Re: [WSG] Mambo Accessibility
TextPattern works well, particularly now that they've released a final version. I used WordPress up until v.1.5 due to TXP being in beta and RC versions, but have since slowly switched to TXP for all my sites. The only site I can think of at the moment that is running TXP (and doing a good job of it) is Hicks Design (http:// www.hicksdesign.co.uk/). I'm sure there's more out there, just can't think of them right now. On Dec 1, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Neal Watkins wrote: What about www.textpattern.com has anyone tried this? ~n uoting Steve Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:15:13 +0800 Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Guys, ... Is there a way to make Mambo compatible (A large reason for the work is to allow blind users to get value from the site) with accessiblily and hopefully web standards? Is there another CMS that you would mention which may suit my needs? I've never used it myself, but you might want to take a look at Joomla. It's compatible with Mambo at this point http:// www.joomla.org/index.php?Itemid=44option=com_faqcatid=7 and the developers are at least are trying to be compliant and accessible http://help.joomla.org/content/view/805/125/ Cheers, Steve Ferguson - http://illumit.com/ Regards, Lloyd ** 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Neal Watkins www.constructweb.com ** 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Mambo Accessibility
Actually you can find it, if you take the time to look. Here's the link for non-members (sourced from their Membership Benefits page). http://www.qnecms.co.uk/ On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Paul Noone wrote: Except that they still insist on membership before you can view such pages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Drake Sent: Friday, 2 December 2005 4:15 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Mambo Accessibility www.GAWDS.org (Guild of Accessible Web Developers) has a fully accessible CMS platform. I would recommend moving away from Mambo if you are interested in standards. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Ferguson Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:35 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Mambo Accessibility On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:15:13 +0800 Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Guys, ... Is there a way to make Mambo compatible (A large reason for the work is to allow blind users to get value from the site) with accessiblily and hopefully web standards? Is there another CMS that you would mention which may suit my needs? I've never used it myself, but you might want to take a look at Joomla. It's compatible with Mambo at this point http://www.joomla.org/index.php?Itemid=44option=com_faqcatid=7 and the developers are at least are trying to be compliant and accessible http://help.joomla.org/content/view/805/125/ Cheers, Steve Ferguson - http://illumit.com/ Regards, Lloyd ** 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.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 ** ** 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check
Other than a 1px show-though of white on your header in IE, looks good on the mac browsers. I sent you a few PDF screen caps offlist. The white issue on IE doesn't show up in the caps...happens depending on the width the browser window is. Should be a quick and easy fix. ~MD On May 19, 2005, at 2:36 AM, Bruno Torres wrote: Hello. I'd appreciate mush if you take a look at my weblog (http://www.brunotorres.net/) and tell me your opinions. I did some changes in the layout and want to know if others like it as I do. I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac. Thanks in advance. Cheers! -- Bruno Cunha Torres http://www.brunotorres.net/ http://www.dotplusweb.com/ ** 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check
Not seeing anything weird in Safari 1.2.2, nor anything weird on Firefox .9 (Mac). On Jun 21, 2004, at 07:08, Peter Costello wrote: Hi, Ive been trying to get my head around standards based design and am putting together a personal site. Ive used the suckerfish menu, but am having a wierd flashing effect on rollover in firefox 8 pc. The content from the grey box at the bottom appears to flash over the menu? Its HTML 4 transitional with a view to going xhtml strict. ( would this be a giant leap?) I've only checked it locally, it would be great if you tell me how looks on different browsers. Any comments or suggestions would be great. The page is at: http://www.productseven.com.au/domestik04/index.html and the css: http://www.productseven.com.au/domestik04/styles.css Thanks in advance Pete * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] file extensions
I agree...definitely not a clean URL and it would be a major headache. Sam, OS X doesn't use file extensions in that manner. They're there for compatibility's sake when in mixed environments. The OS still figures out the type from the metadata in the file, it just requires extensions to ensure proper cross-platform sharing abilities. Alot of us cringed when we saw the 10.1 policy on metadata...all because a certain unnamed competitor's OS is still stuck in the middle ages. On Jun 16, 2004, at 01:42, Sam Walker wrote: I would hardly say that /0/sa is a clean URL. I think semantic URLs (which actually give you useable information about the file you are looking at) are more important than saving a few bytes in the url. And this is not even going into all the compatibility headaches this would pose, mentioned by others. /images/SubHeaderAbout.gif is a much better URL, although ideally you would be able to do without the extension. Unfortunately, many of the platforms we rely on don't work that way even OS X, the OS of choice for most designers, has reverted back to relying on extensions to determine filetype. So, for example, if the user wanted to save the image to disk, they wouldn't know how to open it. -Sam Walker
