Re: [WSG] page check

2006-01-04 Thread Peter J. Farrell 




kvnmcwebn wrote:

  
the html validates now

  


Tidy is still complaining of unescaped amp's in your title attributes:

RE: [WSG] page check

2006-01-04 Thread kvnmcwebn 
georg wrote:

"Footer can't expand properly in Firefox etc. Looking acceptable otherwise."

I know this is not good but i defined a pixel height for the footer. The
background image of the div behind it was showing through the footer div's
padding. I will try and use a background image for the footer instead of
defining its height.

thanks again.
I see a couple more things that i will fix,
then i have to fire it over to the .net guy, who will probably add
validation errors;{


http://www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/families/final11.htm
 (links are somewhat active)

-best
kvnmcwebn


**
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] page check

2006-01-04 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

It is looking pretty ok now. Valid code helps - at times :-)


This:
 -->
...doesn't look good in IE6. The last comment-end is visible text.

Since you are commenting out navdrop, maybe it'll come out better if you
end it like:
 --> 

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check

2006-01-04 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

kvnmcwebn wrote:

www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final11.htm



" Looks like you have two layers of some of those container-   borders,
and not all line up well in Firefox & Opera."

Do you mean the navbarnthe header?  do you think it will be ok, as im
out of time on this,


It is looking pretty ok now. Valid code helps - at times :-)


" Slight weakness when font-resizing is applied, which is most
visibl where those container-borders get covered by content-
background in Firefox."

I think now the font size can be increased once without any breaks in
the layout.


Footer can't expand properly in Firefox etc. Looking acceptable otherwise.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check

2006-01-04 Thread kvnmcwebn 
georg wrote:

" Looks like you have two layers of some of those container-
borders, and
not all line up well in Firefox & Opera."

 Do you mean the navbarnthe header?  do you think it will be ok, as im out
of time on this,


" Slight weakness when font-resizing is applied, which is most  visibl
where those container-borders get covered by content-   background in
Firefox."

I think now the font size can be increased once without any breaks in the
layout.

the html validates now

www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final11.htm
www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/subcategory.htm
www.mcmonagle.bix/mockup/index6.css

thanks again

-kvnmcwebn







**
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] page check

2006-01-03 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

kvnmcwebn wrote:

www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final11.htm


Not quite there yet :-)

- HTML validator not happy.
- Those header-images don't line up well in IE6.
- Borders around those images in Opera and IE6 - shouldn't be there(?)
- Looks like you have two layers of some of those container-borders, and
not all line up well in Firefox & Opera.
- Slight weakness when font-resizing is applied, which is most visible
where those container-borders get covered by content-background in Firefox.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check

2006-01-03 Thread kvnmcwebn 
Georg wrote:

"Opera 8.5 and 9prev1 have got a broken header.

...are not positioned well. Different in those two versions, so I advice
you to line up those graphics without using position: relative. Clear
below the search-box/nav, and default line-up or maybe float-left for
those graphics, should work well everywhere."

Hello georg,

i did as you suggested-
i had to use the star hack for ie because the margins
were acting up.

you can check it out here if you want.


www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final11.htm
www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/index6.css
www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/nav2.css

Thanks a mill 
kvnmcwebn



**
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] page check

2006-01-03 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

kvnmcwebn wrote:


www.mcmonagle.biz/mockup/final10.htm


i was going to use repeating background images to scale down the 
sides of the parent divs. any better ideas?


A minimal set of nested divs with backgrounds on the outer divs - faux
columns. Nested divs are not "nice", but no other solution will stretch
properly in all browsers and under all conditions.

also I only tested the page in ff1.5 and ie6 if anyone can take a 
peep in other browsers that would be great.


Opera 8.5 and 9prev1 have got a broken header.

...are not positioned well. Different in those two versions, so I advice
you to line up those graphics without using position: relative. Clear
below the search-box/nav, and default line-up or maybe float-left for
those graphics, should work well everywhere.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Lachlan Hunt 

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners


I am prohibited from getting comments through to that article.


That's weird, if you contact me off list and let me know what error you 
received I might be able to do something about it.  If you send me your 
comment, I can add it for you.


However, it isn't important to me, since I can make up my 
own mind about the subject anyway. Hope others are able to do that too.


