Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
Nikita wrote: the example you provided isn't valid XHTML. I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot: http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif .. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page layout. So the result should be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional. Nikita wrote: the META tag would have to end in a / and then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nikita, Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot: http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif Hi Vlad, OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works in HTML.) The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this list, that seems pretty significant. Cheers Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTH wrote: ...server has to do content negotiation in order to send text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're generating two copies of all of your content Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML as you like. I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else? HTH wrote: Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done correctly At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see: http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/ My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml. The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done correctly. It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml). But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're getting it right most of the time. There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly) on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the standards than me. You might find it interesting reading. Cheers *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
Nikita wrote:
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag / as
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally
created. But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious - it still
warns about the use of BOM which was a problem in the 90's.
Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 10:51 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikita wrote:
the META tag would have to end in a / and then it
wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nikita,
Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template
written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
Hi Vlad,
OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and
then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
in HTML.)
The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.
Cheers
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to
generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any
version of HTML as you like.
I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you
talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
HTH wrote:
Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
get done correctly
At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate
that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers
the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
correctly.
It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
getting it right most of the time.
There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
Cheers
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
HTH wrote: ...server has to do content negotiation in order to send text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're generating two copies of all of your content Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML as you like. HTH wrote: Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done correctly At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see: http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/ Simon wrote: Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content in XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make modifications to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your content. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period, just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if not all, were sent with the wrong media type. http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes and does it provide any benefits? Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Strict? Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict? One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet? Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of one's content. Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone XHTML 1.1. About XHTML and media types: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary HTH *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Conversation with Opera on Web standards
Hi, We have just published a QA with Opera regarding their antitrust complaint against Microsoft, lodged with the European Commission. The QA focus on the Web standards aspect of Opera's complaint. http://xhtml.com/en/web-standards/conversation-with-opera/ Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible Open Source CMS
Tee wrote: [XStandard] Mac version finally came out - a very long wait, must be at least 2 year It wasn't a straight port - we were pioneering new accessible UI and few features such as authoring definition lists at the same time as we were writing the OS X code. Whenever you're first to do something, it's always going to take longer. For example, it took us 2 months to build support for authoring definition lists (dl). Initially we thought dl should be authored in a similar way to ol/ul so we spent a month building the authoring interface that way. Then we realized that the user will have a much better experience if dl was treated more like tables from an authoring perspective, so we spent a month re-writing authoring interface. And that's how 2 years go by. Here is more info: http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4931 http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7607 Tee wrote: thread regarding XStandard porting to Modx and you and the developers were going to see if possible. That seems went dead? We make a special version of XStandard with most of the Pro features available to open source CMS vendors free of charge. Here are the details: http://xstandard.com/en/programs/xstandard-lite-for-partner-cms/ MODx developers started to integrate XStandard into their CMS but we don't know what the current status of that project is. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG Editor Original Message From: Tee G. Peng Date: 2007-09-12 11:02 PM On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Tee wrote: Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible WYSIWYG Editor existed that delivers pure clean code. It all depends on how you define fully. XStandard has a keyboard accessible interface and most definitely delivers clean, accessible markup. Well, yesterday I finally learned that the Mac version finally came out - a very long wait, must be at least 2 year; after 6 months of waiting, I gave up and completely forgotten as if it never existed. Haven't try the lite version so I will take your word and give a benefit of doubt, but until then I will reserve my insignificant 2 cents :) I remember there was a thread regarding XStandard porting to Modx and you and the developers were going to see if possible. That seems went dead? tee *** 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] Accessible Open Source CMS
This article may be useful: http://juicystudio.com/article/choosing-an-accessible-cms.php Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG Editor for CMS *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible Open Source CMS
Tee wrote: Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible WYSIWYG Editor existed that delivers pure clean code. It all depends on how you define fully. XStandard has a keyboard accessible interface and most definitely delivers clean, accessible markup. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Tee G. Peng Date: 2007-09-12 7:46 PM On Sep 12, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: This article may be useful: http://juicystudio.com/article/choosing-an-accessible-cms.php Hmm, I wonder why they didn't include Modx. The survey was done in May, maybe Modx (v 0.9.5) wasn't quite ready yet! The v.9.6 has improved a lot and we are promised something even sweeter in the next release. That said, if you pay attention and practice web standards, it will be a fooled to not pay attention to certain things from certain people in the web standards groups. The same goes with Modx CMS, if you are looking for a scalable, accessible and web standards compliant CMS that offers many flexible and powerful features through plugins and snippets, it will be a fool that you don't even spend a few minutes to take a look simply because you already have a favorite ones. Dive into Modx and make a template (or convert one of your static CSS/XHTML layout) isn't difficult at all. Modx is very user-friendly for web designer however the learning curve is a bit higher (but not more than WP, Joomla, Textpattern, EE, Plone of the sort in my opinion (I have tested them all)) if one PHP knowledge's is a bit weak (someone like me). Currently Modx lacks a good documentation and the admin interface have room to improved (again! we are promised that they will be changed in the next release); Many tips and tutorials are hidden in the Forum that need a bit of digging and dedication. Modx doesn't control/limit what you want as far as code and functionality concerned; it gives you what you want to have, the way you wanted it. Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible WYSIWYG Editor existed that delivers pure clean code. TINY MCE is the default plugin for Modx which I find difficult to use and a memory eater; I prefer something like textile from Textpattern; someone was making Markdown integration I think. It has a QuickEdit front-end content editor which I like very much. Ditto, Jot and Reflect snippets make Modx a wonderful Blog CMS (if you only want a blog). Ditto aggregates articles (aka documents) (this snippet can do a lot more tasks); Jot takes care of comments and Reflect handles the archives. There is a plugin called PHx (Placeholders Xtended), enable, can add the capability of output modifiers using placeholders, template variables (A very powerful feature of Modx - you no longer limited to Content area) and settings tags. Jot + PHx, you get: moderate, edit, delete comments at front-end. As for the ping and trackback features that bloggers concern about, there is a Trackback snippet, and a Japanese developer wrote a SendPing module : [quote]: What does this plugin do? This plugin is supposed to send pings to various (editable) websites using the XML-RCP library and ping protocol. The goal of this is to update these services that there has been added new content to your website, which will make sure these services crawl your website. This feature is mainly interesting for those who use MODx to blog, but the usage of pings is growing all the time as it's an comfortable way to instantly get updated data for search engines. In addition to this it'll also notify Google that your site has new content and your sitemap.xml should be spidered again (exact filename also configurable). Also, according to ZeRo's email this currently supports multi domains, which could be useful for the heavy users. What doesn't it do? It wont make you coffee nor breakfast, sadly, in addition to that it doesn't automatically notify these services as of now; you'll have to run the module manually, ZeRo has planned a plugin to handle this with his next version. Trackback allows blogger to send/receive pings to other blogs whereas SendPing will notify blog search engines/social networking sites [/quote] Many interesting and powerful snippets/plugins/modules that can enhance features, functions and make your live sweeter, can be found in 'forum In Development'. Lastly, I almost hate to mention my site as it hasn't completed yet - it's powered by Modx using just a few snippets/plugin with a nothing-to-show-blog. This is not a good example to demonstrate how flexible and scalable and accessible Modx can give you, but I hope it's a good example of 'artisan's work' (borrowed Partrick's word) made by Modx. In the blog individual article page, I even managed to score WCAG AAA. http://tinyurl.com/3deh87 tee