Re: [WSG] HTML email - mac testers please
Apple's Mail.app is probably going to be the most used program for OS X users. Since the Jaguar edition of OS X (10.2) it's used WebKit for the rendering, which is the KHTML engine used in Safari. If I remember right, Jaguar users are limited to Safari 1.0, and Panther has 1.1 and 1.2 available. I'm not sure what the Mail.app uses in 10.1.5 or earlier versions of OS X, probably IE's engine though. Behind that will probably be Microsoft Entourage (IE 5.2 engine). Outlook Express would only be used by OS 9 or earlier users, there's no OS X version. Eudora would be popular among some, probably those who used it in the past and wanted to stat with something familiar. On Jun 10, 2004, at 00:05, Mark Stanton wrote: I guess I'm just interested what rendering engine do 90% on a MAC use when they look at an HTML email and then testing in that environment. * 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] IE-Win / Floated List Issue
On Jun 9, 2004, at 00:33, Nick Gleitzman wrote: MD, this was just a real quick look, but I can't see where you have the lis floated; they are just inline. Oops, my bad...I'm working on 5 different sites at the moment and my brain is very close to turning into mush. Floats were on a different site...G Have a look at the solution Kristof came up with recently on a similar issue: http://kristof.f2o.org/test/image_thumbs_and_captions/ I think you'll be able to adapt his code pretty quickly. Hope this helps. Thanks Nick, I'll look at it better tomorrow when I'm more alert and awake. ~MD * 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] IE/Win vs IE/Mac
Wrote by two completely different teams of programmers, with different mentalities. They actually share very little in common with each other, other than the name that is. On May 20, 2004, at 09:51, Mordechai Peller wrote: You would figure, one company, one logic, one set of bugs. But no! Here's to Web Standards. Thank's Bill. * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Safari on x86
You'd be better off buying a cheap mac to test on. The PearPC thing is full of bugs and slower than a dead turtle (talk about slow!). From what I've seen, it 1/500th the speed of your current processor. On May 20, 2004, at 04:42, Ralph wrote: Hi all.. I hope this is not too off topic.. But I came across a project on SourceForge called PearPC (URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pearpc/ ) which seems to allow MacOS to run on x86 (and posix).. For some time I been wondering how I can get Safari (or any other Mac browser) to work on a x86.. I'd really like to hear from anyone who has been able to get it to work.. Or at least thinking of trying... If you wish to reply, feel free to reply off-list to my address... Thanks! Ralph * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] hiding styles from Mac IE5 : how to?
If you just want to hide certain things from IE 5.2 Mac, then use comments as shown below. You need that \ at the end onf the top comment for it to work. /* Hide from IE5 Mac \*/ ((whatever you want to hide)) /* End Hide */ On May 15, 2004, at 01:33, James Ellis wrote: Hi all Having some problems with a site that is crashing IE5 on the Mac (OS8 to X). The code is moving towards HTML4 compliance with only a few character errors, tag ends i.e instead of /' , and one id clash left to fix. I tested the site and it works perfectly on : IE5.5, 6 for Windows. The Geckos (Netscape 7, Mozilla, Camino, FF) Safari Opera 7.0 - 7.5 on all OS's partial (content readable) on IE5.0 for Win. I have borrowed an old Mac OS9 fliptop/frisbee and will do some testing on Monday - i came across this site http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/hiding/ while googling and am thinking of employing this method. Given that the site is usable for high 90's% of users I'm not prepared to invest the time in hacking a stylesheet so that one browser that MS doesn't make any more is okwith the risk of breaking it for the above browsers. Unfortunately IE5 on OS9 is the only browser for this OS (apart from some older Mozilla's like 1.01) I'd rather hide styles which I know is the problem so has anyone had any experience with the single quote @import method in the above link?. I guess it'll hide em for NN4 as well. If you want to have a look at the site in IE5 on the Mac I can send a link off list. Cheers James * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Site Review and some guidance on inheritance please
Hi, Having done a couple of WestCiv courses on XHTML and CSS I'm now starting to develop my hobbyist site at http://www.gameplan.org.uk/ Don't answer his question. He made the Steelers lose to Cleveland! I do have a real comment. I think the color of the W3C icons is beating hell out of your blues. You either need to get rid of them (as in http://www.csszengarden.com/) or do something to give that orange-yellow a context. Yea, but he has the Bengals beating the Jaguars...so answer him! G I'll agree on the W3C icons. A grey or blue would be a better fit for the site. Also need to specify a style for the hover on those images, ridding them of the back background. * 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] [WSG} Height Issue with two column layout
