Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)
I agree... keep sending the links! It is up to us as to what we chose to read or not. Dory On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:06 AM, wrote: > > Russ, > > Even though I have a lot of experience with GUI development and standards, > and have my own opinions on things, I am reading your links everytime you > send them out. Any article matters. Please, keep sending those. > Thanks! > > Anya V. Gerasimchuk > Web Designer, IT - Web Shared Services > UNIFI Information Technology > agerasimc...@unioncentral.com > (513) 595 -2391 > > > *Russ Weakley * > Sent by: li...@webstandardsgroup.org > > 12/22/2009 09:01 AM > Please respond to > wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > > To > wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > cc > Subject > Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09) > > > > > Hi Rimantas > > Why did I post this link? Because the article has an interesting take > on HTML5. > > This does mean that I agree or disagree with the article. I hoped that > the article would lead to discussion and debate. I had also hoped that > any discussion or debate would be conducted in a respectful manor > (regardless of how strongly one feels that the other party is > incorrect) and that anyone involved in the discussion would present > their arguments rationally and calmly without sinking to personal > attacks on other web standards group members (yes, the person who > wrote the article is a member of this group). > > Ahhh... I give up... there is no hope. > > Russ > > > On 22/12/2009, at 10:46 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > > >> Will HTML5 make the Web even more invalid? > >> <http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/html5-make-web-more-invalid/> > > > > Can you provide any reason why you keep posting links to this site? > > Yes the blog _seems_ to be about web standards, but the posts > > are just speculation of poor quality and based on the lack of > > information, > > misunderstanding and false assumptions. > > > > Sure, the guy has financial interest of keeping xhtml afloat, so he > > may see the HTML5 as a threat, but that's not a good enough > > reason to spout nonsense. > > > > Regards, > > Rimantas > > -- > > http://rimantas.com/ > > > > *** > 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 > *** > -- Dory Ptak Ptak Web Development www.ptakwebdevelopment.com (925) 292-1054 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
I have never seen the differences between the two doc types spelled out like this. When I was learning CSS our instructor taught us to use transitional-- less problems she said. I guess I fell into the belief that strict was for those who knew CSS "forward and backward" That strict was unobtainable for those of us who still refer to a css handbook at times and have a sense of dread with a new IE browser release. There are times when getting a page to work on all browsers and validate can be daunting enough just in transitional... Is this really all the difference between the two doctypes? If I print this out and place it beside the CSS handbook could I possibly obtain Strict validation? Thank you for posting this, Dory On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because > > Because the strict doctype helps us follow one of the principles of best > practice - "to remove all presentation from markup". > > To do this fully, we should aim to remove all presentational elements and > attributes from our markup. > > How does the strict doctype help this? Here are some examples... > > Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ELEMENTS are > allowed: > > - u > - s and strike > - center > - font > - basefont > > Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. > > Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ATTRIBUTES are > allowed: > > - background and background-color attributes for body element. > - align attribute on div, form, paragraph (p), and heading (h1...h6) > elements > - align, noshade, size, and width attributes on hr element > - align, border, vspace, and hspace attributes on img and object elements > - align attribute on legend and caption elements > - align and background-color on table element > - nowrap, bgcolor, width, height on td and th elements > - bgcolor attribute on tr element > - clear attribute on br element > > Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. > > With the transitional doctype inline elements and character strings are > allowed in: > > - body > - blockquote > - form > - noscript > - Noframes > > Using the strict doctype these are not allowed. They are invalid. > > Why is it important to remove presentational elements and attributes from > markup? Because presentational elements and attributes add weight to the > page and make it harder for you to manage, change the presentation of the > page at a later date. > > Thanks > Russ > > > > > > > *** > 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] The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage
Thank you-- It looks like we are going with the SWFObject 2.0 static method. The http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay article was also helpful in that it explained the process. Do you know if the alternative content can be picked up by a text reader? Thank you, Dory On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Melissa Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > use javascript to insert the flash, which will also auto activate the > flash in IE and do some flash player detection > > something like swfobject would do the trick > http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/ > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Mahendran Venkatesan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Dory, > > > > You can use 'object' tag for embedding flash files. > > > > Refer this link: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay > > > > > > Thanks! > > Venkatesan M > > > > On 3/25/08, Dory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am currently working on a site that has a small flash file for > > decorative purposes. I inherited the site and want to make it web standards > > compliant. The problem: the XHTML code in the site is using the embed tag > > for the flash. Is there a way to place swf files into a XHTML webpage that > > will allow the page to validate? (I believe the embed tag has been > > deprecated.) > > > > > > Any links to references would be appreciated. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Dory Ptak > > > > > > *** > > > 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] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage
Hello, I am currently working on a site that has a small flash file for decorative purposes. I inherited the site and want to make it web standards compliant. The problem: the XHTML code in the site is using the embed tag for the flash. Is there a way to place swf files into a XHTML webpage that will allow the page to validate? (I believe the embed tag has been deprecated.) Any links to references would be appreciated. Thank you, Dory Ptak *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