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer (Bob) wrote: Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. I've never heard such shit in my life. Designer (Bob) wrote: I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. Bob, I suspect the problem is that you don't know how to use alt text correctly. Let me backup my statement with some examples from your Web site. On your home page: http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/index.php You've made your company logo, an information image, into a decorative image: img src=opening/graphics/gaminternet.gif alt=/ On this page: http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/altgam/gwelanmor.php You've made an images of quote marks, decorative images, into an informative images: img src=graphics/8220.gif alt=leftquote graphic .../ img src=graphics/8221.gif alt=leftquote graphic .../ You also put one of these decorative images with alt text into the middle of a sentence so the sentence now reads like this: We have been involved in professional computing for more leftquote graphic than 20 years ... In another graphic on this page, I don't know what this alt text means: img src=graphics/marramgrass.gif alt= ... / Bob, the following link may help you better understand the difference between decorative and non-decorative images: http://xhtml.com/en/xhtml/reference/img/ Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-09-08 1:22 PM Rahul Gonsalves wrote: On 31-Aug-07, at 11:08 PM, Designer wrote: Well Vlad, whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid. Bob, While not quite in direct response to your statement, I thought I'd share this article from over at A List Apart: http://alistapart.com/articles/revivinganorexicwebwriting Specifically the 'A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words' bit. I admit to having overlooked alt text. Until a year ago I sniffed at the idea of creating useful alt text for images. �If a user is blind,� I reasoned, �what does he care that I have a photograph of the university tower on my website?� My fellow designer shrugged. �Well, I guess if you don�t really care about what the image says,� she said slowly, �you really don�t need it in the first place.� Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Hi Rahul., Whilst interesting and quite valid, I think the article is not about stuff on web sites that are primarily visual art. What I mean is that the sort of stuff which is purely visual poetry cannot have an alt tag which adds anything other than a 'lable'. Consider (just as an example) a web site to accompany a show by Mark Rothko, with a handful of images from the show displayed on the site. Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. (In fact, the images lose a lot compared to their actual presence in the gallery, even for sighted viewers). In case you are unfamiliar with Rothko, you can see stuff at : http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm. Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of images such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having alt tags, other than to point out that 'there is a picture there'. Of what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe. I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: By that term [purely visual site] I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. Thank you for the example but I don't understand what is purely visual about this site. If the alt text for images was written correctly, a blind person using a screen reader or someone who turned image rendering off in the browser, would still get information from this site. The same would apply if 100% of the content on the site were made up of images. X/HTML is not a visual technology. So long as Web pages are written in X/HTML according to specification, there shouldn't be such a things as a purely visual site. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-08-31 6:50 AM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: I don't know what is a purely visual site. Can you please provide an example? Regards, -Vlad Hi Vlad, By that term I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. See www.kernowimages.co.uk for a (not perfect :-) example. The content of the site is visual as opposed to literal. There are a lot of such sites around. HTH, *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Brad wrote: Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is never appropriate. Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos in batches for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one group of people causes inconvenience for another group of people. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Brad Pollard Date: 2007-08-30 6:28 AM If the developers of flickr.com or Photobucket were to implement the recommendations regarding the omission of the alt attribute within the current HTML 5 draft what are the potential effects upon the accessibility of the sites for users of assistive technology such as screen readers? Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr (as it currently stands) but flickr should be doing more to encourage their contributors to write a bit more of a story about their images - the extra information would be useful to not only the visually impaired. The inclusion of the alt attribute as a requirement has improved developer awareness of accessibility - we all work with images. The alt attribute as a requirement has played, and should continue to play, an important role in accessibility. *** 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] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Lachlan wrote: the question that still remains is that if allowing the alt attribute to be omitted when users don't provide any good text isn't the right solution, then what is? What should the spec recommend to use in these cases? It is not the role of the spec to explain how, if you don't do things well, how you can do them badly. The role of the spec is to state what is the correct behavior - that is all. Lachlan wrote: What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? As a WYSIWYG editor vendor, I can tell you what we do. We prompt the user to identify if the image is Decorative or not. So the user makes the decision. If the user says the image is not decorative, they MUST submit an alt text before the image can be saved. Here are the details of what we do: http://xstandard.com/en/documentation/xstandard-dev-guide/accessibility/#markup-images Lachlan wrote: What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? They should do what XStandard does, as explained above. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 2007-08-30 10:52 AM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Brad wrote: Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is never appropriate. That's technically true and even though sites like Flickr certainly should allow users to provide alternate text for their images, the question that still remains is that if allowing the alt attribute to be omitted when users don't provide any good text isn't the right solution, then what is? What should the spec recommend to use in these cases? Whatever the solution(s), there are various different scenarios that should be addressed. (Note that in all of these scenarios, the authoring tools should allow the author to specify alt text. This is just about what to do when the author doesn't.) What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: Even with alt tags, reading that he/she is 'looking' at a picture of 'my cat' or 'my birthday party' would be singularly dull, I'd have thought! The dullness of the alt text is irrelevant. Some people find photo sites dull and that is just as irrelevant to this discussion. Designer wrote: Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site... I don't know what is a purely visual site. Can you please provide an example? Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-08-30 12:51 PM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is never appropriate. Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos in batches for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one group of people causes inconvenience for another group of people. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Let's just keep things in perspective for a moment. If a user is unfortunate enough to have eyesight which dictates that he/she has to use a screenreader, it is unlikey that he/she will get much out of flickr anyway. Even with alt tags, reading that he/she is 'looking' at a picture of 'my cat' or 'my birthday party' would be singularly dull, I'd have thought! Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site can NEVER be presented 'accessibly' in any eaningful way? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Nancy Johnson wrote: I believe best practices are to have all images in a directory entitled images Hi Nancy, I would not encourage this practice. There are two types of images on Web site - site level images (mostly used in page layout like logos, buttons, backgrounds, etc.) and document level images (images used by a given document). If you put all images into the images folder, it's like putting things into a black hole; things go it but never come out. The problem is just by looking at the files in the images folder, you have no idea which documents are referencing them so you are not sure if you can ever delete them. The best file system way to manage images that I found so far is to create folders with the ID of the document and then place all document level files like images and attachments (pdf, doc, etc.) into these folders. When you delete a document, you can then delete the folder associated with this document. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Never delete them! Since Cool URIs don't change, no document should ever be deleted Lachlan, I'd hate to think that you are giving advice based on an article you've read or from the practice of operating a personal blog. So I am going to assume that you are basing your advice on years of experience in managing large Web sites with hundreds of staff content contributors. So, before we all remove the Delete button in our content management systems, can you please let us know on which projects you have successfully applied the principle of no document should ever be deleted? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Hi Richard, Can you please suggest a reason why there would be an absolute need to delete a file? That's a good question. Here are some reasons to absolutely delete files: - Legal issues / licensing. Your site may be licensed to use content for a period of time and then content needs to be removed. A real life example would be an online store that sell 3rd party products. It may use Product X images only as long as it sells Product X. - Branding issues. When a company changes it's logo, slogan, colour scheme, etc., Sales and Marketing will want to remove any images with old branding. That's the whole point of branding. - Incorrect/out-of-date information. Informative images can have old pricing info, old phone numbers, old organizational charts, old product numbers, etc. To reduce confusion, misleading information and errors, old images need to be removed. - Business reasons. You formed a partnership with Company X and it did not work out. You probably want to remove any images with both your logos together. I don't think you would want to archive that screw-up! :-) So the next logical question is, if none of my current Web pages link to old images, then what's the harm in keeping them around if I have extra disk space? Well, your Web pages are not the only entry point to your Web site's images. For example, go to google.com and click on Images. Richard, the article Lachlan referred to talks about an ideal world based on frictionless models. Whenever people get involved, you get frictions (in more sense than one). Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE FF
Lachlan wrote: That code [XSLT] your referring too seems to be incomplete. As I mentioned in previous email, it is to illustrate the technique and not meant to be the final script. Lachlan wrote: Fair enough, but do you agree that if there is no intention of any further XML processing, then converting to HTML 4 would be the most appropriate choice? That is a subjective decision on the part of the developer. There is certainly nothing wrong with converting XML to HTML 4 via XSLT server-side to be served to Web browsers. Vlad wrote: Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed to be backwards compatible to HTML 4 if written to compatibility guidelines? Lachlan wrote: It is clear that that was certainly the intention Therefore XHTML 1.0 was designed to be served as HTML using text/html MIME type. So, can you please, please, please stop making statements like XHTML should not be served as text/html which sound like they are statements of fact whereas they are statements of opinion? Perhaps you can qualify the statements by adding something like In my opinion, it's best to Lachlan wrote: but I don't agree that the HTMLWG were entirely successful in doing so. Not relevant - WWW can be argued as not being entirely successful. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE FF
Lachlan wrote: It is just as easy to set xsl:output method=html, output an HTML4 DOCTYPE and not worry about inserting a space before '/' for empty elements. If you use the 10 lines of re-usable code that I suggested in your XSLT, one does not need to worry - you have XML in and you have XML out. If you're using XSLT, why bother attempting to comply... It depends on your requirements - right? If you are doing a batch process and you plan to store the output before serving it, you would want to store it in a parsable form that can be served as is or further processed by other XML technologies. Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed to be backwards compatible to HTML 4 if written to compatibility guidelines? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE FF
Paul wrote: I came across a strange issue last night while converting some XML data via an XSL template into XHTML. You can write your XSLT to output XHTML that follows compatibility guidelines. You can use the technique in this XSLT: http://misc.xstandard.com/wsg/preview.zip If you need a hand with your XSLT, contact me off the list and I'll be happy to help. Lachlan wrote: XHTML should not be served as text/html Please, give it a rest. XHTML was designed to be backwards compatible, so it can be served as HTML if written to compatibility guidelines; unless you know something that the W3C XHTML working group doesn't. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Best Web Standards thing I learnt in 2005.