The easiest way that works well cross-browser wise is to use a background image, either on the body or the container. On May 11, 2004, at 20:35, simon wrote: Hi Guys .. I have the following page http://204.157.1.128/~wadigi/temp2.html with a two column layout however i cant seem to make the sidebar div run 100% any help would be great !!! Regards Simon * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels headers
using a CSS for the sake of it approach creating multi column layouts and faffing about I don't look at it that way...it's quite easy to get everything to work right without tables if you're willing to put the effort in. Since mid 03 I have stopped using tables for anything other than what they're supposed to contain...tabular data. That's their purpose in the world, just like ours is to pay outrageous taxes and work our butts off for low pay (isn't it?). I've had very few issues arise since...less than the layouts before, that's for sure. The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using tables for layout, although frames are a very close second. Accessibility should be the primary concern of every developer for the web. The web was intended to make sharing information/data/etc. simple and far-reaching. Why a developer would make so much more work for him/her self is beyond me when there's a valid, easy, better, standardized alternative. ~MD On May 11, 2004, at 20:49, James Ellis wrote: 1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout for handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The content will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a new stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff or a hyperlink for the user. 2. I have a multi-column layout... when I push the site to a layout for handheld I'll have to change the markup so that the table rows have only one cell in them each. This will also affect the screen and print versions of the site (so I'll have to do mutiple markup for the same content). Which one is easier and better in the long run? faffing around with rowspans and colspans can be frustrating as well. The difference being that one method has a future, the other doesn't. Cheers James Neerav wrote: hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS for the sake of it approach creating multi column layouts and faffing about s=as Mike says standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] csscreator.com multimenu
Maybe it's the lack of sleep, but the last I recall that is pretty much useless on divs. Great for tables, but just doesn't like to play well on those divs. MD On May 10, 2004, at 02:21, Chris Blown wrote: vertical-align : bottom; On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 15:54, theGrafixGuy wrote: A CSS question - I have some centered text formatted via a class in div id= and I need it at the bottom of the div but still HORIZONTALLY centered - how? Thanks for the help in advance Brian * 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] Re: WYSIWYG editor
I was at a 'Driven by Design' seminar Apple put on in Cincinnati Nov of last year and saw them demo the CS apps at the Adobe booth. The guy from Adobe thought GoLive CS was it, kept asking 'can't do that with Dreamweaver can you?' I refrained from disagreeing with him...I guess he hadn't seen the MX 2004 release that came out a week or two before that seminar. Then again he also thought most developers won't hand code and that they'll love the Opera 7 based preview feature of GoLive. MX 2004 is a great tool to have, but then again so is a basic text editor. I'm torn (equally) between using MX or BBedit, just depends on my mood that day and the kind of site on what I'll use. My view on the original question: There's no really good option yet for a WYSIWYG editor, but Dreamweaver does the best job right now based on what you've got to choose from. MD On May 6, 2004, at 13:40, theGrafixGuy wrote: Dreamweaver MX 2k4 is definitely at the top o' the heap - one tool to build ANYTHING - java, css, html, xhtml, php, asp, cfm, etc etc etc. Can't go wrong there and for those that need it the wysiwyg feature can be turned on easily. I will say GoLive CS was a surprise though in its improvement, but it still isn't at the level of DW. Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: WYSIWYG editor I respectfully disagree. Dreamweaver MX 2004 enables a designer to create well formed and valid XHTML. In addition, it has a built-in XHTML validator to check for poor syntax. Also, it's upgraded CSS panel produces valid style sheets, and often creates style sheets automatically in conjunction with XHTML. Kind regards, Mario S. Cisneros Dreamweaver is like kills ants with a machine gun. This app is excelent to edit nested tables, but thing like tableless it not so god -- We had using him practiclly like Homesite to had some markup control. WYSIWYG editor to XHTML/CSS is unnecessary, I suppose. At last, if among browser had yours particularities to render XHTML/CSS, a visual editor had yours particularities too. XHTML Strict/1.1 had a coerent structure, is simple to edit in your favorite ASCII editor. And CSS by TopStyle is very productive. At 20:56 6/5/2004 +1000, simon dodson wrote: dreamweaver mx ? www.macromedia.com From: David Gironella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS? * 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.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 * * 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] Next IE version coming soon?