As I wrote in the article, those who are competent enough to make an 
informed decision may do so.  Beginners who've never even built a web 
page before can hardly be considered as knowledgeable on the subject and 
wouldn't be able to make a fully informed decision.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Stephen Stagg 
Sorry, just the map you used. My comment was meant light-heartedly. 
Your location map looks very like the one that can be got from 
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/.  As these are crown 
copyright, I assume that you haven't got an agreement with them to use 
their data unattributed.  Even their website has the text:
Image reproduced with permission of Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey 
of Northern Ireland

below each image.


designer wrote:

Duh? Stephen?

Stephen Stagg wrote:

Apart from using copyrighted images without attributing them :). 


Best Regards,

Bob McClelland

Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

Christian Montoya wrote:
doesn't work! You are all viewing text/html. Pretty soon everyone on 
this list will think they are serving xhtml.


Yes, and a large percentage of them will serve complete garbage :-)


I'll get it started right:

DID NOT work in every single browser. Version 0.1 to 1000. 
IE/Mac/Linux/Sun.


Sound better - and is probably 100% true.

Since my approach to xhtml seems to be ever so slightly misunderstood by
some, may I be allowed to link to an extended version of that approach.

It seems to have worked reasonably well for me for the last couple of
years. However, I wouldn't mind if someone proved me wrong on this, as
there's always something to be learned on the subject of 'MIME type
jumping'.

It can be viewed as HTML4.01-equivalent XHTML1.0:

(will even work in IE/win - on a good day.)

...or as xhtml1.0 served and hopefully received as 'application/xhtml+xml':

(this is what that page started out as. Need xml compliant browser, or
one that can "cheat" so it appears to parse the code correctly.)

...or as *complete garbage*:

(shouldn't work anywhere - despite the fact that it has only _one_
un-encoded ampersand.)

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun 

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

You may as well just use valid HTML 4.01 Strict.  See "XHTML is not
for Beginners", the MIME type issue is just one of the many reasons.

http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners

(yes, I'm aware of the irony that the article itself is XHTML as 
text/html, but that's the useless default wordpress template that I'm

 too lazy to fix up)


It is an irony that I am prohibited from getting comments through to
that article. However, it isn't important to me, since I can make up my
own mind about the subject anyway. Hope others are able to do that too.

The most important thing is to have knowledge to base ones choices on.
As long as such information is available - and I found some that might
be useful for beginners in that article, then it is up to each one to
make use of that information. Hands-on experience is a must in order to
get a full understanding though.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread designer 

Duh? Stephen?

Stephen Stagg wrote:

Apart from using copyrighted images without attributing them :). 


Best Regards,

Bob McClelland

Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.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
**

Re: [WSG] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Christian Montoya 
On 12/7/05, Mike Foskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mac report:
>
> Worked fine in Safari v1 - bottom margin of about 1.5em, same as top
> Worked okay in IE v5.2 - the bottom margin was extended 10em approx.
> Worked fine in Opera v8.51 - bottom margin approx 3em
>
> Personally I'd ignore the margin difference but I thought I'd mention it in 
> case it bothers you.
> Mime type worked well. Will probably start using it myself.

Would everyone please stop replying like this? Using:



doesn't work! You are all viewing text/html. Pretty soon everyone on
this list will think they are serving xhtml.

I'll get it started right:

DID NOT work in every single browser. Version 0.1 to 1000. IE/Mac/Linux/Sun.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Rimantas Liubertas 
2005/12/7, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> So is the best thing to target xhtml browsers? Like, specifically
> Opera, Safari, Konquerer, etc? How exactly would one do content
> negotation with PHP?
>

You may try this: http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php

On the other hand: HTML4 works just fine without all that fuss...

Regards,
Rimantas
**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Mike Foskett 

Mac report:

Worked fine in Safari v1 - bottom margin of about 1.5em, same as top
Worked okay in IE v5.2 - the bottom margin was extended 10em approx. 
Worked fine in Opera v8.51 - bottom margin approx 3em

Personally I'd ignore the margin difference but I thought I'd mention it in 
case it bothers you.
Mime type worked well. Will probably start using it myself.


Regards

Mike 2k:)2



 Mike Foskett
 Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant
 Communications
 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta)
 Milburn Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Tel:  02476 416994  Ext 3342 [Tuesday - Thursday]
 Fax: 02476 411410
 http://www.becta.org.uk






-Original Message-
From: Stephen Stagg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 07 December 2005 15:39
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] page check please - mime type!


