[WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
HI. CAN SOME ONE TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT THIS SITE. AND GOT 2 FONTS. ONE VERDANA AND ONE Arial black. do i need any other fonts. and does it look really good? and also any other improvements. let me know. and if i need to make any changes. tell me how to do this. marvin. http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Marvin Hunkin wrote: HI. CAN SOME ONE TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT THIS SITE. AND GOT 2 FONTS. ONE VERDANA AND ONE Arial black. do i need any other fonts. and does it look really good? and also any other improvements. let me know. and if i need to make any changes. tell me how to do this. marvin. http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ It is fine, Marvin. Not to worry. You are doing well. The pages I checked show valid html/css. The fonts are good to go. Nice job. Best, ~d -- desktop http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ mobile http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
2c from me: Clean up the main navigation - make it one deck - move copyright and credits links to the footer. Henrik Madsen +61 08 9387 1250 hen...@igenerator.com.au www.igenerator.com.au On 04/02/2010, at 6:47 AM, Marvin Hunkin wrote: HI. CAN SOME ONE TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT THIS SITE. AND GOT 2 FONTS. ONE VERDANA AND ONE Arial black. do i need any other fonts. and does it look really good? and also any other improvements. let me know. and if i need to make any changes. tell me how to do this. marvin. http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of Marvin Hunkin
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:47 PM
To: WSG@WEBSTANDARDSGROUP.ORG
Subject: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
HI.
CAN SOME ONE TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT THIS SITE.
AND GOT 2 FONTS.
ONE VERDANA AND ONE Arial black.
do i need any other fonts.
and does it look really good?
and also any other improvements.
let me know.
and if i need to make any changes.
tell me how to do this.
marvin.
http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/
Marvin,
As I mentioned in a previous post, font-family names that contain a space
need to be between quotes, so you should use:
h1 {
font-family: Arial Black;
text-align: center;
}
instead of:
h1 {
font-family: Arial Black;
text-align: center;
}
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
[WSG] CSS Validation Error
When I am validating a site that I am working on using the W3C Validator I get errors with *-moz-border-radius-bottomleft*. Is this because it is CSS3? Error Reads: Property -moz-border-radius-bottomleft doesn't exist : 5px 5px Cheers Daniel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
-moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Anderson Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:12 PM To: wsg Subject: [WSG] CSS Validation Error When I am validating a site that I am working on using the W3C Validator I get errors with -moz-border-radius-bottomleft. Is this because it is CSS3? Error Reads: Property -moz-border-radius-bottomleft doesn't exist : 5px 5px Cheers Daniel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/
Marvin,
As I mentioned in a previous post, font-family names that contain a space
need to be between quotes, so you should use:
h1 {
font-family: Arial Black;
text-align: center;
}
instead of:
h1 {
font-family: Arial Black;
text-align: center;
}
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
Granted. But how about we give Marvin the benefit of doubt?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21warning=0uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raulferrer.com%2Fjoe%2Fhtml%2F
Best,
Helen
--
desktop
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
mobile
http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
At 2/3/2010 02:47 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote:
http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/
Hi Marvin,
Overall I found this to be a clear and attractive site. Good work!
A few quick notes:
1) Phone number formats vary from place to place, but in North
America at least the convention is to insert spacing or punctuation
between the first '1' and the area code. I would change
1800-Joe-Fruit to 1-800-Joe-Fruit unless the Australian convention differs.
2) Many people find phone numbers translated to letters annoying or
difficult to use. I recommend that you repeat the phone number in all
digits: Phone 1-800-Joe-Fruit (1-800-563-37848)
3) The address of the shop at the bottom of the home page looks odd
because the lines are spaced apart, which is the default styling for
paragraphs but not for addresses. I suggest using either a break tag
between lines (addresses and poetry being two good opportunities for
the poor unappreciated break tag to do its thing) or style those
paragraphs with no margin-bottom. In order to separate the mailing
address from the phone number lines, I would do this by enclosing the
physical address in one div and the phone number lines in another:
div class=contact
pJoe's Fruit Shop/p
p55 Main Road/p
pAnytown 2999/p
/div
div class=contact
pPhone: 9555-9876/p
pFor phone orders: 1800-Joe-Fruit/p
/div
with the styling rule:
div.contact
{
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
div.contact p
{
margin-bottom: 0;
}
That will leave a gap between clusters of paragraphs but no space
between the paragraphs themselves inside each div.