Standards-complaint based on their own distorted view of what the standards are, of course. While I would love to see something come out of Redmond that actually works, I doubt it'll be what we need/think/want. It would make life easier, but I'm not going to keep my hopes up. We've seen M$'s ideas of standards compliance before. MD On May 5, 2004, at 10:02, Tonico Strasser wrote: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2004/05/04.html#a7387 Robert Scoble writes: While we're on it, this page has one falsehood. It says that the next version of Internet Explorer won't come out until Longhorn. That is absolutely NOT true. The next version of Internet Explorer comes with a ton of security fixes, and a pop-up-ad blocker. It will be included in Windows XP, Service Pack 2. For free. http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2004/05/04.html#a7387 Hm, will they make it more standards compliant as well? Will it work in older versions of Windows? Tonico -- Tonico Strasser ?:-) http://Tonico.FreeZope.org Contact_Tonico at Yahoo dot de Check out http://www.WebProducer.at * 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.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] drop down menus
I usually do either 740 or 720 if it's specified in pixels, depending on the type of layout I'm going after. MD On Mar 22, 2004, at 06:34, Andy Budd wrote: When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the Actual width of the browser viewing area (taking the window borders into account). If the page extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser adds a scroll-bar, what is the width of the browser's viewwing area now?? According to Dreamweaver MX it's 760x420... If you want to accommodate pretty much all browsers, you need to aim for 744. This accounts for the Favourites bar in IE4.5 Mac as well as chrome and vertical scroll bar. I tend not to worry about IE5 Mac these days, but out of habit, design for 720 as it's nicely divisible by 3 (for 3-col layouts), and then add 10px padding on each side. * 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] Some more links for light reading
If anyone was looking for a support chart, here's another that's fairly detailed, for CSS2. http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/abridgedcsssupport.html * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] turning back to the dark side...
You actually expect Microsoft to create a product that works?!? G How about one that follows standards? (RIGHT!) All kidding aside, it's a royal pain in the U know what and it'll probably result in 'pattern baldness' from ripping your own hair out, but in the long run it'll be worth it. It's about time for M$ to 'evolve' (or copy someone elses idea as their own) anyway. I doubt I'd ever go back, personally. MD On Mar 4, 2004, at 22:26, Paul Ross wrote: How stupid are they over there in Redmond? We have had CSS1 since, what 1996/97 and 8 years down the track (that's 734 internet years) and IE is still blundering about like a drunken bull in a china shop. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Coding Standard...
I agree, it's a personal preference more than anything else. I can say from the butt-load of site's I looked at, the vast majority used the goofy style. I personally choose that way when I code because it's what I'm used to and comfortable with. The one that drives me nuts is what someone called the inline style, which is a major pain in the butt to look through quickly when attempting to fix or change things. I've had quite a few redesigns recently where I had to run through the old stuff and it was in this format...I shoulda bought stock in Advil beforehand. The coding was very sloppy to say the least. My experience with that is it's a favorite among those ASP/M$ guys. Only one site wasn't, and that site already utilized PHP and had clean clode everywhere (HTML, CSS, PHP, etc.) and was nicely commented. She was a breeze to redo and a pleasure...wish more went like that one did. MD On Feb 28, 2004, at 22:18, russ weakley wrote: Forgive me for sounding grumpy, but I think this sort of thing can go on too long. We are not talking about standards or best practices now, we are talking about personal preferences. Whitespace inside a declaration block is ignored - so it can be used to lay out rules or rules sets in any way you want. It comes down to personal or production team choice. Russ I'll put my hand up for the goofy style. It's my preference, my habit - be it CSS rules, functions, CFScript, what have you. In a team environment, I'd use whatever style made it easier for the whole team to concentrate on the work at hand. What's next? Space or tab indentation? :) --ben If I work on your stylesheet, I'll try to follow your style. If I inherit your stylesheet, I'll format it my way. If you screw up my stylesheet with weird formatting - I'll chuck a wobbly. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] DTDS and which to use?