Designer wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have done 
> what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers as below:
>
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
>   xml:lang="en"
>  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> 
> The Area
> content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" />
>
> I saved as xhtml and IE went daft. I saved as html and all seemed 
> fine.  However, the site I'm working on has a fair bit of PHP in it, 
> so I saved it as .php.  All seems fine, including IE.
>
> You can see my test page at:
>
> http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/thearea/area.php
>
> So, my seemingly silly question is: Is this OK?  Does it fall apart 
> for anybody? (mac esp?)
>
> and, of course, is it OK to do this, and indeed, is this what I 
> 'should' be doing (Lachlan?)
>
> Many thanks,
>
 
Apart from using copyrighted images without attributing them :).  It looks fine 
on Opera 8.5, Firefox 1.5. at 1280x1024.

**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Christian Montoya 
On 12/7/05, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you choose to do content negotiation and serve application/xhtml+xml
> to browsers that support it and text/html to those that don't, be aware
> that it prevents incremental rendering in Mozilla.

So is the best thing to target xhtml browsers? Like, specifically
Opera, Safari, Konquerer, etc? How exactly would one do content
negotation with PHP?

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Stephen Stagg 


Designer wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have done 
what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers as below:


http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

The Area


I saved as xhtml and IE went daft. I saved as html and all seemed 
fine.  However, the site I'm working on has a fair bit of PHP in it, 
so I saved it as .php.  All seems fine, including IE.


You can see my test page at:

http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/thearea/area.php

So, my seemingly silly question is: Is this OK?  Does it fall apart 
for anybody? (mac esp?)


and, of course, is it OK to do this, and indeed, is this what I 
'should' be doing (Lachlan?)


Many thanks,



Apart from using copyrighted images without attributing them :).  It 
looks fine on Opera 8.5, Firefox 1.5. at 1280x1024.


**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Marilyn Langfeld 

Looks fine in Mac Firefox 1.5 and Safari 2.02.

Best regards,

Marilyn Langfeld
Langfeldesigns
http://www.langfeldesigns.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:13 AM, designer wrote:


Dear colleagues,

Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have  
done what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers  
as below:


http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

The Area


I saved as xhtml and IE went daft. I saved as html and all seemed  
fine.  However, the site I'm working on has a fair bit of PHP in  
it, so I saved it as .php.  All seems fine, including IE.


You can see my test page at:

http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/thearea/area.php

So, my seemingly silly question is: Is this OK?  Does it fall apart  
for anybody? (mac esp?)


and, of course, is it OK to do this, and indeed, is this what I  
'should' be doing (Lachlan?)


Many thanks,

--
Best Regards,

Bob McClelland

Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Lachlan Hunt 

designer wrote:
Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have done 
what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers as below:


http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

The Area



Changing the MIME type in the meta element is completely useless, as the 
application needs to know the MIME type in order to know how to parse it 
*before* it begins parsing.  Once it has reached that meta element, 
parsing has already begun.  It is the MIME type sent by the server in 
the HTTP Content-Type header that matters, and for your page it sends 
text/html.


See the HTTP headers:
http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/headers?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhh.myzen.co.uk%2Frhh%2Fthearea%2Farea.php

You may see what happens when the page is really served as 
application/xhtml+xml.

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/cgi/content-type-proxy/content-type-proxy?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhh.myzen.co.uk%2Frhh%2Fthearea%2Farea.php&type=application%2Fxhtml%2Bxml

Note: The reason the stylesheet isn't applied at all in this case has 
nothing to do with it being served as XML, it's only because it's linked 
with a relative URI and via that proxy, it no longer points to the right 
place.  If you change all paths to absolute URIs pointing to your server 
and the result will be better.  It does, however, demonstrate that your 
page is at least well-formed.


I saved as xhtml and IE went daft. I saved as html and all seemed fine.  
However, the site I'm working on has a fair bit of PHP in it, so I saved 
it as .php.  All seems fine, including IE.


Because it's php, you can use the header() function to send the correct 
Content-Type header.  Place this before any content is output.


header("Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml");

However, doing so will lock out any IE users and Google, but you may as 
well completely remove the meta element, because it's only an inferior 
substitute for real HTTP headers.  Use this instead:


header("Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8");

If you choose to do content negotiation and serve application/xhtml+xml 
to browsers that support it and text/html to those that don't, be aware 
that it prevents incremental rendering in Mozilla.



You can see my test page at:

http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/thearea/area.php

So, my seemingly silly question is: Is this OK?  Does it fall apart for 
anybody? (mac esp?)


and, of course, is it OK to do this, and indeed, is this what I 'should' 
be doing (Lachlan?)