Hi Terrence, The summary attribute is best used to describe the structure of the table, not to summarise it's content. Thanks for sharing that with us. Can you please let me know the source of this info? Anybody else have an opinion on this? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Terrence Wood Date: 12/21/2005 4:22 PM The best web standards thing I learnt in 2005 is: How to best use the summary attribute for screen reader users: The summary attribute is best used to describe the structure of the table, not to summarise it's content. A longer summary is better according to actual screen reader user testing. How do you know if your summary works, if you don't have any screen reader users to test with? You need two people, someone to read the summary and someone to draw the table. Read your summary aloud and see what the other person draws. If the result resembles your table then you are on the right track =) Example from complex financial table: summary=There are 8 columns. Column 1 names the appropriation and labels the row or rowgroup. Columns 2 through 5 report the numbers for 2004/5, where column 2 is Budgeted Annual, column 3 is Budgeted Other, column 4 is Estimated Actual Annual, column 5 is Estimated Actual Other. Columns 6 through 7 report the numbers for 2005/6 where column 6 is Vote Annual, column 7 is Vote Other. Column 8 contains narrative on the scope of the appropriation. Rows are grouped by appropriation type. (yep.. rowgroup is jargon, but most people got it... you could say group of rows) HTH, please share your discovery in 2005. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] Newcomers and Web Standards
[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some other method.] You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about 15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to people doing this but I would not waste CPU cycles for this. [Lachlan wrote: ...it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools] Now, let's have a race; I'll write code to convert XHTML to HTML using XML tools and you write code to convert HTML to XHTML using SGML tools. Sorry, I'm kidding; just wanted to illustrate the ease of use of XML tools over SGML tools :-) [Lachlan wrote: I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.] Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 12/3/2005 11:25 PM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data because it is not easily parsable from a content management perspective. Yes it is, it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools. This all comes down to using the right tool for the job. Content written in HTML cannot easily be re-purposed. If you have 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in all of them, it is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If the documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT. The same is true of HTML, it just requires that you use SGML tools to process it, rather than XML tools, and SGML tools have been available for much longer than XML tools; they're just not so widely deployed because HTML is rarely treated as an application of SGML anyway. Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some other method. So we need to start writing content in XML and if it's content destined for the Web, then XHTML is perfect. The next step is: if you write it in XHTML, then why not serve it in XHTML (even if right now it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML). Such use cases require XML tools, with a CMS that uses such tools to guarantee well-formed input and output. It also requires that the author be competent enough to develop and test and a completely XML environment, even if it's delivered to the world as text/html. I do agree that XHTML on the back end does have significant authoring benefits for those experienced and competent enough to do so, but we're talking about beginners who are unlikely to have such tools at their disposal and are extremely likely to be developing and testing in an HTML environment. As I have said many times, learning XHTML that way is not a good idea, and it is the responsibility of those of us teaching it to make sure it is learned correctly, not incorrectly as you seem to be pushing. Additionally, how many commonly used, off-the-shelf CMSs that claim to output XHTML as text/html, or in fact any CMS regardless of its output, actually make use of XML tools? WordPress certainly doesn't, it uses string substitutions and doesn't guarantee well-formed output, as do others such as MovableType, Blogger, etc. I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools. As of yet, I have not found any that do, let alone guarantee 100% well-formed output. ** 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] Newcomers and Web Standards
[Lachlan wrote: IE has no native support for XHTML at all.] So it's not native support but there _is_ support. How can you tell if there is support, well, you do test-cases. If one can produce a test-case of valid XHTML served as HTML to IE and IE parses it correctly, then there is support. Why should we care if IE use an SGML or an XML parser to process the markup? The main thing is that markup is parsed correctly and there is no data loss. How can IE do this reliably? Because valid XHTML markup written to comparability guidelines is a sub-set of HTML. [Lachlan wrote: If you serve invalid, ill-formed XHTML to any browser as text/html, will there be any data loss? The answer is the same [No].] That's not strictly the case, because whenever you write any markup not to specification, there is a chance of it being parsed incorrectly, resulting in data loss or incorrect association of data. I speak as a software engineer who has written parsers, but don't take my word for it. Try this test: take a bunch of real use Word documents, save them out as HTML and then run HTML Tidy on them. I bet there will be some data loss. That is not to say that Tidy has a bad parser (on the contrary); but markup not written to specification is at risk for data loss. Even WCAG 2.0 recognizes it in Guideline 4.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/complete.html#use-spec As far as MIME types are concerned, we live in the real world, and until IE natively supports XHTML, we need to serve XHTML 1.0 as HTML to IE. We should not throw the baby (XHTML) out with the bathwater (IE 6). User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data because it is not easily parsable from a content management perspective. Content written in HTML cannot easily be re-purposed. If you have 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in all of them, it is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If the documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT. So we need to start writing content in XML and if it's content destined for the Web, then XHTML is perfect. The next step is: if you write it in XHTML, then why not serve it in XHTML (even if right now it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML). Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 12/3/2005 5:50 AM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you make extreme statements such as since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4 or IE does not support XHTML, that debate will ensue. So be it. If there are still people that don't understand XHTML for what it is, yet blindly attempt to use it, then the issues need to be discussed. This is not what newcomers to Web Standards need. A better approach would have been to ask why this person needs/wants to use XHTML and if he/she has a good reason to do so, give this person advice on how to do it right. Thank you for this very constructive advice, in future I will be more careful about how I phrase such things. But my message still stands: XHTML is not appropriate for an inexperienced HTML author to use, particularly with the current level of browser support. To address your statement that IE does not support XHTML - this is not true. IE does support XHTML 1.0 - you and I just don't like the level of support IE offers. No, the fact is that IE has no native support for XHTML at all. By the same logic you're claiming that it has limited support, then I could invent my own FooML language using similar element names and attributes to HTML, register the MIME type application/fooml+xml for it to use, serve it as text/html and claim that IE has limited support: !DOCTYPE FooML SYSTEM http://example.org/fooml/dtd; fooml xmlns=http://example.org/fooml/namespace; titleThis is a FooML Document/title pIf I serve this as text/html, then IE will seem to support it./p pI can even use scripts with a MIME type it it doesn't normally recognise./p script content-type=application/ecmascript alert(Hello World!); // Since content-type is an non-existent attribute in HTML, // the MIME type is ignored and tag soup browsers assumes it's // JavaScript, even though most current browsers only widely // recognise text/javascript. /script /fooml Would you agree that IE has no support for FooML, or would you claim that it has limited support because the result is acceptable, when served with the wrong MIME type? If you serve valid XHTML as HTML to IE, will there be any data loss? No! If you serve invalid, ill-formed XHTML to any browser as text/html, will there be any data loss? The answer is the same, but that doesn't make
Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)
[Lori wrote] I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards conforming web pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML editor you folks that are light years ahead of me would recommend? [Lachlan wrote] Since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4 Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking for a recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person in a debate over MIME types. Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn about Web Standards? Why do you need to stir things up? Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that you will get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop referring to an article that is based on flawed assumptions. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)
Here is Hickson's reasoning as taken from http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml 1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for tag soup or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as text/html. 2. Authors find everything works fine. 3. Time passes. 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it is, after all, XHTML. 5. Author finds site breaks horribly. 6. Author blames XHTML. [Rimantas wrote: You know, I have tested those flawed assumptions and they appear to be true.] So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed XHTML because your Web site broke. If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some User Agents had not parsed it correctly, would you blame HTML 4? Wow, calling us liars because XHTML 1.1 has td align= valign= constructs speaks volumes about your character. As it happens, there is no other way to do arbitrary alignment in XHTML 1.1 other than using this construct without resorting to inline CSS, which is deprecated, or by using constructs that are no better like: td class=left top Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Rimantas Liubertas Date: 12/2/2005 11:54 AM ... Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking for a recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person in a debate over MIME types. Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn about Web Standards? Why do you need to stir things up? You know, I have tested those flawed assumptions and they appear to be true. What definitely looks like false statement is: ...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever availability of data is an important factor. (from http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A4372B00-8D7F-4166-977C-64E5C4E3708Es=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note) I guess td align=left headers=th056EAE64 valign=top (same source) adds credibility to the claim. You know, in old bad HTML I can just drop align=left part, because that's default behaviour, and use vertical-align: top instead of valign=top. Marketing is marketing, but lie adds no credibility either. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)
Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you make extreme statements such as since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4 or IE does not support XHTML, that debate will ensue. This is not what newcomers to Web Standards need. A better approach would have been to ask why this person needs/wants to use XHTML and if he/she has a good reason to do so, give this person advice on how to do it right. To address your statement that IE does not support XHTML - this is not true. IE does support XHTML 1.0 - you and I just don't like the level of support IE offers. If you serve valid XHTML as HTML to IE, will there be any data loss? No! Will any modern assistive technology running on top of IE not be able to access the data? No! So, if XHTML is written to specification and to compatibility guidelines, IE will support XHTML. Now, I don't want to give Hickson any more of my attention. But I will say that he and his groupies are not interested in teaching people how to use XHTML correctly. They are far more interested in inventing HTML 5 that no one now or will ever support. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 12/2/2005 5:08 PM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: Lori Cole wrote: I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards conforming web pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML editor you folks that are light years ahead of me would recommend? Since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4 Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking for a recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person in a debate over MIME types. My original advice to Lori did not include anything about MIME types or any other technical issues, I merely advised him/her that XHTML was not widely supported that there's a lot to learn about XHTML before one can use it; both points are true and I would expect anyone to give such advice to a beginner, before they go off and learn XHTML wrongly. I only brought up all the technical issues in order to defend my position, and if I wasn't able to defend my position, I would have lost credibility. Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn about Web Standards? Yes. Why should we attempt to hide the truth from them, especially when they're just starting out and they need to lose/avoid any bad habits and mistakes as quickly as possible. Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that you will get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop referring to an article that is based on flawed assumptions. The assumptions are not completely flawed, and while the conclusion that authors blame XHTML may not be true in all cases, substitute XHTML with browsers or anything else commonly blamed by incompetent authors other than themselves, and the rest of the assumptions still hold true. But those assumptions you quoted from the article are irrelevant to the accuracy of the technical arguments within it. It is the technical arguments you need to dispute, not some introductory prose. ** 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] Avoiding the evil br
Hi Hope, There is nothing evil about the br element unless one is using it for visual effect. In your example, you are using br correctly. For addresses, you might want to use the address element instead of p. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Hope Stewart Date: 10/9/2005 6:47 PM I'm getting the hang of this whole Web Standards way of designing a website and for the most part can totally avoid using br. But in the example below I'm unsure whether I should in fact avoid using br: pstrongAll correspondence should be addressed to:/strongbr / The Secretarybr / Your Clubbr / PO Box 999br / Anytown VIC 3000/p How do others code an address? My feeling is that semantically it should be contained within one paragraph or entity of some sort. But if you were using a screen reader, how would you differentiate one line from the next? If I were to use an ordered list with list-style-type set to none, would this be semantically correct? Is there a better way? Hope Stewart ** 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 **
[WSG] Web Standards Charter - An Open Letter To WaSP
In an Open Letter to WaSP, we are proposing that WaSP should take the initiative and lead a campaign to change to how we in the Web Standards community communicate Web Standards to newcomers. The proposal involves the creation of a Web Standards Charter. Our proposal may affect many of you in the Web Standards community, so please do take the time to voice your opinion at the following location: http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/10/04/an-open-letter-to-wasp/ Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Fallback elements inside Object - should they be available in the DOM?
Hi Patrick, Interesting... I think you found a bug in Firefox. The IE approach seems to be correct. Content inside the object tag is an alternative to the object tag, not an addition to it. Using your example, in IE, the following construct will submit abc to the server: object name=abc ... textarea name=def/textarea /object In FF 1.5, both abc and def will be submitted to the server. In an ideal scenario, you would want to have this construct: object name=abc ... textarea name=abc/textarea /object Patrick, this bug should be reported to Mozilla. If you are going to report it, can you please CC me on it in Bugzilla. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Patrick Lauke Date: 9/20/2005 11:37 AM Possibly a bizarre question, but: currently working on integrating XStandard http://xstandard.com in a form, but trying to make it behave more reasonably when the plugin is not installed and when javascript is off. What I discovered is a fundamental difference between IE and Firefox (not tested other browsers at this stage). Assuming we have the simplified code object textarea/textarea object If the plugin is not available, the textarea is used. Fine, no worries there. However, when the plugin IS available, IE seems to completely expunge the textarea from the DOM, while Firefox seems to remove it from the visual display, but still lets you manipulate it via javascript. (some may have gathered already, I was hoping to stuff the value of the plugin into the existing textarea's value property) A possibly academic question: which approach is right? Should the browser not make the fallback elements inside the object available? I'm coding around the issue, but I'd be curious what people think... __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Reason for leaving
Hi Duncan, Is there really that many disabled internet users? Accessibility is about usability for everyone, not any specific interest group. Millions of users on the Web don't consider themselves disabled but use features that we incorrectly consider as accessibility only features. These include browsing with larger fonts, using keyboard shortcuts, browsing with images turned off, etc. Discussing Web standards in relation to one specific group like blind users using assistive technology is useful because it makes it easier to spot errors in your markup and design approach. Also, keep in mind that search engines process your Web site just like assistive technologies. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Duncan Stigwood Date: 8/15/2005 1:35 PM On 12/08/05, Brian Grimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This forum has unfortunately degraded from a useful resource in regards to properly writing code for use by those with disabilities to just another HTML help group... Are the disabed really the main priority when it comes to web standards? I'm new to web design as a job and I like the fact I know the standards and am on this list because I see it as the niche in the market that'll help me be a successful freelancer. For me coding to standards has been more about being state of the art than anything else. Knowing that behind the pretty interface is slim and sexy coding. I always laughed off the disability thing the same way you do when there are no spaces in the supermarket car park except all the disabled spots. Is there really that many disabled internet users? I would like to know. :) ** 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] Ten questions for Russ
Russ wrote: [quote] At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then you are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time. [/quote] Let me be the first to gather the kindling :-) The whole MIME debate started with Ian Hickson. Let me summarize his argument: If you author bad XHTML and serve it up as HTML, you won't know that you have invalid XHTML and you will blame XHTML when you find out. Sorry, this is not a valid argument. This is fear mongering. For more advocacy along the same line from Ian, have a read of this: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xslt This article advocates the use of Python, Perl, JavaScript, C++ and a DOM parser to do transformations over XSLT. This clearly shows that Ian's knowledge on the subject is academic. Anyone familiar with the benefits of XSLT, will get a good laugh from this short article. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standard-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG Editor ** 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] Opening links in new window with XHTML
Hi Tat, You do it via JavaScript. For example: a href=http://mysite.com; onclick=window.open(this.href); return false; onkeypress=window.open(this.href); return false;/a This is the most accessible way to do this. If the user agent does not support JavaScript or it is disabled, the link will open in the same window. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor Tatham Oddie wrote: All, I’m trying to have a link open in a new window (like I’ve done a million times)… however the validator doesn’t like this. If we don’t have the target attribute how are we supposed to do it now? Or aren’t we supposed to do it – and leave it up to the use agent? *This page is **not** Valid XHTML 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/!* Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser. 1. //Line 121, column 76//: there is no attribute target |.../ title=Australian Alpine Club target=||_blank| Tat ** 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] Valid Code, but Poor Accessibility
Hi David, I am not aware of any articles but I can give you some examples. All examples below will validate against one doctype or another but will produce less than accessible markup: 1. Using tags incorrectly. For example, using blockquote to indent. 2. Using images incorrectly. For example, supplying alt text for decorative images. 3. Using formatting to convey meaning. For example, pspan class=bigChapter Title.../span/p instead of h1Chapter Title .../h1 4. Using layout tables to display tabular data. For example, not associating cells to row/column headers. 5. Using pop-up windows via the target attribute. For exmaple: a href=abc target=mywindow instead of this: a onclick=window.open(this.href); return false; onkeypress=window.open(this.href); return false; href=abc 6. Using headers (H1 to H6) incorrectly to generate a meaningless document outline. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor David Nicol wrote: Hello everyone, This is my first post to the group I would be very grateful if someone could direct me to an existing resource or article addressing the subject of how a validly-coded web site can fail to be truly accessible. i.e. why valid code is not, in itself, enough to guarantee accessibility. I've searched extensively for existing articles but have drawn a blank. I'm fairly sure, though, that someone must have already covered this topic and I hope that someone on this list will be able to point me in the right direct. Thank you for your help. Cheers David ** 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 **
[WSG] Using headers for document outline question