I gave up on trying to use Dreamweaver after my recent upgrade on OS. My copy of MX is having issues (FTP related), and 04 doesn't have enough changes to justify the cost in an upgrade for me. Tried GoLive CS out but wasn't really impressed...just way too much junk for such a simple task. I always coded by hand in code view anyway, so I've decided to go back to a trusty FTP client and BBedit. So much easier now...G>. On Feb 25, 2004, at 06:32, JW wrote: x-tad-biggerUsing MX 04. Actually really want to tweak it the way it generates the html codes. Like if I am working with strict then I can tweak it to generate the html the way I want for xhtml strict./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerHmm maybe dreamweaver can't be customised that way. Sounds rather far-fetch. /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger With Regards, Jaime Wong ~~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~~ x-tad-bigger---Original Message---/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerFrom:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger[EMAIL PROTECTED]/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerDate:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger 25/02/2004 7:22:53 PM/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerTo:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger[EMAIL PROTECTED]/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerSubject:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger Re: [WSG] DTDS and which to use?/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerOn 25 Feb 2004, at 10:40, JW wrote:/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Ooo I see! Thanks Andy / Martin!/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Hmm any ideas in tweaking Dreamweaver to work with standards?/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerWhich version? I stopped using it at MX. You can tick 'Make all/x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerdocument XHTML compliant' somewhere in preferences./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> As for open target in new window, if I want a new window, how can I/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> achieve it with strict?/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerThere was the exact same discussion a few weeks ago on this board./x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerJavascript was the main option (didn't pay much attention though). Do a/x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggersearch in the list for XHTML (OT??) on 7 Feb./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> I guess is preferences really although I do notice lots of website do/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> not open up in new window but I will always open those links up in new/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> windows as I prefer to have the original page there to refer back to./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> So to open links up in new windows or not is still a question to/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> me cause I prefer new window. But I will try to please the majority/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> :) /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> With Regards,/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Jaime Wong/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> ~~~/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> SODesires Design Team/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerhttp://www.sodesires.com/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> ~~~/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> ---Original Message---/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> From: /x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger[EMAIL PROTECTED]/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Date: 25/02/2004 5:53:53 PM/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> To: /x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger[EMAIL PROTECTED]/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Subject: Re: [WSG] DTDS and which to use?/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> On 25 Feb 2004, at 09:12, JW wrote:/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > Hi all/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > I have copied a page from my website and make the DTD XHTML 1.0/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> Strict/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > just to see the diff btwn transitional and strict. You can see it/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> here/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerhttp://www.sodesires.com/about/strict.html/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > Well the xhtml validation shows error but even after reading the/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > explanation of errors, I still could not really understand what they/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > meant!/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> No Worries. They are all pretty simple, and pretty minor./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> /x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > SGML parser./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > 1. Line 11, column 17: there is no attribute language/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > (explain...)./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger> > script language=JavaScript
[WSG] IE bug
A guy on a message board I mod is having some issues with IE6 Win and his layout. Anyone with IE6Win care to take a look. I tried a few things with no luck, doesn't seem to be the PHP rotator causing issues but the image itself. Thanks, MD here is the website: hippopocampe.org here is the css: hippopocampe.org/styles-site.css in IE6 in Windows, the bottom border of the main image header (the rotate.php) is off 5 pixels like if the image had a 5 pixel bottom-padding. But it hasn't. That affects the header but also the 'main' section, as it too is 5 pixels off. Any suggestions for a workaround?
Re: [WSG] IE bug
I had thought about something like that, but never tried anything. I
think I had a similar issue with a list a while back or something,
can;t remember.
I forwarded what you said on to the guy, hopefully this is the issue
and it solves it. He was getting a bit unnerved with the XHTML/CSS way
because of it.
Thanks,
MD
On Feb 20, 2004, at 16:06, russ weakley wrote:
Michael,
Haven't looked but it may be a simple Win/IE6 carriage return bug. It
seems
that Win/IE is the only browser that renders carriage returns or line
feeds
as whitespace directly before a closing containing element:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/mystery/
Two things to try if this is the case.
1. move the end div up onto the same line as the image
... width=586 height=183 border=0 //div
2. add a single CSS declaration to the banner rule set
#Banner {
width: 586px;
height: 183px;
padding: 0px;
border-left-style: none;
border-right-style: none;
border: 5px solid black;
margin: 0px 0px 12px 0px;
border-right-width: 0px;
border-left-width: 0px;
}
Add a new declaration:
font-size: 1px;
My weird theory is that this makes the carriage return small enough
that it
cannot be seen.
HTH
Russ
A guy on a message board I mod is having some issues with IE6 Win and
his layout. Anyone with IE6Win care to take a look. I tried a few
things with no luck, doesn't seem to be the PHP rotator causing issues
but the image itself.
Thanks, MD
--
--
here is the website: hippopocampe.org
here is the css: hippopocampe.org/styles-site.css
in IE6 in Windows, the bottom border of the main image header (the
rotate.php) is off 5 pixels like if the image had a 5 pixel
bottom-padding. But it hasn't. That affects the header but also the
'main' section, as it too is 5 pixels off. Any suggestions for a
workaround?
