Re: [WSG] Correct markup for a chat board?
Done. That's some sweet markup right there :)ThanksKind regardsMorten You should probly take Tantek's advice there Lachlan =] Why? What are you referring to?I meant Morten should use Tantek's example , I was getting my wirescrossed. Seriously they're all over the place...Anyway my bad, Tantek's method of marking up a chat will blatantly beright on or at least closer to the money is what I meant to say. Sorry for any confusion.Rob***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
RE: [WSG] Access key does not work in Firefox browser?
I think that you may want to read articles like: http://www.wats.ca/show.php?contentid=32 before you decide that access keys are useful - from memory there are only three keys that do not clash with something else. In my opinion the basic idea is flawed anyway - they are an attempt to fix a variety of browser issues via a single HTML construct, which is not a good idea. It is our job to 'aid' user agents by providing clean, valid, semanticcode; not to fix every conceivable problem that they have caused or failed to address. Regards, Mike From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mihael ZadravecSent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:00 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Access key does not work in Firefox browser? I realize that it is not a nice thing to use accesskeys that are used by browser software.. that is why I used accesskeys like "1", "2", "3"... I belive that is still usefull... On 10/24/06, Horst Gutmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1Mihael Zadravec schrieb: http://www.nsk-slo.si/ --- On 10/24/06, * Frances Berriman* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: URL of site? On 10/24/06, *Mihael Zadravec* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible that in Firefox 2.0 Accesskey does not work??? In IE 7 works fine but with Firefox 2.0 it just does nothing... Any ideas why? Works for me in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061023 BonEcho/2.0. The numeric accesskeys, right?Regards, Horst-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)iD8DBQFFPhnBe3xiN2SrYecRAnxOAJ4kGHDkmrgQr9R/oNHrdbz/nZsHRgCeJtA2IjRGAr3qZNgcPJPUuhHfjDc==mSHG-END PGP SIGNATURE-*** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***-- Mihael Zadravectel: 00386 51 808136email in msn: mihael.zadravec na gmail.comSkype kontakt: mihael_zadravec---Toasted Web http://www.toastedweb.com---Miss G. / bloghttp://missg.toastedweb.com ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]*** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) Hassan, I think you're taking this out of context. The original post was: Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) Thierry wrote a nifty lightweight snippet for me :) It works excellently. http://eto.marinersq.com/?q=multilevel.html The section 508 generates the result for home page but with inner pages, it requres one more click for contentquality.com, I guess it's to do with the way hisoftware handles the validation for external link. Don't mind the validation errors if you see any, as I haven't get a chance to fit them. By the way, I use the Etomite CMS and it does clean markup with strict (x)html. It probably be better to use the PHP to generate validation links, but I don't know how to do it (yet), and I like the fact that I can use the same JS snippet for static HTML site. Cheers, tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Tee G. Peng wrote: It works excellently. http://eto.marinersq.com/?q=multilevel.html The section 508 generates the result for home page but with inner pages, it requres one more click for contentquality.com, I guess it's to do with the way hisoftware handles the validation for external link. It seems to work fine, what happens is that contentquality.com has a policy about URL submission. If you followed both links in less than a minute or so, Cynthia says: The maximum allowed URL submissions has been reached for the Host: eto.marinersq.com. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Using JS to generate navigation links [was: a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links]
This is an unobtrusive script that will generate those links for you: http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/easy_way_to_generate_validation_links.asp It can open the links in a new window or in the same one. If you go for the former, it adds Open in new window to the title attribute. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Thanks. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On 10/25/06, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. Let me take that whole thing back :) The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? So, if I'm right, the approach would not really work with *SS-Includes*, even with vanilla ones ;-) I guess the directive would make more sense in Templates, like Dreamweaver templates and such where content is more duplicated than Included. Does that make sense? --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using JS to generate navigation links [was: a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links]
Nice script. One quibble... You say validate section 580, but it's section 508 :) From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Using JS to generate navigation links [was: a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links] This is an unobtrusive script that will generate those links for you: http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/easy_way_to_generate_validation_links.asp *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Vert scroll popping up