We are building an Outline validator - similar to the Show Outline feature in http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html The purpose of this Outline validator is to help non-technical authors create better structured documents. I have a question regarding the use of H1 headings. From the spec, it appears that multiple H1 headings are permitted on the same Web page. However, is it bad practice to do so? Can someone come up with a scenario where multiple H1 headings are desirable? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.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 **
Re: [WSG] Using headers for document outline question
Hi Kornel, Thanks for the example. The W3C outline validator flags this example as missing an H2 headings an puts Other Books under Beginning of another book. Here is your example online: http://xstandard.com/test1.htm I think blockquote should create it's own headingspace :) Interesting concept! Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Kornel Lesinski wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:36:52 +0100, Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question regarding the use of H1 headings. From the spec, it appears that multiple H1 headings are permitted on the same Web page. However, is it bad practice to do so? Can someone come up with a scenario where multiple H1 headings are desirable? h1My favorite quotes/h1 h2From books/h2 h3Those with headings/h3 blockquote h1Beginning of some book/h1 p.../p /blockquote blockquote h1Beginning of another book/h1 p.../p /blockquote h3Other books/h3 ... I think blockquote should create it's own headingspace :) ** 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] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
Hi Patrick, The following is take from: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/xhtml2.html Before somebody smart in this list points out that this document is a working draft, let me say that (1) there are other sources that say the same thing - I don't have time to hunt for them right now and (2) I am only referring to sections that talk about the past or have not changed and (3) this document is more descriptive than other sources. [quote:] Separators: in previous versions of HTML, the hr element was used to separate sections of a text from each other. In retrospect, the name hr (for horizontal rule) was badly chosen, because an hr was neither necessarily horizontal (in vertical text it was vertical), nor necessarily a rule (books often use other typographical methods to represent separators, such as a line of three asterisks, and stylesheets can be used to give you this freedom). In order to emphasize its structuring nature, and to make it clearer that it has no essential directionality, hr has been renamed separator. [/quote] [quote] For visual user agents this element [sup] would normally be rendered as a super-script of the text baseline, but on user agents where this is not possible (for instance teletype-like devices) other renderings may be used. For instance, 2supn/sup that would be rendered as 2n on a device that can render it so, might be rendered as 2↑(n) on a simpler device. Many scripts (e.g., French) require superscripts or subscripts for proper rendering. The sub and sup elements should be used to markup text in these cases. Examples: E = mcsup2/sup span xml:lang=frMsuplle/sup Dupont/span [/quote] Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Patrick Lauke wrote: Vlad Alexander (XStandard) sub and sup are not presentational. I beg to differ...they are entirely visual. There is a valid need for superscript and subscript in markup. For example: E = mcsup2/sup Again, that's visual markup. It doesn't say M C squared, but M C and then a 2 that lives a little higher up than the rest of the text. HTML was never meant to mark up mathematical expressions...that's what MathML is for. I've seen sup used for referencing footnotes as well... so you see it's not that sup has semantic value, but it's purely describing the visual appearance. W3C uses a hidden hr tag on the home page to separate page content from the copyright info. The W3C site is not always the best example for the purest, most semantic use of markup, css, accessibility or anything else, so - regardless of this actual discussion on hr - I wouldn't use something found in their markup as an absolute proof. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ** 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] standards for shopping carts
Hi Lisa, Check this out: http://www.dpivision.com/ Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor Lisa B. McLaughlin wrote: Hi, Are there web standards for shopping carts? I'm looking for a secure cart. Perhaps this isn't the best list to post this question, but if there are standards regarding carts, you guys would certainly know! Lisa -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Laakso Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:18 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Does anyone know of a standard Calendar? On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:47:47 -, Joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, I will have a mini calendar on a site im currently working on, yet I need something that is customisable, and also web standard. [...] Josef You might check the archives at http://www.css-discuss.org/ . There have been two CSS constructed calendars posted within the past 10 days. Best, David ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Hi Alan, I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? It depends on what you mean by obolete. Deprecated means that it's part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the style is not flagged deprecated but that can change. Here is what the spec says: Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Alan Trick ** 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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?
Hi Alan, Both span class=red and span style=color:#f00 are bad. How about BBtags this: [important] [highlight] [note] [misc] then you use this markup: em class=important em class=hightlight .. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a span style='color:#f00'/span instead of a span class='red'/span and have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do via classes and external/internal css. The only other place I've used it is when I want to randomly generate a background-image or something, but that probably better doen with internal css Alan Trick Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Alan, I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? It depends on what you mean by obolete. Deprecated means that it's part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the style is not flagged deprecated but that can change. Here is what the spec says: Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Alan Trick wrote: I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1. Does this mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an external style sheet. Alan Trick ** 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] neat code in A9 search
Hi Kornel, BOM is a Unicode standard. Without BOM, applications have to waste resources trying to figure character encoding. Here are some FAQs about BOM: http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#22 The reason PHP breaks is because PHP does not support Unicode. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] neat code in A9 search there appears some funny characters. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN This is another Microsoft invention - BOM marker used to recognize UTF-8 files. ByteOrderMarker makes no sense in UTF-8. Notepad and other MS-tools silently insert it in all UTF-8 files, making them invalid. This breaks HTML validation, causes trash in some browsers and breaks PHP4 buffering... Use Notepad2 for unicode - http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html -- regards, Kornel Lesiński ** 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] Length of ALT attribute
Hi Anura, According to WCAG20, the ALT text for English should be less than 100 characters. Here is the link: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test3.html If memory serves me right, for Section 508, the limit is 80 characters. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: Anura Samara [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:51 PM Subject: [WSG] Length of ALT attribute Is there a recommend length for ALT attributes? Or different implementations of ALT attributes between browsers that affect the length? In response to some accessibility testing, I am working on modifying some ALT attributes on images used in our online annual report, and as you can imagine some of them are a bit long - the longest I have at the moment is 53 words/280 characters. And in case anyone is wondering, yes, we do have long text descriptions for each image - the text I have for the ALT attribute is essentially the modified first sentence from the long description. Thanks for any pointers, Anura ** 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] Experimentations in XSLT
Hi Jonathan, Most XSLT users process data server-side and then send the result of the transformation to the client. This is a safer approach than sending XML and XSLT to the client. XSLT is a wonderful technology. A while back we did some XML and XSLT training for the Canadian government. For those that want a hands on approach to learning XSLT, here are a few labs. Lab 4 lets you practice XPath and Lab 5 lets you practice XSLT. Here is the link: http://belus.com/training/ Also, Jonathan, I had a look at your XSLT. You can optimize it a bit if you replace several xsl:if with xsl:for-each or xsl:template. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com XStandard Development Team - Original Message - From: Jonathan T. Sage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:43 PM Subject: [WSG] Experimentations in XSLT Good afternoon or insert more appropriate time of day Recently, after the pursuit of a site that does conform to XHTML 1.1 and CSS2, I became very interested in the XSL/XSLT language, since my site has a XML CMS back end already. I began to look at ways to cut out the PHP step. My experimentations have proved to be very interesting, with 2 caveats: 1.) Obviously 2 pass processing doesn't work. Catching PHP embedded in the source XML becomes impossible. At this time, I don't have a fix for this. 2.) Firefox (in fact all gecko based browsers) do not support my method of embedding HTML in XML... results are interesting, but expected. Opera doesn't like this method at all, and IE6 displays perfectly. Since this list is standards based, and I've yet to see any real writeup about XSLT and what it is capable of, I figured a would share what I found with all of you. More information about what I did is available here: http://jtsage.com/apathy/archives/2004/12/08/xslt-part-1/ and here: http://jtsage.com/apathy/archives/2004/12/09/xslt-part-2/ If anyone has any information on how to fix #2, I'd also love to hear it. Hope this proves to be a good read! ~j -- Jonathan T. Sage Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer Professional Web Design [HTTP://www.JTSage.com] [HTTP://design.JTSage.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] UTF-8 ,charset and Standard
Hi Berry, Here is an example of a UTF-8 page with non-escaped French characters: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=18BF64A8-DF0A-473E-8402-50E9E917E0C1 Are you able to see them in your browser? Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:57 AM Subject: [WSG] UTF-8 ,charset and Standard Someone can told me why using charset if we have to write in our page this kind of code #233; for the accent ? I understand that the charset give the opportunity depend the langage browser to display page correctly but It doesn't give the server the opportunity to display the page the right way. Sometimes, it seems that computer science is still at the stone age. It feel me upset that each time I have to introduce a text I have to format it. I understand that we can give command to the server to display the text the right way but we don't have always this possibility. What can we do for keeping our accent in our HTML page? and if I am wrong can someone told why I can not see my accent on my page when I use UTF-8 charset ? Thanks in advance Berry ** 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] should you refuse to support IE?