--
--
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
Re: [WSG] Opera
I code everything to the W3C specs as closely as possible. If I have to pick a browser to 'win', then the choice will be obvious even though I hate doing it. Clients don't care about the 'whys', they just want it to work in what they use and a majority of the public uses. Opera does alright keeping up, but they still got a long way to go before I would ever consider them a main-stream browser. Usually I code the page, checking initially in Safari and Firebird/Mozilla 1.6. After the bulk of the layout is done, launch VPC and test in IE6 Win. If there's no horrible problems, continue working on the page and add real content. Test in each browser again. If everything looks good in Safari and the Moz's, then start adding fixes for IE-Win. This is also when I launch Lynx in the Terminal and check it out there. After that's all done, and it's acceptable in those three above...I try it in IE5.5 Win, IE5.2 Mac, Opera 6 Mac, Opera 7 Win, and NN4 Win. On Feb 18, 2004, at 16:44, Universal Head wrote: I'm curious - does anyone really think that getting things spot on for Opera is important? Hasn't this browser got a miniscule user base? And Opera seems to give me almost as many problems as IE anyway. Interested ... Peter * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Hover issue
It's not validating the html, but the CSS file based off the link contained within the HTML file...just like a browser would see the file. The only problem in there per the validator was the margin-bottom issue. After that's fixed, and everything's cleaned, it shouldn't have a problem validating. MD On Feb 16, 2004, at 07:08, LC 55 wrote: Michael, Peter and Lucian appreciate the feedback. I'm still on a steep learning curve. Firstly Michael, I was under the illusion if you tried to use the W3C CSS validator with a .html extension, you wouldn't have a hope of getting it to validate, as surely it is a .css only validator? Therefore how can it validate .html? (jigsaw validator, I mean). You'll probably have a simple explanation for me, I hope so, as I'm getting a bit lost with this one. As i said, I'm still quite green to this myself. Also I know the CSS is untidy re: double ids etc. (still working on it). New draft version at http://lc55.co.uk/test/index.html (where I have moved the background image to top right). and the uncondensed CSS draft is at http://lc55.co.uk/test/d.css Help with condensing the CSS would be very appreciated if any of you guys can spare the time. Hope I'm not boring you guys to much, but I suppose we are all here to learn from each other. Thanks again, JG * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Hover issue
Should be commented to show anything major done:
attachment: d.css.zip
MD
On Feb 16, 2004, at 07:08, LC 55 wrote:
Michael, Peter and Lucian appreciate the feedback.
I'm still on a steep learning curve.
Firstly Michael, I was under the illusion if you tried to use the W3C
CSS validator with a .html extension, you wouldn't have a hope of
getting it to validate, as surely it is a .css only validator?
Therefore how can it validate .html? (jigsaw validator, I mean).
You'll probably have a simple explanation for me, I hope so, as I'm
getting a bit lost with this one.
As i said, I'm still quite green to this myself.
Also I know the CSS is untidy re: double ids etc. (still working on
it).
New draft version at http://lc55.co.uk/test/index.html (where I have
moved the background image to top right).
and the uncondensed CSS draft is at http://lc55.co.uk/test/d.css
Help with condensing the CSS would be very appreciated if any of you
guys can spare the time.
Hope I'm not boring you guys to much, but I suppose we are all here to
learn from each other.
Thanks again, JG
--- Michael Donnermeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
uri=http%3A%2F%2Flc55.co.uk%2Ftest%2Findex.html
Here's the issue in your #container:
margin-bottom: 0 auto;
You can't have two values here. Correct ones would be::
margin-bottom: 0ormargin-bottom: auto
Were you trying this maybe::margin: 0 auto(0 on top bottom,
auto for left and right)
The CSS could use some cleaning, looks like there's some doubles in
there (ids) and alot of double stating on things like background in
some ids.
I.E.:
#container {
width : 100%;
margin: 0 auto;
background : url(img/xr.gif) repeat 100% 50%;
background-repeat : no-repeat;
background-position : 100% 100%;
background-color : #d4dfd1;
font-family : Trebuchet MS, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial,
sans-serif;
font-size : 0.9em;
color : #333;
line-height : 115%;
}
Two questions arise there...in one you have it repeat, then you don't.
You have it position 100% 50% then 100% 100%. The later of the two
override the first ones. Be easier to condense everything into:
background: #d4dfd1 url(img/xr,gif) no-repeat bottom right;
MD
On Feb 16, 2004, at 04:08, LC 55 wrote:
Thanks Lucian for the feedback.