4) On the Recipes page you are using break tags to insert space after
the h3 subheads. Please remove them, and any other break tags you're
using for spacing. The amount of space you've inserted here looks
unattractive, it's confusing because it separates a headline so much
from the text that belongs to it, and using break tags in this way
contradicts the separation of content from presentation that is one
of our industry's best practices today. If you want to present more
space after h3's, do so using your stylesheet.
5) The Search page seems out of place and mis-named. It's really an
index to the Produce page, not a search function. I would move the
index to the top of the Produce page. If you want a true Search page
you can do so easily using a common search engine. If you want to
keep this page on its own the way it is now, at least consider
renaming it Produce Index. I would place it immediately before or
after the Produce page in the menu.
6) In your main menu, Fruit And Vegetable Recipes might be better
called Fruit And Vegetable Recipe Links
7) On the Credits page, you've inserted two break tags immediately
inside the first list item, causing Mike Levin's Photo Gallery to
site two lines below its bullet. The main navigation menu has the
same problem, with break tags in the list item for the home page,
causing the nav menu to look broken on this page.
Regards,
Paul
__
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
At 2/3/2010 02:47 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote: http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ You should check the Top of page links on the Recipes page. They each seem to go to the start of the previous recipe rather than to the top of the Web page. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Marvin, Have you thought about using a fluid-width layout for your web page? It would ensure your page is viewable on browsers smaller than your current maximum fixed-width. Otherwise, I actually think the rest of your site is fine. The simplicity of it all is so refreshing! :) Karl On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Webb, KerryA kerrya.w...@act.gov.au wrote: At 2/3/2010 02:47 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote: http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ You should check the Top of page links on the Recipes page. They each seem to go to the start of the previous recipe rather than to the top of the Web page. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
For your named anchor tags (a name=Marvin/a, they don't have to be inside 'p' tags. They *do* need to be inside a block-level element, but they are already inside the 'main_content' div, so you should be fine for validation. Ethically, you probably should make your page more accessible to people with disabilities (vision impaired/blind users, non-mouse users etc). Consider the use of access keys, skip navigation links, title attributes on anchors etc. Luckily, your site's simplicity means it's more accessible than a lot of other sites already!!! :) Good luck! Karl On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Karl Lurman karl.lur...@gmail.com wrote: Marvin, Have you thought about using a fluid-width layout for your web page? It would ensure your page is viewable on browsers smaller than your current maximum fixed-width. Otherwise, I actually think the rest of your site is fine. The simplicity of it all is so refreshing! :) Karl On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Webb, KerryA kerrya.w...@act.gov.au wrote: At 2/3/2010 02:47 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote: http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ You should check the Top of page links on the Recipes page. They each seem to go to the start of the previous recipe rather than to the top of the Web page. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Karl Lurman Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:15 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE For your named anchor tags (a name=Marvin/a, they don't have to be inside 'p' tags. They *do* need to be inside a block-level element, but they are already inside the 'main_content' div, so you should be fine for validation. Ethically, you probably should make your page more accessible to people with disabilities (vision impaired/blind users, non-mouse users etc). Consider the use of access keys, skip navigation links, title attributes on anchors etc. Luckily, your site's simplicity means it's more accessible than a lot of other sites already!!! :) Fwiw, I don't agree about accesskeys [1]. Using title on anchors is also something I would not do. These links are meaningful already and title is ignored by most screen-reader users anyway. Besides, the tooltip that title creates is often a problem for people using screen magnifiers. [1] http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Hi Marvin, On Wed, February 3, 2010 11:50 pm, Webb, KerryA wrote: You should check the Top of page links on the Recipes page. They each seem to go to the start of the previous recipe rather than to the top of the Web page. Kerry That is, you have links with duplicate link-text pointing to different anchors which contravenes accessibility standards. You already have the anchor a name=Top/a, so Top of page links should point to this, a href=#Top target=_topTop Of Page/a Stuart *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Foulstone Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:55 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE Hi Marvin, On Wed, February 3, 2010 11:50 pm, Webb, KerryA wrote: You should check the Top of page links on the Recipes page. They each seem to go to the start of the previous recipe rather than to the top of the Web page. Kerry That is, you have links with duplicate link-text pointing to different anchors which contravenes accessibility standards. You already have the anchor a name=Top/a, so Top of page links should point to this, a href=#Top target=_topTop Of Page/a If I recall, using top as a named anchor can be an issue in IE. In any case, if it is just to jump to the top of the page, I believe a simple # should work. As a side note, why using target in there? -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Fwiw, I don't agree about accesskeys [1]. The article on your site seems to advocate the use of access keys. The concept of allowing users to define which access keys they can use is an interesting and clever approach. Have you got an example of this out in the wild? There are certainly pitfalls with access keys. That fact there isn't a set of standard access keys across various platforms/browsers, is a real shame and goes against them tremendously. Is this why your feelings on access key usage has changed? Or do you have some other reservations? Using title on anchors is also something I would not do. These links are meaningful already and title is ignored by most screen-reader users anyway. Besides, the tooltip that title creates is often a problem for people using screen magnifiers. I think that any additional content that might help a user, sight impaired or otherwise, can't be a bad thing. It adds to the document's semantic value and might also aid in SEO. You are right however, some screen readers will ignore this 'extra' content (other side of the coin, some will not). I think the problem is that the 'title' attribute is abused or used incorrectly. If it doesn't contain any additional semantic value, then perhaps it should be omitted. I was unaware that screen magnifiers may experience problems with tooltips... Thanks for the tip (no pun intended) on that. Karl *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Re: WSG Digest
Marvin: Here is a list of common installed fonts. Not all fonts you declare in you CSS will be pre-installed on pc/macs. + http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html + Dennis On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:54 PM, wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: * WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST * From: Joseph Taylor j...@sitesbyjoe.com Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:33:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [WSG] fonts Marvin, You don't need to have Arial on your PC to use it in your work. Others should have to have it, or any fallback you declare in your stylesheet. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Web Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com On 2/1/10 11:28 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote: hi. i have verdana. and it reads the name. but only have got Arial Blakc. not just plain Arial what is the correct name for Arial Black. or where can i download the Arial font. marvin. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** * From: PurencoolGmail purenc...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:40:12 +1100 Subject: I need a professional eye back again. Hi everyone I have slowly going through all the tips this group gave me and add fixes etc. But I have on fix i can't fix and that is the foot ul it does not mater what I do I cannot get the li or a or ul padding or margin to move the css top down can anyone see an issue? Also someone suggested highlighting the link of the page the user is currently view. How do others do this as I have never tried it. Thanks the site is www.purencool.com John Cullen www.purencool.com * From: Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.com Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:15:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [WSG] I need a professional eye back again. On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, PurencoolGmail wrote: Hi everyone I have slowly going through all the tips this group gave me and add fixes etc. But I have on fix i can't fix and that is the foot ul it does not mater what I do I cannot get the li or a or ul padding or margin to move the css top down can anyone see an issue? Also someone suggested highlighting the link of the page the user is currently view. How do others do this as I have never tried it. Thanks the site is www.purencool.com Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional! Result: 13 Errors Address:http://www.purencool.com -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) * From: Nass Martino - Yehget n...@yehget.com.au Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:29:09 +1100 Subject: Help! The following website uses classic ASP. It was developed about 5 years ago by a programmer that no longer works here. https://www.toastfood.com.au/officecatering/index2.html We have moved it to a new server, and when a customer hits the SUBMIT button when checking out it comes up with an error. Can anyone explain why this error is occurring. Thank you in advance. Nass Yehget Multymedia Sydney Australia * From: Luke Hoggett luke.hogg...