One of the pillars of Web Standards is that content should be Best Viewed With Any Browser. This principle is fundamental to Web Standards. We actually adhere to this principle when we use the CSS import directive to hide CSS from Netscape 4 so that it's poor support for CSS is not going to interfere with reading the content of a Web page. The idea being that everyone has equitable access to content even though it looks different in different browsers. Mark, in my opinion, you can code to the strengths on any browser so long as the content is equally accessible to all browsers. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Mark Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:10 AM Subject: [WSG] should you refuse to support IE? Not commercialy, but personaly on your own blog sites are other little community sites? I've just redesigned my blog (www.phunky.co.uk) and in doing so i decided i was not going to touch some of the minor issuse that IE has with my site, although it would only take me a little bit of time to get it 100% in IE aswell why should i? Ive placed a small disclaimer on my site stateing why im NON-IE but my only worry is that new clients or outsourcing companies may see this and think The guy hates IE, he could be a git to work with (which i am :D) I just wanna know your view on ditching IE on purpose? Cheers Mark Harwood Phunky.co.uk / Xhtmlandcss.co.uk / Zinkmedia.co.uk ** 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] Online HTML text editor
Hi Jacobus, The editor in question uses the MSHTML control built into IE. It's an HTML 4 editor based on a 5 year old version of FrontPage. This control is no longer updated and as far as I know, it is impossible to get it to create standards-compliant markup. Jacobus, I am one of the developers of XStandard. It is a true standards-compliant XHTML editor. A free version is available that you can use in your commercial applications. Here is the link for more info: http://xstandard.com To see how XStandard generates standard-compliant markup, check out this article: http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/ Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Jacobus van Niekerk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 6:17 AM Subject: [WSG] Online HTML text editor Hi all, Just though I should share this nice open source HTML text editor that produces valid XHTML. http://www.fckeditor.net/ Enjoy! Kind Regards Jacobus van Niekerk Creative Consultant web: http://www.catics.com/ | http://www.freelancecontractors.com tel: + 27 21 982 7805 This e-mail message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom or the entity to which it is addressed. All the contents and any attachments remain the property of Catics Ltd unless so stated. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from reading, copying, using or disclosing this message to others. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail or by telephoning +27 21 9827805 and thereafter delete the message. Catics Ltd does not accept liability for any personal views expressed in this message. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 2004/10/08 ** 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] about.com's Web standards article
Hi Aaron, wysiwyg monkeys - Eh? Nothing wrong with using WYSIWYGs - so long as they are standards-compliant. I tell you what - if you can get our WYSIWYG to create non-standards compliant markup, we'll get you a Firefox t-shirt. Use the link below, this version will run in Firefox PR1: http://xstandard.com/misc/beta/x-pro.exe Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Aaron Tate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article Quoting john [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I thought this was interesting. Jennifer Kyrnin, About.com's Web Design/HTML Guide, wrote an article recently regarding XHTML and CSS. In it, she mentions that she asked one of the About.com developers why their site isn't using Web Standards. She stated that they had to main reasons for not doing it: 1. Bandwidth - With over 700 sites on About receiving millions of pageviews a day, even 1KB of extra characters on a page can result in huge transfers. By cutting out things like alt tags and quotes they can save a lot of money. 2. Compatibility - The audience for About Web pages is huge, and moving to more modern HTML variants like XHTML 1.0 and CSS positioning will make it more difficult for older browsers to view the pages. The reason for these answers are quite obviously because they don't want to tell everyone the real reason which is that there all wysiwyg monkeys and don't know any better :-P *dons flame suit* -- Aaron Tate ** 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] about.com's Web standards article
Hi Robyn, Sorry, not yet. Regards, -Vlad - Original Message - From: ROBYN BALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article Hi Vlad, Will Xstandard run on Mac? If not, do you know if there is something similar to it that will? Thanks, Byn -Original Message- From: info Sent: Monday, 11 October 2004 11:22 AM To: wsg Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article Hi Aaron, wysiwyg monkeys - Eh? Nothing wrong with using WYSIWYGs - so long as they are standards-compliant. I tell you what - if you can get our WYSIWYG to create non-standards compliant markup, we'll get you a Firefox t-shirt. Use the link below, this version will run in Firefox PR1: http://xstandard.com/misc/beta/x-pro.exe Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Aaron Tate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article Quoting john [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I thought this was interesting. Jennifer Kyrnin, About.com's Web Design/HTML Guide, wrote an article recently regarding XHTML and CSS. In it, she mentions that she asked one of the About.com developers why their site isn't using Web Standards. She stated that they had to main reasons for not doing it: 1. Bandwidth - With over 700 sites on About receiving millions of pageviews a day, even 1KB of extra characters on a page can result in huge transfers. By cutting out things like alt tags and quotes they can save a lot of money. 2. Compatibility - The audience for About Web pages is huge, and moving to more modern HTML variants like XHTML 1.0 and CSS positioning will make it more difficult for older browsers to view the pages. The reason for these answers are quite obviously because they don't want to tell everyone the real reason which is that there all wysiwyg monkeys and don't know any better :-P *dons flame suit* -- Aaron Tate ** 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] Is XHTML harmful?
Hi Tom, Yes - the markup will validate as HTML. Here is an example: http://xstandard.com/html4.htm Validate it using: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fxstandard.com%2Fhtml4.htm Check out an article I wrote about this a while back: http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/120303-1.shtml Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful? Please forgive any ignorance on my part... So I can copy the guts of an XHTML document in all it's splendor with br /s et all and paste it into an HTML document and all is dandy? Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist mlinc.com Get FireFox http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliatesid=0t=1 On Oct 6, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Chris Bentley wrote: There is no difference between the semantics or the accessibility of HTML4.1 and XHTML1.0. ** 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] Is XHTML harmful?