You may as well just use valid HTML 4.01 Strict.  See "XHTML is not for 
Beginners", the MIME type issue is just one of the many reasons.


http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners

(yes, I'm aware of the irony that the article itself is XHTML as 
text/html, but that's the useless default wordpress template that I'm 
too lazy to fix up)


Lastly, with regard to the style element within the page:

/*
/*]]>*/


You may as well remove the fake XML comment () in there, 
it's effectively useless these days, although keeping it as is will do 
no harm because of the CDATA section.


Keep the /**/ in there, they're the most effective 
way to handle the different parsing requirements of HTML and XHTML.  See 
this article that discusses the issue in great detail:


http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/05/script-comments

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] page check please - mime type!

2005-12-07 Thread Srecko Micic 
It looks ok. It is validated.


2005/12/7, designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have done
> what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers as below:
>
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
>xml:lang="en"
>   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> 
> The Area
>  content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" />
>
> I saved as xhtml and IE went daft. I saved as html and all seemed fine.
> However, the site I'm working on has a fair bit of PHP in it, so I saved
> it as .php.  All seems fine, including IE.
>
> You can see my test page at:
>
> http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/thearea/area.php
>
> So, my seemingly silly question is: Is this OK?  Does it fall apart for
> anybody? (mac esp?)
>
> and, of course, is it OK to do this, and indeed, is this what I 'should'
> be doing (Lachlan?)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Bob McClelland
>
> Cornwall (UK)
> www.gwelanmor-internet.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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Cunningham 



John S. Britsios wrote:

Hi Richard,

Very good work! Very nice web site!

My suggestions:

1. The XHTML 1.0 recommendation states that both "lang" and "xml:lang" 
attributes should be used when specifying the language of an element. 
The value of the "xml:lang" attribute takes precedence.


assuming the document is sent as text/html

2. The "style" attribute has been used but a default style sheet 
language has not been defined (note that HTML Validator would not see 
this declaration if it is sent as an HTTP header by a web server). HTML 
4.01 and XHTML require this for valid documents.
For example, include this in the "head" section of your document to 
specify "text/css" as the default style sheet language: http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />. See 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#default-style


Good luck,

John

---
John S. Britsios
Web Architect & Marketing Consultant

Webnauts Net
Koblenzer Str. 37A
D-33613 Bielefeld
Germany

Tel.: (+49) 0521 - 3051020

Homepage: http://www.webnauts.net
Academy: http://academy.webnauts.net
Forums: http://forums.webnauts.net



QM Consulting Ltd wrote:

I have been following this list with interest for some time and I am 
currently working on creating my web site. I've done some testing on 
IE and Firefox and validated on w3. I would appreciate any feedback, 
regarding standards, semantics, usability, accessibility etc.
 
The page is at http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest.html
 
Thanks,
 
Richard Morton
 
 
 
 





--
Andrew Cunningham
e-Diversity and Content Infrastructure Solutions
Public Libraries Unit, Vicnet
State Library of Victoria
328 Swanston Street
Melbourne  VIC  3000
Australia

andrewc+AEA-vicnet.net.au

Ph. 3-8664-7430
Fax: 3-9639-2175

http://www.openroad.net.au/
http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/
http://www.vicnet.net.au/
**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-06 Thread John S. Britsios 

Hi Richard,

Very good work! Very nice web site!

My suggestions:

1. The XHTML 1.0 recommendation states that both "lang" and "xml:lang" 
attributes should be used when specifying the language of an element. 
The value of the "xml:lang" attribute takes precedence.


2. The "style" attribute has been used but a default style sheet 
language has not been defined (note that HTML Validator would not see 
this declaration if it is sent as an HTTP header by a web server). HTML 
4.01 and XHTML require this for valid documents.
For example, include this in the "head" section of your document to 
specify "text/css" as the default style sheet language: http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />. See 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#default-style


Good luck,

John

---
John S. Britsios
Web Architect & Marketing Consultant

Webnauts Net
Koblenzer Str. 37A
D-33613 Bielefeld
Germany

Tel.: (+49) 0521 - 3051020

Homepage: http://www.webnauts.net
Academy: http://academy.webnauts.net
Forums: http://forums.webnauts.net



QM Consulting Ltd wrote:
I have been following this list with interest for some time and I am 
currently working on creating my web site. I've done some testing on 
IE and Firefox and validated on w3. I would appreciate any feedback, 
regarding standards, semantics, usability, accessibility etc.
 
