Re: [WSG] @import and IE7
I agree that import doesnt perform too well. Separate the files in whatever way will support the growth of your site best, and make sure you use some sort of combine tool / filter to reduce the number of requests Ed On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Oliver Boermans boerm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Cole On Saturday, July 24, 2010, Cole Kuryakin c...@koisis.com wrote: Hello All - I've finally decided that I'd like to link/link a single base style sheet (base.css) into my projects. The base.css would then @import various other style sheets which would define the dclarations for project layout, type, color, forms, etc. I would not recommend you separate your CSS files for purely organisational purposes. Do this _within_ your files. Less files loaded by the browser means faster pagel loading. @import is also bad for performance. Where you must separate your files it is better to have multiple link elements. The other advantage of avoiding @import is to see what CSS is being loaded into the page it is only necessary to look in the HTML. This can save someone else a lot of time troubleshooting your site later. Before Firebug l would separate my CSS into a bunch of files, just to reduce the time to navigate them. Now the inspector in Firebug makes this so easy there isn't really a lot of organisation advantage in doing so. I hope this is helpful, even if I didn't really answer your question... Cheers Ollie @ollicle *** 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] ems versus pixels
Modern browsers now implement page zoom, and so using ems for me is becoming unnecessary. I get much better x-browser control with px's and so that is the direction im moving in Ed On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, agerasimc...@unioncentral.com wrote: Hi, I've been converting some of our company public-facing static web-sites from pixels to ems for layout and font-size. But just recently I encountered several references that pixels are getting back into popularity - as it offers absolute control over text, and that most browsers now can resize font based on pixels. Any thoughts/suggestions on whether I should push the effort on converting our sites to ems? Anya Gerasimchuk *** This message may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. *** *** 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] ems versus pixels
I actually think this is a really interesting, key area of current web development, how about we add some links to resources putting either argument forward? On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Phil Archer ph...@w3.org wrote: I must offer a contrary view to Edward! Any page that requires a user with normal vision to have to zoom on any device is, in my view, a sign of a really badly designed page on a really smart device. Pixels can be regarded as a proportional measure since pixel density varies between screens. Ems are proportional to the size of text you're using - and that's generally the thing you want to be proportional to. For me, line thickness can justifiably given in pixels (and that's mainly because 'thin' means 1px in the standards browsers and a different measure, 2px, in you-know-which browser). Image sizes should always be specified in the markup, so that's in pixel sizes too. Apart from that, it's ems all the way for me. Phil. Edward Lynn wrote: Modern browsers now implement page zoom, and so using ems for me is becoming unnecessary. I get much better x-browser control with px's and so that is the direction im moving in Ed On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, agerasimc...@unioncentral.com wrote: Hi, I've been converting some of our company public-facing static web-sites from pixels to ems for layout and font-size. But just recently I encountered several references that pixels are getting back into popularity - as it offers absolute control over text, and that most browsers now can resize font based on pixels. Any thoughts/suggestions on whether I should push the effort on converting our sites to ems? Anya Gerasimchuk *** This message may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. *** *** 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 *** -- Phil Archer W3C Mobile Web Initiative http://www.w3.org/Mobile http://philarcher.org @philarcher1 *** 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] Is it still necessary to encode ampersands?
These approaches feel a bit hacky to me. It might be an idea to review why
you are using inline JS as it really shouldn't be necessary in most cases.
There are plenty of ways of triggered JS early on elements if that is the
reason of putting it inline. What are the times you find the js needs to be
inline?
Ed
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:25 AM, tee weblis...@gmail.com wrote:
If you use XHTML doctype, you can add CDATA comment, this will prevent
possible validation errors.
Example:
script type=text/javascript
/* ![CDATA[ */
jQuery(document).ready(function(){
jQuery(ul.sf-menu).superfish();
});
/* ]] */
/script
I mostly work on Magento projects these days that use inline script
heavily, experience show that lack of CDATA comment doesn't always trigger
validation error.
tee
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Susan Grossman wrote:
Raises another question. How does one handle inline javascript these
days? Because of the dyanmic nature of a site sometimes the JS can't
go in external URL's Links with eventhandlers. etc.
*I find that adding into these meta tags into the header can solve the
inline validation issues sometimes, depending on the doctype.
*
*meta http-equiv=Content-Style-Type content=text/css /
meta http-equiv=Content-Script-Type content=type /*
***
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] content style type
I've personally never had to use that Bob. There's an explanation here... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2025786/why-use-meta-tag-content-style-type-for-external-css But personally I dont feel it's at all necessary Ed On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM, designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk wrote: Sorry if this is obvious, but could someone explain to me the value of using: meta http-equiv=Content-Style-Type content=text/css/ In the head section of a page. I can't grasp: a) what exactly it does, b) what is 'missing' if it isn't there? etc. Please. Thanks, Bob *** 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] IE6 Finally Nearing Extinction [STATS]
Hi everyone, For me the IE6 issue is to a degree self perpetuating. We all do our best to support IE6 and provide an experience which is as little degraded as possible, and in doing that very thing, we give IE6 users no reason to upgrade. If everyone started not to ignore ie6, but to give them a degraded experience, and advise the user what they are missing out on, perhaps these users would start have have more of a reason to upgrade. Ed On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Foskett, Mike mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.comwrote: Sorry Andy, Given the competitive nature that exists between the large UK retailers I feel professionally uncomfortable releasing such data. That's why actual numbers were replaced with percentages. Mike *From:* li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Stewart *Sent:* 11 June 2010 13:16 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] IE6 Finally Nearing Extinction [STATS] Mike, Thanks for this, whilst the sites I manage are pretty low-traffic, I too have been seeing IE6 traffic of about 10-15%. By mentioning shoppers I guess you are running an e-commerce site. I would be very interested to know how your revenue is split across browsers. It seems that IE6 users are either in a corporate system using an XP standard operating environment or people using older computers who may be a bit out-of-date when it comes to technology. Would it be reasonable to assume that the second category probably don't spend much money online? - so maybe the percentage of revenue gained from IE6 users may be much lower that 10% ? Thanks, Andy On 11 Jun 2010, at 21:32, Foskett, Mike wrote: Hi all, Ref Links for light reading article: http://mashable.com/2010/06/01/ie6-below-5-percent/ Which basically states IEv6 has dropped below the 5% threshold across USA and Europe. I just took a peek at our own stats for May 2010. A very large set limited to UK online shoppers only. And I couldn't agree less with the article. Our figures are from such a large representation they cannot be readily ignored. While I cannot print the actual numbers, the browser percentages should be fine. I thought they may be of use to others working in the UK and of general use worldwide. *Internet explorer only:* IEv8: 48.26% IEv7: 37.14% IEv6: 14.58% Other: 0.02% *In general:* IE: 66.12% Firefox: 16.25% Safari: 8.06% Chrome: 6.89% Others: 2.67% So IEv6 is still at 9.64% overall. Virtually double that stated by the article. Sorry for the bad news but IEv6 is still too relevant to ignore. And by the way who actually said 5% is the ignorable threshold? I'd of thought more like 2-3% personally. Regards, Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ -- This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** 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 *** *** 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 ***