Hi Kim, Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with the wrong MIME type is bad. At an academic level, he has a point. On a practical level, this does not concern most of us because all current (modern) user agents (browsers, crawlers, gadgets, etc) will process XHTML if it is served-up as HTML. But do try to user the correct MIME type when you can. Here is the definitive word on this topic: http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/ To summarize this article, it says XHTML 1.0 can be served as HTML or XML. Today, the real benefits of XHTML are on the production side. Say your CMS has 1000 documents and you need to change the class name of a div tag in all 1000 documents. If your content is in XHTML, you can use XML related technologies like DOM or XSLT to process all 1000 documents quickly and accurately because XHTML can be processed by XML parsers. Regards, -Vlad Alexander XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Kim Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:53 AM Subject: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful? Hi, First of all... I'm sorry if this is off topic. I've been telling people (the few who asked me and through my website) to use (valid) xhtml because it a W3C recommendation, it's device independent, (valid) xhtml can be processed by an XML parser, better accessibility, less code, faster processing of code in modern browsers, forward compatibility etc. I guess that's the standard opinion on xhtml or am I completely of track here? After I participated in a discussion over at the Project Seven newsgroup I'm having doubts! The reason is some very well put arguments from among others, Al Sparber. One of the arguments was less code. Not even close to html 4.01 (See sample 1 below), html 4.01 is also device independent AFAIK. Xhtml is not being processed faster than html 4. Actually there should be no real reason to use xhtml unless you're using xml. _Sample 1 - html:_ !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; html head meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 titleUntitled Document/title /head body pHello World. pimg src=img.gif width=10 height=10 alt=some description /body /html _Sample 1 - xhtml:_ !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; head meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 / titleUntitled Document/title /head body pHello World./p pimg src=img.gif width=10 height=10 alt=some description //p /body /html Now what really worries me is this article http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml where xhtml is being considered harmfull. Is it harmful ? Now I would like to know what your arguments would be for using xhtml. Not that I can't think for myself... but I'm in doubt if I'm going in the right direction. I would really like to hear your opinions on this matter. Kim ** 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] Yahoo CSS'ing
Let's give Yahoo our feedback. They provide a way to receive feedback using the link under the search box. True, our comments may fall on deaf ears, or they may not. But from my experience, numbers do matter, so I filled out the feedback form and voiced my option on their partial move to standards. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Help fix Firefox bug and win a Firefox t-shirt
This is a bit off topic (sorry) but we need your support once again to make XStandard for Mozilla/Firefox even better. The guys at Mozilla Foundation have been real helpful, but Firefox still has a bug that makes integrating plug-ins like XStandard a bit of a kluge (compared to IE). So we need to lobby on behalf of Firefox users to get this bug fixed. The Mozilla Foundation fixes bugs according to a voting system so we are asking for your vote to get this bug fixed. Fixing the bug will make integrating plug-ins a breeze and reinforce the usefulness of Mozilla/ Firefox, so there are advantages beyond XStandard. We'll also randomly pick 3 people who voted and give them a cool Firefox t-shirt. Our target is to get 100+ votes as quickly as possible. Timing is critical because we want the bug fixed for the release of Firefox 1.0, which is just a few weeks away. If you can help, please vote to fix bug 188938 at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188938 The link to vote is above the Additional Comments section toward the middle of the page. Thanks for your support! -Vlad Alexander XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WYSIWYG Editors
Hi Olajide, Most of the in-browser editors mentioned are wrappers around the MSHTML control in IE which is just a derivative of a 5 year old version of FrontPage. Microsoft is no longer supporting or enhancing it. Any editors that have color-pickers or font-selectors do not follow best-practices in Web standards. Some think that if you take HTML 4 generated by WYSIWYG editors, shape, twist, squeeze and pull it, you get XHTML. If you want accessible and semantically meaningful XHTML, then generated XHTML from the get go. Check out this article: http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/ I am one of the developers of XStandard - a standards-compliant XHTML (Strict / 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. We offer a free version so that Web standards are in reach of every developer. A Mozilla/Firefox version will be available next month. Here is the link: http://xstandard.com Regards, -Vlad Alexander XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Restricted HTML Editor?
Hi Simon, I am on the XStandard dev team. I am not going to do a sales pitch on this list but I will say that XStandard was designed for the requirements you described. There are no font-selectors or color-pickers to hide because these tools create non-standards compliant markup, hence these tools are not part of the XStandard. Check out this article to see what XStandard does to make markup accessible and standards-compliant: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A Also, you might want to validate the Web sites of WYSIWYG editor vendors to see if their sites validate: http://validator.w3.org Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Simon Chalmers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:32 PM Subject: [WSG] Restricted HTML Editor? I recently spent heaps of time building a site using css and standards-compliant HTML pages. Now I need to hand back content editing to a pool of unwashed users. They like changing fonts, adding bright colours, bold, underline, centering etc whenever they get the chance. Ideally I'd like to be able to give them an HTML form to edit from, which contains a cut-down HTML WISIWIG editor that allows them to add only: - bold block of text (which I can access render as h2/h2 ), - plain text (which I can access render as p/p, - links There were posts on this mailing list a week or 2 back re HTML WISIWIG editors, but most give away too much control to the user and produce non-css-based HTML. Its a big site (130,000+ pages) and I can't expect to maintain it all myself. What do others in this situation do? Simon Chalmers Analyst/Programmer Level 8, ITS Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Ph: 02 9230 2943 Fax: 02 9230 2358 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au NOTICE - This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential. You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender by e-mail immediately and then destroy any copy of this message. Except where otherwise specifically stated, views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender. The New South Wales Parliament does not guarantee that this communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Your Mozilla Vote Counts!
Mozilla fans, we need your help. The Mozilla version of the standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor XStandard is almost ready. Unfortunately, Mozilla's new scriptable plug-in API announced in June has a bug that needs fixing before XStandard can be released. The Mozilla Foundation prioritizes bugs using a voting system. So the makers of XStandard are asking for your vote to get this bug fixed so they can release XStandard for Mozilla. What's in it for you? You get XStandard Lite, a free standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor that runs in Mozilla. If you can help, please vote to fix bug 254280 at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=254280 Regards, -Vlad Alexander XStandard Develpment Team http://xstandard.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CMS
Hi Geoff, But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites standards compliance when you hand it over to the client Actually, we are working hard to address this specific issue. Check out http://xstandard.com Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG Editor - Original Message - From: Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 6:45 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] CMS -Original Message- From: Amit Karmakar When we say CMS we mean Content Management, well in a nut shell managing the content, publishing etc. Content Management and Validation of code are 2 different things. What does the group think? I think the boundaries are slightly blurred in this area. It's true that CMSs and Code validation are separate in many products. If a CMS was to enforce code validation it would loose acceptance and market share in the quirks mode market. So most CMSs wisely have these features as add in modules, plugins, macros, whatever, which facilitates both market needs. These tools are not so much a requirement for the developers sake, as most standards based developers can easily build templates that will validate. The problem comes in with users adding content via whatever means the CMS facilitates this, and having backend tools to clean this up to meet standards based QA. The minute you have users adding content, and you want to address W3C standards and web accessibility, the ATAG guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/) come into play. These guidelines are meant to address any type of authoring of web sites, including any form with a textarea for posting content. If you read these guidelines and have a problem with them in the context of web based authoring, I share your dilemma, because there are issues here that need to be addressed in ATAG2 to better serve all areas of web authoring (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0104.html). It's very difficult, almost impossible to comply with ATAG when deploying web based authoring interfaces, but the development community has addressed this issue to a large degree to make our life easier with the backend tools to address these requirements. Any front end or backend system that allows users to manage content is by definition an authoring tool, and if you want to maintain the standards integrity of your site then you need to check and make sure that all authoring input is parsed, checked, corrected and validated before publishing it, otherwise non valid markup can enter your system and your page is no longer valid. Of course this is not much of a problem if you don't really care about standards compliant markup. MT, TextPattern, Drupal, Plone, Cocoon, etc all have modules to manage this requirement. But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites standards compliance when you hand it over to the client. If they are allowed access to the engine or templates, then the QA standards compliance component of the deliverable is then void (at least that's how I work, cause if you don't state this clearly, they will come back at you for delivering a faulty publishing system). But as far as most of the commercial offerings, like Interwoven Teamsite, Documentum, etc are concerned, I don't think they address this issue at all, I could be wrong, I don't know them that well, but I have used them briefly and didn't see anything to address these issues. Geoff * 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] ALPHA Testers Needed
Hi Chris, I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm. If you are on Windows, you can use our free CSS parser. Here is the link: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=E784B605-2413-49B1-B17C-20A634CB0150 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG editor http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Chris Stratford To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:02 AM Subject: [WSG] ALPHA Testers Needed Hey List, I am currently developing a little software package which will help you manage your CSS and your bandwidth. What it does is it will compress your CSS. Its not very intelligent so it doesnt do anything really special. All it will do is Load a CSS file - Parse the file. It will then allow a few differnt levels of output. These are: VERBOSE - Which will include all the comments, full indentation etc... 1st Level Compression - Removes the comments - still full indentation 2nd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation 3rd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation, takes braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines) 4th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own, with all the properties and values on that line)... 5th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own, with all the properties and values on that line)..., removes the line beween classes - makes the CSS all on one single line OR I could have a bnch of checkboxes where you select what type of output you want... eg - indentation etc... At the moment the program does not compress anything. I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm. At the moment some of the problems I have had to over come are: When there are :'s in Selectors - eg: a.title:hover When there is no ; on the end of the last value, of a selector When there are ;'s etc inside comments... All those have been fixed. I just need to test a wide variety of files... If you want to participate please send me some of the weirdest CSS you have, which is 100% VALID on the W3C Validator. Thats what I am using as the Caveat for performance... it must first pass that test before you can compress it... Otherwise the results will vary a lot from what you expect... :) Thanks a lot! - Chris Stratford BTW - IF there are any programs out there that do this - please let me know! I want to see them!!! :) Also this will be 100% Freeware to members of the WSG list :) I might try and charge a $5 fee for licences in the future... Thanks again! * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] Banners promoting standards-based products and services
Hi, We've created some hard-hitting pro-standards banner ads on our site. The banners promote our product too, but if you want to use the ideas behind our banners to create your own, using humor more might be a good way to promote your own standards-based products and services. Here is the link to see the banners: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=65AD7677-2F9B-4488-B91F-8FD5D56A53F7 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.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 *
Re: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor?