The page is at http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest.html
 
Thanks,
 
Richard Morton
 
 
 
 


--
John S. Britsios
Web Architect & Marketing Consultant

Webnauts Net
Koblenzer Str. 37A
D-33613 Bielefeld
Germany

Tel.: (+49) 0521 - 3051020

Homepage: http://www.webnauts.net
Academy: http://academy.webnauts.net
Forums: http://forums.webnauts.net


*
NOTICE: The information contained in this message is intended for the 
addressess(s) only and may be confidential, proprietary, or legally 
privileged.  

If you have received this message in error or there are any problems 
with the transmission, please immediately notify us by return e-mail.  

The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this 
message is strictly forbidden.  

The sender will not be liable for any damages arising from alteration 
of the contents of this message by a third-party or as a result of any 
virus being transmitted.  

This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail message transmitted 
from the sender's e-mail domain.


**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-06 Thread kristian wright 

Return Receipt
   
Your  RE: [WSG] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest 
document   
:  
   
was   kristian wright/patrick  
received   
by:
   
at:   07/11/2005 09:19:55 AM   
   




**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-06 Thread Susannah_Marks 
Return Receipt

  
   Your document: RE: [WSG] Page Check: 
www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest  
  

  
   was received by:   Susannah Marks/MOH
  

  
   at:07/11/2005 08:47:34 a.m.  
  

  






Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying
attachments may contain information that is IN-CONFIDENCE and subject to
legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message.


*
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by the Ministry of Health's Content and Virus Filtering Gateway
*
**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-05 Thread kvnmcwebn 



>sites need to be aesthetically pleasing as well as accessible and CSS 
and DOM scripting gives us more than enough power to do 
both.
 
agreed, 
It 
would be hard to get customer sign off on such a design, 

even 
so its quick loading and accessible. 
 
 
>Perhaps you could sit down with a graphic designer to work more 
visual elements into your site and improve the overall look and 
feel?
 
good 
idea:
another option is to look for pre-designed templates(cringe)-free or 
otherwise. 
 
-kvnmcwebn
 

RE: [WSG] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-04 Thread Dennis Lapcewich 
Return Receipt
   
   Your   RE: [WSG] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest 
   document:   
   
   wasDennis Lapcewich/R6/USDAFS   
   received
   by: 
   
   at:11/04/2005 16:01:06  
   




**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-04 Thread Ryan Blunden 



Hi Richard,
 
Your content is indeed usable, accessible, semantic and 
valid, but if I was a potential client of yours, I wouldn't be saying, 
'Wow, that site looks great, I hope my site will look like that'. I'm not trying 
to put you down, I'm simply giving you my 
honest opinion.
 
Now maybe I'm completely out of touch and maybe all our 
sites should look like Jacob Neilson's but from my experience, sites need to be 
aesthetically pleasing as well as accessible and CSS and DOM scripting gives us 
more than enough power to do both. Perhaps you could sit down with a graphic 
designer to work more visual elements into your site and improve the overall 
look and feel? I think it would be worthwhile.
 
Also, what is the business case for needing the W3C badges, 
really?
 
Best Regards,
Ryan



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of QM Consulting 
LtdSent: Saturday, 5 November 2005 2:42 AMTo: 
wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Page Check: 
www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

I have been following this list with interest for 
some time and I am currently working on creating my web site. I've done some 
testing on IE and Firefox and validated on w3. I would appreciate any feedback, 
regarding standards, semantics, usability, accessibility etc. 
 
The page is at http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest.html
 
Thanks,
 
Richard Morton
 
 
 
 __ NOD32 1.1275 (20051103) Information 
__This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System.http://www.nod32.com

Re: [WSG] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-04 Thread Scott Glasgow 

QM Consulting Ltd wrote:

I have been following this list with interest for some time and I am
currently working on creating my web site. I've done some testing on
IE and Firefox and validated on w3. I would appreciate any feedback,
regarding standards, semantics, usability, accessibility etc.

The page is at http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest.html

Thanks,

Richard Morton


Speaking as the old fart with presbyopia, it wouldn't hurt your readability 
to go a shade or two darker on the light green text. Matter of fact, a 
slightly darker value of grey for the main text would improve things, as 
well. I mean, your site is about accessibility, right?  ;-)


Cheers,
Scott

**
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] Page Check: www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest

2005-11-04 Thread Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net) 
Looks great m8 , only I would do a better header /logo that one is a
bit fuzzy or it's supposed to be like that!?