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:38:06 +1100 Subject: Re: [WSG] Help! There's no SUBMIT button on the page!! On 3/02/2010 4:29 PM, Nass Martino - Yehget wrote: The following website uses classic ASP. It was developed about 5 years ago by a programmer that no longer works here. https://www.toastfood.com.au/officecatering/index2.html We have moved it to a new server, and when a customer hits the SUBMIT button when checking out it comes up with an error. Can anyone explain why this error is occurring. Thank you in advance. Nass Yehget Multymedia Sydney Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Karl Lurman Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE Fwiw, I don't agree about accesskeys [1]. The article on your site seems to advocate the use of access keys. The concept of allowing users to define which access keys they can use is an interesting and clever approach. Have you got an example of this out in the wild? There are certainly pitfalls with access keys. That fact there isn't a set of standard access keys across various platforms/browsers, is a real shame and goes against them tremendously. Is this why your feelings on access key usage has changed? Yes, because by implementing them we take the risk to break the user's own shortcuts. That's why letting the user map his own is a safer approach. Or do you have some other reservations? Using title on anchors is also something I would not do. These links are meaningful already and title is ignored by most screen-reader users anyway. Besides, the tooltip that title creates is often a problem for people using screen magnifiers. I think that any additional content that might help a user, sight impaired or otherwise, can't be a bad thing. It adds to the document's semantic value and might also aid in SEO. You are right however, some screen readers will ignore this 'extra' content (other side of the coin, some will not). I think the problem is that the 'title' attribute is abused or used incorrectly. If it doesn't contain any additional semantic value, then perhaps it should be omitted. I was unaware that screen magnifiers may experience problems with tooltips... Thanks for the tip (no pun intended) on that. As you point out, the main problem with title is that people often use it to duplicate stuff or do keyword stuffing. In any case, I rarely found the need to use it (as as side note, most screen-readers won't ignore the title attribute when it is used with form controls). -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Paul Novitski p...@juniperwebcraft.com wrote: A few quick notes: 1) Phone number formats vary from place to place, but in North America at least the convention is to insert spacing or punctuation between the first '1' and the area code. I would change 1800-Joe-Fruit to 1-800-Joe-Fruit unless the Australian convention differs. FWIW, the convention does vary and Marvin is correct in Australian usage. :) -- Josh Street http://josh.st/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the CSS3 working draft... they're for proprietary extensions, of course, but it's always seemed odd to me that the validator doesn't recognise a vendor-prefix as per spec (irrespective of the specific vendor extension) and ignore it accordingly. -- Josh Street http://josh.st/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Street Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:53 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Paul Novitski p...@juniperwebcraft.com wrote: A few quick notes: 1) Phone number formats vary from place to place, but in North America at least the convention is to insert spacing or punctuation between the first '1' and the area code. I would change 1800-Joe-Fruit to 1-800-Joe- Fruit unless the Australian convention differs. FWIW, the convention does vary and Marvin is correct in Australian usage. :) That's why using the lang attribute is a good idea ;) en-us vs. en-au... -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
Hi
You can safely ignore any -prefix validation errors (-moz, -webkit, -opera)
- they are never going to validate on the W3C validator. The point of the
vendor specific rules is to do stuff the W3C haven't standardised yet.
The validator should probably ignore them as well. If you really must have a
valid stylesheet then you can stick vendor specific stuff in a vendor.css
and not validate it (because it won't).
#blob {
border-radius : 5px;
-webkit-border-radius : 5px;/* safari, chrome, arora etc */
-moz-border-radius : 5px;/* firefox and pals*/
-khtml-border-radius : 5px;/* konquerer */
}
Noting that webkit and moz have different names for the rules, watch out for
that.
Theoretically, when a browser supports border-radius, it should switch from
its vendor specific rule to the standard rule.
Cheers
James
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
-moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3)
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
*From:* li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On
Behalf Of *Daniel Anderson
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:12 PM
*To:* wsg
*Subject:* [WSG] CSS Validation Error
When I am validating a site that I am working on using the W3C Validator I
get errors with *-moz-border-radius-bottomleft*.
Is this because it is CSS3?
