Re: [WSG] site check
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://63.134.237.108/ This enables a blind user to see the document and navigate it easily. Can your consultant find a cure for world hunger, as well as enabling the blind to see? ;-) ** 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] .htm include file into another .htm
They work fine on IIS in windows, as long as yourusing .shtml or .asp as yourfile extension.
As long as the code in the file you are calling is standards compliant,it doesn't make any difference how you call it. The browser will justtreat the code as if it were part of the calling page, just like any other html or any code generated on the server side.
Charlie
http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk
On 1/18/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Svip wrote: On 18/01/06, KJ Callender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to include a file to be included into about 10 htm pages, and to save time me updating them individually, i want to use a include file. Using standards, which is the best way to achieve this:
1. !--#include virtual=/included.htm -- It could be done as following in PHP: ?php include('included.html');? Which would not include your comment mark, and I do not know either
if your way is a standard, as I have never heard of it. Besides, I hate frames, and thus would not suggest your way.They're called server side includes and they work on Apache.They'vegot nothing to do with frames.I don't believe they're in any official
standard, Apache is the only server I know of that implements them likethat (though, I don't know much at all about other servers).http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/howto/ssi.html
--Lachlan Hunthttp://lachy.id.au/**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Technical Aberrations?
Heres another link that might help, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/ Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 1/15/06, Rob Mientjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/01/06, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The simplebits is very interesting. But it seems angled images in a list that change aren't do-able using CSS without tables and some kind of image replacement technique. A pic is worth a thousand words so I have made a link to the mockup with a menu item hi-lited.: http://www.bkdesign.ca/mockup5.pdf Personally I don't think this can be done, but I'm an amature,With image replacement and some smart positioning, I do think it _can_ be done. Stu has some nice examples of the outrageousness we canproduce with CSS at http://cssplay.co.uk/Do give it a shot, and ifit won't work out, ask on this list again for support. I'm sure many will be able to help you out.-Rob.
Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
This might help you, Screen Res is near the bottom somewhere. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspThe latest figures are for July, so its a little out of date. I agree with Bobs point though, it interesting that we used to design for 800x600 so all our visitors could read our sites without using the scroll bars, now we designso that the content fits comfortably in 800x600 so our uses don't have tomove their heads!somewhere between 15 and 25 words per line appears tobe comfortable for most people. Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 12/15/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I made my point in the original post.While I agree thatsites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people don't browse with browser maximised.What I can't do is supply all theimages for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants toview the site.What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions.Inorder to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have thefigures as a guide.It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x% of people have the same resolution asyou Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data.I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data.But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data.StephenLachlan Hunt wrote: Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768.Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant.It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space.The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen.In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution.So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless.**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] More on character encoding
this link might help http://www.remote.org/jochen/mail/info/chars.html Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 11/23/05, Jona Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am assuming there are other web developers in Exchange environmentsthat might have some insight into a problem I'm having. It's standards-related, I promise.We're a company that utilizes an Exchange server for mail andscheduling. We have lots of email addresses and lots of emaildistribution groups. Our Net Admins have established a naming convention for distribution groups that enforces a desired sort in Outlook. Here isa recent example:%Company Code-Cross-Functional Team (Distribution Group)My problem mostly revolves around this fairly new cross-functional team naming convention. You may have noticed the problem already. Thegroup name starts with a percent sign. That means their email addressstarts with a percent sign. If everyone stayed completely within Outlook for email generation, that'd be just fine...Outlook doesn't care. Butwebpages with mailto links that fire up a mail client, even Outlook,*do*. And cross-functional teams in our company are small enough that they want to link to their email address in simple mailto links on theirvarious webpages.The percent sign is an escape character. On its own, a mail client (evenOutlook) looks two characters beyond the percent sign and tries to figure out what character you really meant. Since in my case, this isusually %ME it's outside of the conventions for escaped characters.Outlook interprets %ME as ?.I don't believe that using a percent sign in an email address is best form. But my opinion doesn't matter. I'll need to use standardspublished by recognized bodies of knowledge to make my case. The W3Chelps a little, calling a percent sign a reserved character not for usein URIs. IANA establishes that mailtos are indeed URIs in RFC2368. This is helpful in establishing that mailto is a URI scheme, but this RFCalso suggests escaping the escape (%25) to make a percent sign. IETF inits RFC3986 suggests the same thing but reads a little more ominous about using percents. Gah! Are there any other resources people areaware of that may help me make this argument using standards rationale?Jona**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] jump menu method
If you have to do it this way, and like everyone else I don't recommend it, then you could help the SEO by adding the pages in link tags to the head. see http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_link.asp for more info. Cheers Charlie web : http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11/20/05, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the replies-this is going to be tuff-Patrick---the menu functionality relies completely on _javascript_.Unless you do provide some other form of navigation that links to those pages, you're effectively hidingyour pages from search engines.The .net programmer could make the form controls server sidebut would putting a token list of the links in the footersolve the seo problems at all? ---Terrence---Theres no way of breaking down the navigation into smallerchunks without creating a mystery meat situation.The brothercake dhtml menus seem like an option/last resort-but can a dhtml or css drop down menu force the page to scroll whilea user follows a long list of links with the mouse?Here was the simple method that i suggested..but the client has strong opinions against scrolling.http://mcmonagle.biz/dropdowns/ Here was another suggestion that i thought might workbut they are not impressed. (view in ie)http://mcmonagle.biz/newoti/otinavtest.htm what about these simpler methods?thanks againkvnmcwebn**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold
also are you certain you have closed all your a tag's?
