I believe, is that autogenerating documentation has not caught on in the client side web dev world. There are very few large libraries for ECMAScript compared to other scripting languages, probably because of the entirely different environments the code lives in: The code is actually sent over the wire in raw form. You want to minimise the weight of the sent code, so you don't want to send documentation in the form of comment systems. (You can use a compilation step here to remove dead weight but keep the original in fully commented form, of course - compiling to minimised ECMAScript). A compiled language doesn't have this restriction, so for example Flash or Java will have entirely different models for commenting. And server side languages don't send code at all, they just send results. The code size server side has entirely different impact because of that. Coming to JS from a back-end developer perspective I find this very strange. The perspective difference is quite a lot of the reason, I feel. Different considerations give different behaviour. -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Center Align an Unorder List
Ryan Moore wrote:
Looking to Center Text on an unordered list.
css:
ul
{text-align: center;}
li
{
display: inline;
list-style-type: none;
padding-right: 20px;
}
markup:
ul
lia href=#Item one/a/li
lia href=#Item two/a/li
lia href=#Item three/a/li
lia href=#Item four/a/li
lia href=#Item five/a/li
/ul
Best,
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
[WSG] IE7 and iframes
I'm trying to fix some pages that use iframes that are broken in IE7 are there any good tips for fixing broken iframes-related javascript in IE7? This is NOT a cross-domain problem. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Center Align an Unorder List
yes it's good, i like the float:left better than display:inline.
On 7/25/07, Ryan Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
ul { display:block; width:100%; text-align:center; list-style:none}
ul li {float:left; margin-right:5px}
These two styles should get you this.
Did I do it correct? Comments?
Ryan Moore wrote:
Looking to Center Text on an unordered list.
Example:
ul
liLink 1/li
liLink 2/li
liLink 3/li
/li
Desired Effect:
Link 1 Link 2 Link 3
I don't have my CSS Code Base with me right now so hopefully someone
can lend a hand.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Center Align an Unorder List
Hi there,
ul { display:block; width:100%; text-align:center; list-style:none}
ul li {float:left; margin-right:5px}
These two styles should get you this.
Did I do it correct? Comments?
Ryan Moore wrote:
Looking to Center Text on an unordered list.
Example:
ul
liLink 1/li
liLink 2/li
liLink 3/li
/li
Desired Effect:
Link 1 Link 2 Link 3
I don't have my CSS Code Base with me right now so hopefully someone
can lend a hand.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
[WSG] Center Align an Unorder List
Looking to Center Text on an unordered list. Example: ul liLink 1/li liLink 2/li liLink 3/li /li Desired Effect: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 I don't have my CSS Code Base with me right now so hopefully someone can lend a hand. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
hey steve, without going into pros and cons on the target attribute, roger johansson has an interesting article on the subject with a javascript solution the degrades to opening in the same window if java is turned off or pop ups blocked. some clients want what they want and won't be dissuaded. hope this helps http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200610/ opening_new_windows_with_javascript_version_12/ sorry about the top posting rgds, ron On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Ryan Lin wrote: Steve, The other aspect of XHTML Strict DTD, the client won't even know unless I take my time to explain everything but this target stuff is something they will notice if they ask me to open certain links in new window. That's why I need arguments against this. :) XHTML Strict and 1.1 has no target attribute, I do not know why the HTML 5 is keeping it? Steve Olive wrote: On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Center Align an Unorder List
I think the easiest way I can think of is this:
ul {
display: block;
width:100%;
text-align:center;
}
li {
display:inline;
font-weight:bold;
}
On 7/25/07, Ryan Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking to Center Text on an unordered list.
Example:
ul
liLink 1/li
liLink 2/li
liLink 3/li
/li
Desired Effect:
Link 1 Link 2 Link 3
I don't have my CSS Code Base with me right now so hopefully someone can
lend a hand.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