I am puzzled re: you writing, The CSS doesn't validate.
W3C validator was used and, the uri below validates it as CSS2.
Hope the W3C were not just being kind to me!
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
uri=http%3A%2F%2Flc55.co.uk%2Ftest%2Fd.csswarning=1profile=css2user
m
edium=all
Strange one this.
So could you tell me where you tried the validation, please?
Appreciate you testing it for me.
Regards, JG
--- Lucian Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks great on IE / Mac, Safari and Firefox / Mac.
CSS doesn't yet validate though. :)
Lucian
On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:01 PM, LC 55 wrote:
Hi all...
Anyone care to check - http://lc55.co.uk/test/index.html please.
I have a problem in IE 6 re: background image.
The image at bottom right moves slightly down the page when hovering
over footer links.
Does the same problem exist across other browsers?
Or are you finding any other problems?
Any help appreciated.
Regards, JG
_
Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers
Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go:
http://www.idotz.net
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
_
Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers
Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
_
Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers
Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
Re: [WSG] bit of help needed !
As far as I can tell it's a bug in Moz/Netscape. I've had it happen a few times before, and got myself so worked up trying to figure it out that I wanted to start shooting things. G> On the plus side, IE5.2, Safari 1,2, and Opera 6.03 display the nav right. Opera of course has the 4px or so gap at the top, and the whole content part is shifted 10 or 15 pixels left. But, on the bright side it's not collapsing the borders. I don't have the time to try this, but see what happens if you take the line-height: 1.8em out. I vaguely remember that as a possible cause for problems, but it's been a while so my mind might just be playing tricks on me. MD On Feb 16, 2004, at 18:47, Universal Head wrote: Still stumped on this one though! ;) http://www.universalhead.com/clients/test http://www.universalhead.com/clients/test/css/main.css - in Mac Mozilla and PC NN7 the 1px bottom borders on the sidenav list sometimes close up. x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] IE 5 position problems
G> Everyone says that... G> All kidding aside, Macmall.com has some of last year's iBooks (g3800, 12.1 screen) for $699 right now in their blowout area. All are new, unopened, and include a Panther upgrade. Current E-Bay price is in the $900 range for similar used ones. MD On Feb 14, 2004, at 03:47, James Gollan wrote: x-tad-biggerGotta get me a Mac./x-tad-bigger
Re: [WSG] CSS Site Check
Looks fine in Safari 1.2, Firebird 0.7, and IE 5.2. One small this I saw is in IE the footer text runs into itself if the window is resized too small, say 600-700 pixels wide or smaller. Other than that and the usual mystery horizontal scrollbar, no probs. Lynx looks alright, but personally I'd put the header div above the body...just feels weird having it below, since it's a title. It also makes 'About Us' and 'Contact Us' appear twice very close together, which might be confusing for someone. MD On Feb 12, 2004, at 02:51, Tim Lucas wrote: Could you please check the following framework for a layout i'm doing: http://www.toolmantim.com/staging/main_layout.htm Intended display (horizontally liquid with no borders): http://www.toolmantim.com/staging/main_layout.gif Thanks everyone, -- tim * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] horizontal nav bar nightmare
I played with it a little and here's what I got. The horizontal nav bar needs some tweaking, although I don't think it's possible to do much about the small left area that's not covered on hovers. I got it as close as possible in Safari Firebird, have no clue about IE on the Win side as my test station is down at the moment. It does have a major issue on IE5 Mac though, but should be fixable if you try. Here's a link to the changes I made: http://homepage.mac.com/mdnky/yoga/yoga.html On Feb 11, 2004, at 13:54, Michael Donnermeyer wrote: On Feb 10, 2004, at 23:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the site: www.desertstandard.net/YV/ The first problem is with the main horizontal nav bar. I need it to sit about 3 to 5px's from the purple header and it needs to be centered on the page. Client wants it to look like their brochure of course. I have put a orange bar on the background for reference. I cannot get it to sit there on the latest versions of all the browsers and I am having trouble with the centering. The second problem is with the sub nav menu in the Classes section. In IE 6 it keeps 'bouncing' up and down and I obviously only need it to sit still. Any suggestions are appreciated. I am close to scraping it and using tables. Thanks, Roger * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] misbehaving footer