Hello list, At this page: http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/06/ Using Mac FF2.0, when I close up the viewport to just below my min-width, I get an apparently unneeded vertical scroll. Can anyone see why? It is just the addition of the horiz. Scroll? Safari, for example doesn't add the vert. scroll... Thanks -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Chris Williams wrote: Assuming that the user in this case is the developer who is developing the site (the only one who has a reason for the output), then they can unblock it... Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Christian Montoya wrote: On 10/25/06, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? DOS 8.3 filename compatibility? :-P P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Christian Montoya wrote: I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? I think so. The only reason I can think of is if these files need to be accessed *directly*, not through a server. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On my site, the links only appear when an administrative user is logged in. From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On 10/25/06, Chris Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On my site, the links only appear when an administrative user is logged in. From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? For that, you might as well just put the links in your toolbar... when you click a link in your toolbar (such as your bookmarks) you send the referrer, so you can easily validate any site as long as the link is in your browser. The day more and more features are provided by the browser and not by the website, the day the Internet moves forward. - me -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Slapping head with a great Homer-esque Doh... Thx... From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links For that, you might as well just put the links in your toolbar... when you click a link in your toolbar (such as your bookmarks) you send the referrer, so you can easily validate any site as long as the link is in your browser. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On Oct 25, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Chris Williams wrote: Assuming that the user in this case is the developer who is developing the site (the only one who has a reason for the output), then they can unblock it... Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? P Patrick, your co-authored book Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance has been in my amazon cart for a while and it's likely I will get to read it next month. I first learned the web standards because I was curious, no clue what those 'xhtml', 'css' and 'section 508' about in many websites I visited. My curiosity made me click to find out, further more dive into it. You see, you, and many authors who preach, write about web standards, accessibility need supporter like me, who is a bit of ignorance, a bit naive, but dedicate to try to learn the good. It's not fun to see you poke fun :) Ok, I do see it looks ugly for those links stay in the footer because it looks so crowded there, I will make them less visible later tonight I get back to the project again. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] accesibility lawsuit
in case you ugys haven't seen this yet: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_bi_ge/business_of_life *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] accesibility lawsuit
On 10/25/06, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in case you ugys haven't seen this yet: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_bi_ge/business_of_life Kelly Groehler, a spokeswoman for Best Buy Co., says the company has made a number of changes to its site since late last year, including incorporating alt tags — or text that labels items like graphics — into its site. alt tags ... groan... but thanks so much for this article, and big props to Best Buy for being proactive. I like this part: Other retailers are making similar efforts, but it remains a challenge due to the continuing evolution in the technologies used by blind people to surf the Internet, says Scott Silverman, executive director of Shop.org, a division of the National Retail Federation for online retailers. As the retailers' Web sites continue to evolve to stay competitive in the marketplace, sometimes the technologies necessary to do that are a little bit ahead of where the screen-readers are, Silverman said. It's a very fast-moving environment. Retailers want to serve all their customers, including blind people. Maybe, just maybe, some standards for how web sites are made would be a good idea? Then, as long as the sites fit those standards, then maybe it would be easier to assume that the screenreaders can understand them? Maybe these standards could be called, oh, I don't know... ... wait for it... webstandards? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using JS to generate navigation links [was: a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links]
Chris Williams wrote: Nice script. One quibble... You say validate section 580, but it's section 508 :) Yeah! 580 is the freeway here :) Thanks. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? wrong. :-) The DOCUMENT_URI reflects the requested page, not the included page/ snippet. So it's still an easy way to accomplish this. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? No. :-) Personally I think shtml is ugly, and there's no reason for it; make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps and circumstances the overhead is negligible. FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? wrong. :-) Really? What about this then?: http://www.tjkdesign.com/test/default.shtml IMHO, it sows that using the echo directive in an nclude will always return the same path, no matter which document is served. Personally I think shtml is ugly, and there's no reason for it; make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps and circumstances the overhead is negligible. But not everybody can change server settings, isn't ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ??
Should I be thinking about fixing up the issues in Opera and on the Mac or just say tough luck! Only you can answer that question. It's your business, you need to determine how many visitors/potential clients you have that use Macs and whether you're likely to lose them by not fixing the problems. I have no experience with IE7, is it maybe still in Beta IE7 became an official release last week and will be installed via automatic download some time in November. -- Tyssen Design Web print design services www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ??