Error Reads:
Property -moz-border-radius-bottomleft doesn't exist : 5px 5px
Cheers
Daniel
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Street Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:59 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the CSS3 working draft... they're for proprietary extensions, of course, but it's always seemed odd to me that the validator doesn't recognise a vendor-prefix as per spec (irrespective of the specific vendor extension) and ignore it accordingly. The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
#blob {
border-radius : 5px;
-webkit-border-radius : 5px;/* safari, chrome, arora etc */
-moz-border-radius : 5px;/* firefox and pals*/
-khtml-border-radius : 5px;/* konquerer */
}
I believe it would make more sense to reverse that order and have
border-radius come *last* in the declaration block
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of James Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:10 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
Hi
You can safely ignore any -prefix validation errors (-moz, -webkit, -opera)
- they are never going to validate on the W3C validator. The point of the
vendor specific rules is to do stuff the W3C haven't standardised yet.
The validator should probably ignore them as well. If you really must have a
valid stylesheet then you can stick vendor specific stuff in a vendor.css
and not validate it (because it won't).
#blob {
border-radius : 5px;
-webkit-border-radius : 5px;/* safari, chrome, arora etc */
-moz-border-radius : 5px;/* firefox and pals*/
-khtml-border-radius : 5px;/* konquerer */
}
Noting that webkit and moz have different names for the rules, watch out for
that.
Theoretically, when a browser supports border-radius, it should switch from
its vendor specific rule to the standard rule.
Cheers
James
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
-moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3)
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:12 PM
To: wsg
Subject: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
When I am validating a site that I am working on using the W3C Validator I
get errors with -moz-border-radius-bottomleft.
Is this because it is CSS3?
Error Reads:
Property -moz-border-radius-bottomleft doesn't exist : 5px 5px
Cheers
Daniel
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the CSS3 working draft... they're for proprietary extensions, of course, but it's always seemed odd to me that the validator doesn't recognise a vendor-prefix as per spec (irrespective of the specific vendor extension) and ignore it accordingly. The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator failing to correctly parse as per spec. -- Josh Street http://josh.st/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] FINAL VERSION OF MY SITE
Marvin Hunkin wrote: http://www.raulferrer.com/joe/html/ Marvin, Your site is fine. Take what you will. Ignore the rest. Remember, not to forget, you are an An Officer and a Gentleman. Best, Helen -- desktop http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ mobile http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote: The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator failing to correctly parse as per spec. The validator does correctly parse as per the spec. The spec defines a way for vendor prefixes to exist without conflicting with anything in CSS, no more. This makes them part of the grammar, not the vocabulary, and the validator checks both. The CSS 2.1 specification says Authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Dorward da...@dorward.me.uk wrote: On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote: The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator failing to correctly parse as per spec. The validator does correctly parse as per the spec. The spec defines a way for vendor prefixes to exist without conflicting with anything in CSS, no more. This makes them part of the grammar, not the vocabulary, and the validator checks both. The CSS 2.1 specification says Authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions. I agree vendor-specific extensions do not constitute acceptable vocabulary, but as the specification allows a grammatical means for their inclusion it seems counter-productive to flag them as errors. The specification assures authors and vendors that An initial dash or underscore is guaranteed never to be used in a property or keyword by any current or future level of CSS - and, accordingly, they are (and will remain) grammatically permissible / safe for use. The imperative to avoid these extensions lacks explanation and, while this list is (by virtue of our name!) perhaps not the place for such views, seems to stem from the desire to preserve the appearance of standardisation rather than maximising the utility and flexibility of the standard in question. As a counterpoint to this, of course, using standards-compliant techniques to achieve an outcome will more successfully preserve interoperability into the future. However, I would assert the advice to avoid vendor-specific extensions should be constrained by this, rather than suggesting that a guaranteed future-compatible (albeit potentially no longer functional, contingent on ongoing vendor support) identifier should be avoided unswervingly. So I guess my problem is with the language of the specification as much as with the validator - but I feel there is probably enough ambiguity in the specification around this (i.e. why introduce a feature only to advise authors to avoid implementations applying this feature?!) that the validator should, on the basis of grammar, accept flexible vocabulary following this dash (-) or underscore (_) prefix. There are good, pragmatic reasons for both approaches - but erring on the side of flexibility here does nothing to damage the abilities of compliant user-agents, or the fabric of the standards-based web. Particularly in seasons where we wait for finalisation of good and important features into usable, non-draft-form standards, the validator's interpretation remains unhelpful. -- Josh Street http://josh.st/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