The main page layout is way off center on Safari and buggy in Firebird. One thing I have notices is you're using align on tags in the html that should be defined in the CSS. XHTML should never have any kind of font, alignment, or color attributes attached to the html tag. Take aa look at this, I got bored...so I played with it. Works well in what I can test here, though I didn't do any hacks so IE-Win may be slightly off in a few places. Nothing that can't be solved rather easily though. (I'll send you some screen caps just in case.) http://homepage.mac.com/mdnky/yoga/yj.html On Feb 12, 2004, at 12:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: rlmoser wrote: Looks to me like line 31 is missing a / you have div instead of /div I'm assuming that the div id=cont was just supposed to contain the h3 element. If that is not the case, then maybe that div on line 31 is just extra. i put the javascript and the thumbnails into an additional div to see if that would fix it the closing tag is after the last thumbnail. I am going to remove them for clarity. problem is still there. http://www.desertstandard.com/yv2/teachers.shtml FYI I have changed the subject line from horizontal nav bar nightmare Original Message Subject: RE: [WSG] horizontal nav bar nightmare From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, February 12, 2004 9:26 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also there is something going on at www.desertstandard.net/yv2/teachers.shtml with the footer bar. its like a missed closing a div somewhere but I cannot find it. Roger Looks to me like line 31 is missing a / you have div instead of /div I'm assuming that the div id=cont was just supposed to contain the h3 element. If that is not the case, then maybe that div on line 31 is just extra. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] CSS Site Check
Don't blame you. IE has been on my last nerve recently...ALOT. I wouldn't use the hack...it's a rather minor issue anyway, and the hack could cause other issues to arise...not to mention it's a hack. Looks fine in what I tried it in: Safari 1.2 Firebird 0.7 IE 5.2.3 Opera 6.03 On Feb 12, 2004, at 18:15, Tim Lucas wrote: I'm choosing to ignore IE's lack of support for min-width. Is it worth adding the -15px hack, and does anybody know of any side effects? I've changed the footer, could you guys please do a quick recheck to see if it's still ok in Opera Mac? -- tim Michael Donnermeyer spoke the following wise words on 12/02/2004 9:33 PM EST: Looks fine in Safari 1.2, Firebird 0.7, and IE 5.2. One small this I saw is in IE the footer text runs into itself if the window is resized too small, say 600-700 pixels wide or smaller. Other than that and the usual mystery horizontal scrollbar, no probs. Lynx looks alright, but personally I'd put the header div above the body...just feels weird having it below, since it's a title. It also makes 'About Us' and 'Contact Us' appear twice very close together, which might be confusing for someone. MD
Re: [WSG] horizontal nav bar nightmare
The main problem is that second image you have in there, wrapped in a
H1 tag for some reason. (main_title)
Add this to your style sheet if you want to keep the html as it is now:
h1 {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
For the #navcontainer style, add this:
margin: 3px 0;
padding: 0;
Finally, go in you graphics editor and erase the orange bar from the
background graphic. It's an issue and not needed.
I didn't get too far into it, but that solved problem right away for
Safari 1.2 and Firebird 0.7. IE 5.2 is still being tempermental. I'll
look at it later when I have more time, but you might need to do some
rewriting to get where you want to be.
On Feb 10, 2004, at 23:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the site:
www.desertstandard.net/YV/
The first problem is with the main horizontal nav bar. I need it to
sit about 3 to 5px's from the purple header and it needs to be
centered on the page. Client wants it to look like their brochure of
course. I have put a orange bar on the background for reference. I
cannot get it to sit there on the latest versions of all the browsers
and I am having trouble with the centering.
The second problem is with the sub nav menu in the Classes section. In
IE 6 it keeps 'bouncing' up and down and I obviously only need it to
sit still.
Any suggestions are appreciated. I am close to scraping it and using
tables.
Thanks,
Roger
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
Re: [WSG] Is it ok? Does it break?
Paul, Looks fine in IE5.2, Moz 1.6, and Firebird 0.7 on the Mac. Is the header supposed to be flush with the top of the window? It is here in all 3 and just 'feels' weird. There's some nasty shifts when you use the text zoom in it, and things go haywire with both of the Moz variants. MD On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 02:05 AM, Paul wrote: HI All, First post I think, Could some people check this out and let me know if it breaks. It has been tested it in Opera, Moz and IE 6 And we think we have all the bugs out of it. Page and CSS validate. http://www.jewelled.com.au/users/shaun/item_view.php Thankyou. Paul. P.S Great list, and thanks to all the people who post the links to articles. I didnt know CSS until a few weeks ago. And the last site I did was about 4-5 years ago all in tablesJ Paul. Jeweller / Part time web dev guy.