Kay Smoljak wrote: On 10/26/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a very bad way to look at it. Just because a page validates, does not mean it's bug free. If something doesn't work in Safari or Opera 9, then there's a good chance that the problem is with your code, even if it works in Firefox. By just ignoring other browsers, you may in fact be unintentionally relying on bugs in the browsers you do test. x100 spelling check passes sentence This a What? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ??
On 10/26/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: spelling check passes sentence This a What?I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Sorry, that was a smart arse comment. I was agreeing with you - the sentence passes a spelling check but it doesn't make sense. HTML can validate but still be incorrect. Back in my box now!-- Kay Smoljakbusiness: www.cleverstarfish.comstandards: kay.zombiecoder.comcoldfusion: kay.smoljak.compersonal: goatlady.wordpress.com ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ??
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Kay Smoljak wrote: On 10/26/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a very bad way to look at it. Just because a page validates, does not mean it's bug free. If something doesn't work in Safari or Opera 9, then there's a good chance that the problem is with your code, even if it works in Firefox. By just ignoring other browsers, you may in fact be unintentionally relying on bugs in the browsers you do test. x100 spelling check passes sentence This a What? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I think Kay was trying to point out that even if a sentence passes an automated spelling check (This sentence passes a spelling check), it may not be correct. I believe both of you were making the same point; that automated validation of code does not necessarily imply a lack of bugs. I second (third?) this, as I think validation is merely one step, one part of the process of creating a website. Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: I run WAMP, and when I test a php version of my test page, I get the exact same result as in IIS. What does PHP have to do with SSI?? Apache has an INCLUDES filter and parses SS-Includes, no? But do you mean SSI or IIS? I'm not sure I understand that question. All I can tell you is my test shows the DOCUMENT_URI of the parent document, not the include. But that's on a system inside a firewall that I can't expose, so you'll have to take my word for it. NP. I just ran a test on a *remote* server and I got the same result as yours. There are lots of hosting plans. Some offer .htaccess override to allow people to enable specific features of the Apache httpd. And some don't. And some people lease servers, virtual or otherwise, so they don't have to worry about the whole issue, and can provide the best solution for their clients, full stop. You pay for what you want, or need, eh? That's not a reason to not discuss what the technology can provide... I totally agree, and that's why I put *IIS* into the picture . ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ??
Thanks a million guys, much appreciated, that's the kind of response I was after. I'll definitely work on those issues (now that I have some answers). -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe Wittenbergh Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 10:40 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Forget about Opera and Mac (and Windows Vista) ?? On Oct 26, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Taco Fleur wrote: I thought I'd post this question as a separate item, as it probably got lost in my previous post. Should I be thinking about fixing up the issues in Opera and on the Mac or just say tough luck! All pages validate www.pacificfox.com.au, and I have no idea what is causing the issues, mainly with the 4 top buttons. http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=294234 7966358.JPG (Explorer 5.2 on Mac) 7966370.JPG (Opera) 7966382.JPG (Opera) The issues with IE 5 Mac are dead easy to fix. The li around those 4 buttons is floated, but you don't specify a width for it. Remember that IE 5 Mac is a CSS 2.0 browser, and that a width is **required** on floated boxes. http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/float2misc/ http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats The Opera issues are puzzling. And then there is http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=294540 Internet Explorer V7 I have no experience with IE7, is it maybe still in Beta, is that why it is displaying this badly? The pages validate properly. IE 7 has been released recently and will be pushed through software update soon. It doesn't look as bad as on your screenshots. http://emps.l-c-n.com/bm/pacificfox.png The main issue seem with those grey headings and the more button. div.h3 seems to have a width of 0 (zero). Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG]
Hey all,I am attempting to start using Microformats and as part of this i am starting to use hCard for some of the sites I am building.Please consider the following code. I am having trouble with the Phone, fax, email area. I would normally use a dl for this. Any ideas on how best to convert it to hCard. Maybe ul with spans?div class="vcard" h3 class="fn"My Name/h3 div class="adr" div class="street-address"123 Fake Street,/div span class="locality"Melbourne/span, span class="region"Victoria/span, span class="postal-code"3000/span div class="country-name"Australia/div /div dl dtPhone :/dtdd(03) 9888 /dd dtFax :/dtdd(03) 9888 8889/dd dtEmail :/dtdda href="" title="email me"[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a/dd /dl/divAlso, should we use address class="vcard" for this?ThanksJames Oppenheimhttp://www.oppenheim.com.au Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
