Re: [WSG] DIV Javascript Problem
On 29/06/2009, at 7:32 PM, Aaron Wheeler wrote: I dunno how this works or why it even works. If you're unable to work out how this works with the code in front of you, I'm not sure how anyone on this list is going to be able to help you without any code. Your best bet would be to tell that client that they should find someone who is a little more proficient with Javascript and HTML to solve the problem. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: This is so stupid - the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! You can't have your cake and eat it too... You seem very sure of yourself on this one, but wasn't Office 2007 launched at the same time as Windows Vista which included IE7 at that time? Also, if an developer wants to use embedded IE within their application they can bundle the version they'd like to use. Why is Microsoft any different? I agree with you that Microsoft not being allowed to package their own browser with their operating system is a farce, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's driven their decision to switch to using Word as the rendering engine for Outlook. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 11:40 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: I think you are slightly missing the point... You might want to re-read (or read) my email. I was responding to Matthew, who was implying that Microsoft's decision to use Word as the rendering engine was due to Opera's complaint to The European Commission and the subsequent fallout. I personally disagree with that justification, but regardless of why Microsoft chose to do what they did, I'm pretty sure that most people on this list who support web standards believe that it was a bad decision and should be rectified in future versions of Outlook. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: ...the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! Microsoft have since responded to the campaign [1] and thrown this argument out the window. Instead, they're justifying their decision by outlining how easy it is for laypeople to create rich emails in Word. It's true that creating rich documents in Word is simple, but that simplicity comes at the cost of interoperability since the only tool capable of rendering Word-generated HTML is Word itself. It also ignores the fact that emails authored in tools other than Word will not render correctly in Word. In other words, Microsoft are effectively creating their own HTML- email standard, authorable and viewable in Microsoft tools only. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Ecomm using Paypal
On 19/06/2009, at 4:17 PM, Rohini Goyal wrote: ...where can i find the right list of the attributes... Not really a web standards question, but if you do a search on the PDN you'll find this page [1] which outlines all the variables available and the expected values. Cheers, Nathan de Vries [1] https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/pdn/howto_checkout-outside *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Safari background image problem with transparent PNGs
On 30/03/2009, at 5:46 PM, Christian Montoya wrote: Any ideas? Not really helpful, but the example works fine in Safari 4. Could mean this is a bug specific to Safari 3. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] add to favorites?
On 25/03/2009, at 11:15 PM, designer wrote: Does anyone know of a modern, valid, reasonably cross-browser way to provide a link on a page so that a user can add the page to favourites? There is no way of doing this across all browsers, so all you're left with are the browsers who have provided a proprietary mechanism. Off the top of my head, only IE and Gecko-based browsers have this. You've already discovered window.external.addFavorite() for IE, so all that's left is the Mozilla/Firefox counterpart: window.sidebar.addPanel(Google, http://www.google.com/;, ); Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] add to favorites?
On 26/03/2009, at 3:56 AM, Steve Green wrote: Is this list interested in discussing how to balance the conflicting requirements of various stakeholders (including marketers) or does it take the dogmatic position that compliance with web stardards trumps everything else? You've pretty much summed up the reason I constantly ask myself why I haven't unsubscribed from this list yet. To me, web standards evolve by taking something that works, recognising its' usefulness, and standardising it. In many cases, it's valid and necessary to use proprietary features of browsers in lieu of standardised features; whether it be using VML in one browser and SVG in another, Flash for uploading files to indicate upload progress, vendor-specific Javascript calls to add bookmarks, or IE's CSS filters for enabling transparent backgrounds. Pragmatic use of standard *and* proprietary features of browsers (with a preference towards standards) is my definition of someone who takes standards seriously. Surprisingly (and unfortunately for many users of their software), some of the more vocal on this list seem to disagree. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] add to favorites?