2005/11/4, QM Consulting Ltd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I have been following this list with interest for some time and I am
> currently working on creating my web site. I've done some testing on IE and
> Firefox and validated on w3. I would appreciate any feedback, regarding
> standards, semantics, usability, accessibility etc.
>
> The page is at
> http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test/indextest.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard Morton
>
>
>
>
**
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] Page check please - lionsq3

2005-07-21 Thread David Laakso 

Rob Unsworth wrote:


Hi All,
I need some help in checking the following page is rendering Ok in IE 5.x 
and IE 6.
 


[...]

http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/phorms/cabinet/ 


The css for the list is at,
http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/formlist.css

The main css is at,
http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/lionsq3.css
Rob.

 


Rob,
Looked fine to me in XP_SP2 IE6.0 at 1280, 1024, and 800.
Some minor adjustment of the center column may be necessary in 5.0 and 
5.5 if you can believe browsercam.

Center column is a 'no show' in 5.2(browsercam).
< http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=177965 >
Regards,
David Laakso


--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.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] Page check please - lionsq3

2005-07-21 Thread matt andrews 
On 22/07/05, Rob Unsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I need some help in checking the following page is rendering Ok in IE 5.x
> and IE 6.
> I am unable to test in these browsers due to a hd crash and the subsequent
> decision it was time to refurbish my system. Until finished I have no
> access to any version of Windows. All I can test on is the various
> brousers on Linux.
> 
> I was asked to have this page functioning by our meeting on Sunday. The
> only feedback I have is from the person who requested that the page be
> ready by sunday.
> 
> The feedback:
> "Is there any reason the top of the page is blank?"
> 
> Asking what version of Windows he is using created only silence.
> 
> I took a guess and made an adjustemt of 2% in the width of the dl.
> 
> http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/phorms/cabinet/
> 
> The css for the list is at,
> http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/formlist.css
> 
> The main css is at,
> http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/lionsq3.css

hi Rob,

That page looks broadly the same in Firefox1.0.5/WinXP as it does in
IE6/WinXp, IE5.5/WinXP, and IE5.0/WinXP, except that in IE there is of
course no background globe image.  I suspect this is what he's
referring to.

I guess you could always hack in a rule for IE to specify the
background image as not 'fixed'.
**
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] Page Check

2004-11-04 Thread Susan R. Grossman 
I find the inconsistant use of thumbnails in the category div 's
(watercolors, etc.)  that are href's that change a picture and then
the same sized thumbnails in the left and right containers with the
border frame being the only visible dif, yet they aren't clickable
confusing and not very usable.  They seem to add no value to the page
and are misleading because you assume that all the thumbnails that
size are clickable.

Visually I had problems trying to figure out why some of the right nav
links are indented and some aren't.  They don't appear to be
sub-sections, since all pages are off of home, nor are they strictly
"genre"  since biography is included.  Since indentation is a visual
tool, not really a design effect it also seems a little misleading

I do like the nice way the main images of each section are framed
nicely and draw the eye.   I think this would be visiually enhanced if
you didn't have the thimbnails mentioned above to distract from this
pleasant, simple yet elegant look.

Of course this is all just personal opinion   :>)


-- 
Susan R. Grossman
[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
**

Re: [WSG] Page Check

2004-11-03 Thread David Laakso 
David Laakso wrote:
Rick Faaberg wrote:
On 11/3/04 10:36 PM "David Laakso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
 

Comments and suggestions on this page welcome.
http://www.dlaakso.com/
Thanks.
  

There appear to be some accessibility warnings on WAI and 508.
Cool site!
Rick Faaberg
I will address the accessibility warnings.
 

 David
 I neglected to mention that long descriptions are set on the 
iframes, and can be read on a text-mode browser: 
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

  For the time being, there is no alt text on the thumbnails. 
It was removed because the thumbnails are so close together, that the 
alt text created a garbled mess when viewed in a browser  with the 
images turned off.
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] Page Check

2004-11-03 Thread David Laakso 
Rick Faaberg wrote:
On 11/3/04 10:36 PM "David Laakso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
 

Comments and suggestions on this page welcome.
http://www.dlaakso.com/
Thanks.
   

There appear to be some accessibility warnings on WAI and 508.
Cool site!
Rick Faaberg
I will address the accessibility warnings.
 

 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] Page Check

2004-11-03 Thread Rick Faaberg 
On 11/3/04 10:36 PM "David Laakso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> Comments and suggestions on this page welcome.
> http://www.dlaakso.com/
> Thanks.

There appear to be some accessibility warnings on WAI and 508.

Cool site!

Rick Faaberg

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**