Charlie
http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk
On 11/19/05, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
its not to do with a bold font taking up more space and shifting otherelements?Stuart Sherwood wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with a bug in Firefox when using a:hover {font-weight:bold;}? When the cursor moves over the link, other elements on the page shift or even flicker over other elements. Basically, the page is in chaos
on :hover. Fixes, suggestions, guesses appreciated! Regards, Stuart ** 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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Help with menu
Because it is a hack, I tend to use the same technique as Joesph, I think its best to avoid hacks wherever possible. Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 11/15/05, The Visual Process [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused at your suggestion, why add extra markup when you just needto use the box model hack in the css http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.htmlJoseph R. B. Taylor wrote: I'm not sure...about a physical reference but here's an example: http://sitesbyjoe.com/box_examples.htm It seems to work flawlessly, and its simplicity makes me feel good about using this approach.It also frees me from having to stick hacks in to try and please the browsers. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com James O'Neill wrote: Joseph: Interesting. Do you have something that I can reference for this? Thierry: I will take a look at that tonight. Thanks guys! On 11/15/05, * Joseph R. B. Taylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a reminder, at this point you cannot safely apply widths to any elements that have a border, padding or a margin.In the case you need to apply width adn one of the others mentioned, safest best is to insert a nested div/span with the padding applied etc to break it up. This has long since been a point of confusion for many people, and this simple remedy (although in the long term not the best) proves most effective with todays browsers. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com Thierry Koblentz wrote: James O'Neill wrote: I am having problems with a menu that is similar to the Alistapart's hybrid menu. I can not get the width to be consistantly even with the rest of the site and it is not workig in IE or Opera. It works fine in Firebird. I have been beating my head against this for quite a long time. It seems that absolutely positioned widths do not behave as I expect them. Oi! http://twitch.sharkpork.com/_work/Freedom/ Help me Obi-wan you are my only hope Did you give this one a try? http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/dropdown/demo.asp http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/dropdown/demo.asp It is a bit moe accessible. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com http://www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ 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 ** -- __ Bugs are, by definition, necessary. Just ask Microsoft! www.co.sauk.wi.us http://www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work) www.arionshome.com http://www.arionshome.com (Personal) www.freexenon.com http://www.freexenon.com (Consulting) __ Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox http://www.getfirefox.com Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards http://www.maccaws.org/ http://www.maccaws.org/ Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/ Web Standards Group http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/ Guild of Accessible Web Designers http://www.gawds.org/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Help with menu
The reason I use this technique rather that the box model hack, is because we cannot guarantee that the box model hack will work in future browsers, I know its probably not going to be a big deal to fix it, knocking out a couple of lines of css shouldn't take long, but I prefer not to have clients moaning at me because their sites have suddenly stopped working. This technique is far more future proof, and allthough its not semantically perfect, i prefer it to having unnecessary voice selectors in your style sheet. On 11/15/05, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie Bartlett wrote: Because it is a hack, I tend to use the same technique as Joesph, I think its best to avoid hacks wherever possible.But using an extra DIV like this is also a hack. And not better IMO, since it mixes structure and presentation.My approach is to *not* mix dimensions with padding/border declarations onthe same axis.I don't think padding is an issue since it can be moved down to the inner elements.Border is more tricky, but it is always possible to keep the box model inmind and plan ahead when it comes to visual design...Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