On 26/03/2009, at 10:07 AM, Dennis Lapcewich wrote: The simple process of adding a favorites link on a web page is a proprietary function attributed to a single browser designed and developed by its manufacturer solely as marketing mechanism for said company. While on its face this may appear as a user benefit, the actual benefit is just for that single browser and its creator. Bookmarking or adding a site to your favorites is not a user benefit? You've got to be kidding me. While some may be inclined to include a favorites link on a web page as a method to retain customers, bear in mind the function requires the user to support a proprietary process as well. Have you been living in a cave? With progressive enhancement, it's possible to improve the user experience of some without negatively affecting others. Not only that, but the competition pressures vendors in positive ways, more often than not leading to standardisation. If vendors sat around holding hands trying to reach consensus before releasing features in their browsers, innovation would halt altogether. Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] add to favorites?
Stuart, You'll be pleased to know that I have indeed read what the Web Standards Group is for, and that I understand what web standards are. My original email was very clear that the method I suggested was *proprietary*, given that no standardised approach exists for doing what was asked. If there was, I would have promoted it. If you're suggesting that my answer should have been it is not possible, your view of web standards and how they evolve is rather regressive. Not only that, but it's also potentially harmful to the promotion of web standards to end-users, developers and vendors, and contrary to (in my not so humble opinion) the spirit of the WSG mandate. Nathan de Vries On 26/03/2009, at 10:59 AM, Stuart Foulstone wrote: The Web Standards Group is for web designers developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote web standards within the development community Source: http://webstandardsgroup.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] add to favorites?
On 26/03/2009, at 11:37 AM, Andrew Maben wrote: To address your argument, you appear (as does OP) to be confused as to the context of user benefit, call to action. I'm not at all confused as to what a user benefit is. You may have decided for yourself that websites have no place crossing the conservative browser-site line you've drawn in the sand, but you must concede that others may be more liberal when drawing the same line. I personally believe that websites provide context to the browser, context that website authors can leverage to inform their user. Adding a browser bookmark might have a specific benefit for your website, which when described may make more sense to your user than the abstract task of performing the task on their own. For example, a weather site may explain the benefits of bookmarking the site in terms of having ready access to the weather. Why not provide the functionality (if available) to add the bookmark then and there? You never know, other vendors might recognise the user-benefit and standardise the behavior! Likewise, RSS/Atom feed subscription functionality in the browser is very abstract. To me, let me know when Andrew adds new photos to this album makes more sense than subscribe to RSS 2.0. To laymen, the distinction is potentially more so. As for your second paragraph, apart from affording you the opportunity to offer a completely gratuitous insult, and while broadly true it is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was whether or not the use of proprietary browser functionality forced all users to use those proprietary functions, which to me is a highly relevant question. To be clear, I don't think that the use of proprietary functionality forces anything on anyone when used appropriately. Appropriately being the key word there, and where people such as you and I may sometimes disagree. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Marking up news
On 20/02/2009, at 7:05 AM, Essential eBiz Solutions wrote: I'm making a news plugin but I'm un-sure what the best/most accesible way is to mark it up? Try http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Examples_in_the_wild Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Frames/iFrames [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On 12/01/2009, at 6:12 PM, mary-anne.nay...@medicareaustralia.gov.au wrote: I am just wondering what is the general consensus on the use of Frames or iFrames these days. When required, I use HTML 4.01 transitional and iFrames to take advantage of iFrame remoting. Combined with unobtrusive Javascript, I don't see this as a problem at all. There's no hard-and-fast rule, though. Frames and/or iFrames in some situations might be wildly inappropriate. Cheers, -- Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Code for Firefox, hack for IE
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 22:09 +1000, willdonovan wrote: I do find that Opera can give a good idea of what might be happening with Safari if your a PC user... Safari has been available for Windows for a little while now. -- Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [WSG] firefox treatment of wrapper overflow height
On 18/07/2008, at 7:45 AM, David Hucklesby wrote: Of course, there are several other ways to enclose floats that do not require that extra DIV. I would have thought that the method described by PIE [1] would be the only sane way to do this. -- Nathan de Vries [1] http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