Hi Alex, As far as I know, we are the only producers of a standards-based XHTML (Strict / 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It's called XStandard and there is a free version. For more information check out: http://xstandard.com Here is an article that might help you evaluate WYSIWYG editors. http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A A new point release is coming soon. You can see new features here: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A38C2E89-9CBC-4329-AA3B-2581DAF6C2FF Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: alex 'fanatique' thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor? Hello everybody, wow. second posting today but this one is more general. i'm looking for a webstandard compatible richtext editor for my cms (sthg like this http://richtext.sourceforge.net/ ). it should be integrated into the browser and offer the possibility to switch between code and styled view - ah well, and maybe for free... did one of you stumble across something like this? -- Best regards, alex mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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] Linearizing Tables - Is there a standard?
Hi Roy, Think of each cell as a div tag. We use XSLT to make tables linear within XStandard. Here is the link to download the XSLT: http://xstandard.com/download/screenreader.xsl Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: RC Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:26 PM Subject: [WSG] Linearizing Tables - Is there a standard? Is there a 'standard' way for linearizing tables? Does one move across, then down row by row, or down then across column by column? (Okay, I know this was asked in another thread, but noone bit, so I'm posting it as a new topic.) Roy * 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] WYSIWYG editor
Hi David, One way to pick the right editor for your needs is to go to the Web sites of WYSIWYG vendors and check the quality of the code they generate for their own Web site. If their Web pages aren't validating with W3C to the standard you need to meet, then their WYSIWYG editor won't do the job for you. Here is the link to the W3C validator: http://validator.w3.org/ Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: David Gironella [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WSG (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS? Thk David Gironella Casademont * 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] WYSIWYG editor
Hi David, Check out http://xstandard.com This is a XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It generates clean, accessible and standards-compliant markup. Formatting is done through external or embedded CSS. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: David Gironella [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WSG (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS? Thk David Gironella Casademont * 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] Amaya ---- Piece Of Crap...
I think XStandard will meet most of your criteria - stable, user-friendly, lightweight, standards-compliant and FREE. As far as platform independent - maybe sometime in the future :-) Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team XStandard - XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Amaya Piece Of Crap... Chris Stratford wrote: Hey Everyone... Is it just me, or is the Amaya validator a piece of junk?? Does anyone here use it at alll??? Amaya isn't a validator, is it? It's a quite good XHTML editor IMHO. I wrote some structured documentation with Amaya, the keyboard shortcuts are nice. I quess it's not ideal from an usability point of view, but it's just a testing environment :) Because the output is 100% valid you can process it easiliy, with XSLT or import it in your favorite CMS. I wish there were a similar stable, user friendly, lightweighted, platform independent, standard compliant and free XHTML editor. 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] ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? in Win IE6?
Hi Christopher, No. But you should probably serve up XHTML 1.0 Strict to IE and 1.1 to Mozilla/FireFox/Opera. Here is the link on how to do this: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=16A6EBD1-9EEC-4611-98C8-C0F6234B9737 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Christopher M Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: [WSG] ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? in Win IE6? Hello! I was just beginning to read through the W3C's docs on XHTML 1.1 and noticed the following example they provide of an XHTML 1.1 strict document: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en head titleVirtual Library/title /head body pMoved to a href=http://vlib.org/;vlib.org/a./p /body /html While they do state the XML declaration is not required, they urge its use. My questions is: doesn't the XML declaration send IE6 (Windows) into quirks mode if it's present? It seems like I read that recently. Can anyone verify? Thanks! Great list! Very informative! Christopher Kelly (GM22) phone: 309-763-7069 State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support * 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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Hi woric, My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you. I think we're saying the same thing. XHTML is XML and the latest XHTML spec (with the exception of maybe 4 tags) cleanly separates formatting from data. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content XSLT is a wonderful language but it has nothing to do with separating presentation from content. XSLT does one thing and one thing only - it transforms in input document into an output document based on rules. For example, write the faq in Xml: FAQ Q=Place question here The answer goes in here. /FAQ There is nothing wrong with this. But when you write semantically rich content, you end up using a dialect of XML like DocBook or XHTML. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. Sorry to be a pedant, but this statement is misleading and in my opinion, not very good advice. Using XSLT to transform a document is not limited to XHTML, and using XHTML as the source for XSLT is taking one step forward so you can take 2 steps backwards. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content, which wont happen if you use XHTML. My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you. For example, write the faq in Xml: FAQ Q=Place question here The answer goes in here. /FAQ Then apply a XSLT script to transform this into a valid Html document. woric PS: I do this on every website I make. See http://xsltfilter.tigris.org * 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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Hi Mark, I am new to the group and if this topic has been discussed ad nauseam - I do apologize for raising it again. See my response to ActiveX here: http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1021 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Mark Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:17 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml Oh dear... I didn't want to get into this argument again. Did you know that your statement XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years promotes the use of IE? It certainly doesn't promote the use of standards-compliant XHTML browsers like Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers have a technological advantage over IE and you are missing it. Do you happen to work in Redmond by any chance? Rubbish. I use Firefox as my primary browser actively encourage the use of it and other standards compliant browsers where ever I can. My mention of IE was a specific answer to a specific question about IE. My comment XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years has almost nothing to do with IE. Please read http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml. Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability to consume XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the content production side. Sorry - I thought that thread was about which mime types to use in serving XHTML to browsers? Content production is not relevant on this list. Please use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you which to discuss content production and the like. Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse content for re-purposing because HTML makes parsing difficult. Here is an example of how some of our customers build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do this if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP, ASP, etc) that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up content from a data store. Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. We're off topic here, but HTML 4.1 is only ever one step away from XHTML (HTML Tidy jTidy) so your argument about things being impossible if you're using HTML is incorrect. People have been taking this approach (markup - transform - publish) to content management for years (see DocBook, SGML, etc...), it nothing new. Some alternative approaches: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/threads.html#00229 http://www.google.com/search?q=wordML+XSL http://www.google.com/search?q=docbook+XSL XSLT is very useful, but it relies on XML not XHTML. So maybe You can only transform content with XSLT if you author your content in XML. might be more accurate? I do understand your point and in the situation that you have mentioned XHTML is useful. But this is only one specific scenario and its not relevant to the original post. Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a statement just as bold - Authoring content in HTML immediately devalues that content, because as soon as you capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to parse and difficult to re-purpose. Ok, maybe I should have said HTML 4.1 is the right choice for *delivering web documents to web browsers* at the moment. I don't care what format or systems people use to author and manage their content - I am simply talking about what should be reaching browsers. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor I like your product very much (I downloaded a copy the other day), but I find it a little ironic that you point the finger at me saying I work for Redmond when your product based entirely on Microsoft's ActiveX technology. I don't want to argue about any of this, its been done 100 times before I certainly don't want to get personal. The only reason I am writing this email is that I expressed an opinion and I don't particularly enjoy having it misrepresented. I am not anti XHTML in any way - I've followed its development closely for a couple of years am very excited about the possibilities that has opened up. I don't feel the web is ready for it yet. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.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
