I'm afraid the link below proves quite the opposite: in IE6 there is
always a gap at the right hand side, even when the row has wrapped
around, which it does at random widths. Clearly a rounding error is
causing problems, which is exactly what most of us expected.
Incidentally, I have yet to
A: Top-posters who don't trim footers and .sigs.
Q: What's the 2nd most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On 06/07/12
- Original Message -
From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So simple it looks like an amateur did it.
Since when 'less is more' becomes 'less professional' ;)
Besides,
personal view + off list messaging = some privacy for all
at least some I guess :)
--
Cem Meric |
So simple it looks like an amateur did it.
May be but at least i try better ways you not.
Ypou could see in WCAG1 the definition of tabular data
Tabular information
When tables are used to represent logical relationships among data -- text, numbers,
images, etc., that information is
So simple it looks like an amateur did it.
May be but at least i try better ways you not.
You could see in WCAG1 the definition of tabular data
Tabular information
When tables are used to represent logical relationships among data -- text, numbers, images,
etc., that information is
I really do not see you guys sorting this out and im starting to get sick and tired of your squabblingso can you please take it off list
**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
... NO hacks and dead simple!...
Are you sure?
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
Richard Czeiger wrote:
Gaspar! Nice solution! Cleanest yet!
Have to say - I'm not a fan of Bob's approach. Yes, tables would solve
a lot of the problems neatly. But sorry, it's simply not tabular data
and come re-design time, tables simly don't have the flexibility of
semantics. Who knows,
On 06/07/11 21:20 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed:
Bob McClelland wrote:
http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/template/alphabet.html
Have to say - I'm not a fan of Bob's approach. Yes, tables would solve a lot
of the problems neatly. But sorry, it's simply not tabular data
Expanding on Bob's approach, you should be able to see why I disagree:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet.html
Looks like an ordered list.
...
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for
On 06/07/11 09:04 (GMT-0600) Joe apparently typed:
Felix Miata wrote:
Why do you think an alphabet shouldn't be considered tabular data?
I believe it depends on how you would like the alphabet to be depicted. In
the example that you had provided (comparing the letter to its corresponding
9:10 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 18:05 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas apparently typed:
Felix Miata wrote:
Expanding on Bob's approach, you should be able to see why I disagree:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet.html
Looks
I posit that Richard's alphabet contains an implied header row in
addition to the explicit row.
What header is implied here? I see no implied header in an alphabet
listing, unless you are talking about the implied header of order, in
which case an ordered list tag is the obvious choice
On 06/07/11 12:38 (GMT-0400) Ted Drake apparently typed:
Semantic value has nothing to do with your spreadsheets.
I meant to include the reason for my reference to spreadsheets, but got
distracted and forgot. The idea came to me because of the paragraph
following the sample table on
Any list could have an implied header if you think about it in the
way of
order. I could order my shopping list! :)
1. Bananas
2. Milk
3. Butter
4. Eggs
You could, if your list was in order of importance, or alphabetical
order, or in order that you pull them off of the shelves in order to
Ted Drake wrote:
For anyone that just joined this list. If Felix was starting to sound
reasonable, please take some time to read Eric Meyer, the W3C, Zeldman.com,
simplebits.com, and many other sites that accurately describe semantic
markup.
and, whilst you're reading Zeldman, take note of the
(and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy
otherwise).
No. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should resort to
using something semantically incorrect. If everyone did that then there
wouldn't be need for web standards in the first place (joke ;)).
I'm the first one to fight for semantic code, but I thought I'd play devils
advocate this morning.
You can be pragmatic about such things (using tables) - for instance from
Gaspar's example, (0.4%*2)*26 + (26*3%) = 98.8% - which isn't 100%, thereby
illustrating some of the limitations of CSS.
On 06/07/11 13:54 (GMT-0600) Joe apparently typed:
On 06/07/11 20:37 (GMT+0100) Bob McClelland apparently typed:
(and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy
otherwise).
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should resort to
using something semantically
Felix Miata wrote:
Richard's alphabet is a simple row array
I'd tend to lean more towards can be interpreted as a simple row array.
no user with page styles
unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that
Richard wants
Which should be fine, as styles are used for
On 06/07/11 21:41 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed:
Felix Miata wrote:
Richard's alphabet is a simple row array
I'd tend to lean more towards can be interpreted as a simple row array.
I think that is a good leaning, but I was trying to interpret from
Richard's perspective rather
Hi all :o)
This has certainly sparked an interesting conversation!
While there seems to a lot of evangelising going on, let's remember that the
reason we're here is to listen, learn and if we have an opinion, then to try
and convince others that ours is a valid point.
On that note, I'm
Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need is a table, with
columns for rating importance, quantity, unit price, total price, shelf
location and shelf-life. Then you need a script to sort your table on the fly
by any category.
By the way, if you add Flour you can make banana
On 06/07/12 10:05 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed:
On that note, I'm sorry, but I haven't been convinced by the 'Alphabet as a
Table' view...
It just doesn't sit right. A table for me has to have **at least** two rows
and two columns.
Why?
Only one row or only one column is
On 7/12/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need is a table, with
columns for rating importance, quantity, unit price, total price, shelf
location and shelf-life. Then you need a script to sort your table on the fly
by any category.
And a form that allows you to add new items. Could use DOM scripting to insert
the new items into the table - I think a database back-end is probably
overkill...
Joshua Street wrote:
On 7/12/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need
you say?
R :o)
- Original Message -
From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/12 10:05 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed:
On that note, I'm sorry
On 06/07/12 12:03 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed:
Well, Gaspar's code seems like a pretty easy solution - wouldn't you say?
So simple it looks like an amateur did it. If he made the characters big
enough to see and, more importantly, made the group of buttons center
across the
Richard's alphabet is a simple row array, which is not naturally
rendered by any popular graphical user agent as any kind of row list
(dl, ul, ol). As a semantic dl, ul or ol, no user with page styles
unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that
Richard wants, unlike what
So simple it looks like an amateur did it.
Russ Weakley mentioned comments such as this during WebStock. He pointed out
that discussion lists, forums and blog comments are becoming full of rude
remarks made by (primarily) young, white, male, socially-inept geeks.
While I do not know Felix's
Felix - your attitude is not appreciated. There's absolutely no need for
this kind of language whatsoever.
Gaspar and everyone else on this list deserves respect.
Those who have been around longer and are more knowledgable should work to
educate and inform those whose passion exceeds their
Hi All :o)
Wondering if you can help me solve an issue:
I'd like to have a list of alphabetical buttons at the top of the page
(you've all seen this kind of navigation).
What I'd like to do is have them with the following features:
1. Single pixel border
2. Some padding around the letter
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Czeiger
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 10:49 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Hi All :o)
Wondering if you can help me solve an issue
33 matches
Mail list logo
