Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
Thank you all for the help and your time. The site owner has instituted a list format for the menu. I'd like to know why the break tags as she was attempting to use them would not work correctly, when I use xhtml strict on my own site and don't have that issue. I was conviced her problem was related to the css, but the css was validated as was the html, but as soon as you added the strict doc type it went haywire. Again Thank you all! ps I also pass on the reccomendation to remove the tabindex stuff. *** 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] ***
[WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict 1.0 the br
/ that are styled in the css style sheet as follows: .sidemenu br
{line-height: 3px; .
However in FF, Netscape and Mozilla it would appear the css style is being
ignored. The space is too high
IE and Opera seem to render it the way she intended. Have googled xhtml strick
break tags bugs but have not found anything so far.
This does not happen in her xhtml transitional version.
Side note: I've noticed in her html she is using tabindex, is that standard?
ps Thanks for all the responses to the form question I had asked.
Sharron
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
Maybe should mention that these are menu links that she.
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict 1.0 the
br / that are styled in the css style sheet as follows: .sidemenu br
{line-height: 3px; .
However in FF, Netscape and Mozilla it would appear the css style is being
ignored. The space is too high
IE and Opera seem to render it the way she intended. Have googled xhtml
strick break tags bugs but have not found anything so far.
This does not happen in her xhtml transitional version.
Side note: I've noticed in her html she is using tabindex, is that standard?
ps Thanks for all the responses to the form question I had asked.
Sharron
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 11/16/2006
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 08:19:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict 1.0
the br / that are styled in the css style sheet as follows: .sidemenu
br {line-height: 3px; .
However in FF, Netscape and Mozilla it would appear the css style is being
ignored. The space is too high
It doesn't make much sense to set a line-height on a line break, which
is just a point at which one line ends and another begins. Setting
line height on the paragraph (or whatever) the break is inside would
make more sense.
Side note: I've noticed in her html she is using tabindex, is that
standard?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 08:36:32AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe should mention that these are menu links that she. Menu links separated by line break elements? But a menu is a list of links isn't it? http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/ -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict
1.0 the br / that are styled in the css style sheet as follows:
*/.sidemenu br {line-height: 3px;/* */./*
*//* [trimmed]
Sharron
A clickable link to this page would help. Otherwise it is a guessing game.
With a simple list /one/ alternative is to assign line-height to the ul.
No br / needed. And, either way, using px for line-height is not a
good idea. Try a raw number.
ul {
line-height: 1.75;
}
ul
lia href=#stuff/a/li
lia href=#more stuff/a/li
lia href=#even more stuff/a/li
/ul
If the goal is to have a one of /unique/ space, I suppose you could use:
br.lead {line-height: 3.5;}
br class=lead /
Best,
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
I've asked the site owner if I can submitt a link. I will if she gives
permission. However I did try this and it seems to work.
.sidemenu {
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: bold;
width: 100%;
display:block;
margin-top:0;
padding-top: 0;
margin-left: 0;
line-height:20px;
}
.sidemenu br {line-height: 3px;margin-bottom:
2px;margin-top:2px;display:block; }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict 1.0
the br / that are styled in the css style sheet as follows:
*/.sidemenu br {line-height: 3px;/* */./*
*//* [trimmed]
Sharron
A clickable link to this page would help. Otherwise it is a guessing game.
With a simple list /one/ alternative is to assign line-height to the ul.
No br / needed. And, either way, using px for line-height is not a good
idea. Try a raw number.
ul {
line-height: 1.75;
}
ul
lia href=#stuff/a/li
lia href=#more stuff/a/li
lia href=#even more stuff/a/li
/ul
If the goal is to have a one of /unique/ space, I suppose you could use:
br.lead {line-height: 3.5;}
br class=lead /
Best,
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
***
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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
on 17/11/2006 14:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following: Maybe should mention that these are menu links If this is a menu, she should be using a list - not line breaks - for a whole host of reasons. Styling the padding/margins on the list elements then becomes a lot easier. I'm not convinced that br / *should* be stylable in the way she sems to want. It's not a page element as such, merely a signal to perform a carriage return and line feed when redenring. As such the line height should be the same as that set for the rest of the paragraph. This does not happen in her xhtml transitional version. It could be that FF and Moz are being thrown into 'almost standards' mode: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko%27s_Almost_Standards_Mode Side note: I've noticed in her html she is using tabindex, is that standard? Yes - it's compliant and valid markup but unless there are *really* good reasons for specifying tab indexes, I suggest she removes them and checks that the natural, unindexed, tab order is intuitive (ie top-to-bottom, left-to-right for a Western page). If the page has been manually checked for keyboard navigation accessibility, any warnings from accessibility parsers can be safely ignored. Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl.php is transitional http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl-strict.php is strict the above are links to her two pages. These are on her server and do not reflect any of the playing I've done. lol I wonder too why the breaks and not a list for the menu? I will advise about the possible tabindex interference with browser tabindex or whatever you might call it. *** 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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe should mention that these are menu links that she. Unless I'm missing something, these BR elements could be replaced with a simple display:block declaration. On the other hand, I have a question regarding accessibility: is a BR element as good as a printable character when it comes to separate these links? --- 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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl.php is transitional http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl-strict.php is strict Now that I've seen the links in context, I wonder why are the BR for? I guess they are here in case the document shows without styles applied. But that would be more reason to use a UL :) --- 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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/xhtml/index3.html above is the best I can do, remember I am an amatuer. Netscape and Mozilla are ignoring a few br / tags in the html between the Webado shop and Policy links, have no idea why. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl.php is transitional http://www.webado.net/webado-net-tpl-strict.php is strict Now that I've seen the links in context, I wonder why are the BR for? I guess they are here in case the document shows without styles applied. But that would be more reason to use a UL :) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** 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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
having a go trying to help a friend figure out why, in xhtml strict 1.0 the
br / that are styled in the css style sheet as follows: .sidemenu br
{line-height: 3px; .
However in FF, Netscape and Mozilla it would appear the css style is being
ignored. The space is too high
IE and Opera seem to render it the way she intended. Have googled xhtml
strick break tags bugs but have not found anything so far.
This does not happen in her xhtml transitional version.
'line-height' changes the height of lines inside an element. The ambigous
case where an element is the content too (img, br, hr, ...) it only changes
it's own 'line-height', not the one of it's parent or sisters:
span style=line-height: 1em;
white-spacebr style=line-height: 0.5em; /
/span
does not affect the span's line-height, and not the 'white-space' string,
and in effect does nothing at all.
Which I count as good behaviour, because it's really uggly if you put
for example:
span style=line-height: 4em;
img src=bla.png style=display: inline; line-height: 2em; /
img src=bla.png style=display: inline; line-height: 3em; /
img src=bla.png style=display: inline; line-height: 4em; /
img src=bla.png style=display: inline; line-height: 5em; /
/span
What's the line-height in XHTML Trans (where the line-height bleeds to
it's parent and neighbours)? [rethorical question]
My suggestion is not to use it _in_ the text, but _on_ the text (p, div).
Favourably, and if you can, only on block-elements.
Ciao
Niels
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.designbyatfb.com/temp-images/xhtml/index3.html
above is the best I can do, remember I am an amatuer. Netscape and
Mozilla are ignoring a few br / tags in the html between the Webado
shop and Policy links, have no idea why.
That's because you have *3* BRs in between these two links instead of one.
But as I said, I don't see the purpose of these elements unless in the case
the document would appear unstyled.
So I think an easy way to take care of the whole thing is to use CSS to get
rid of them rather than trying to style them.
Try this:
.sidemenu br {display:none}
.sidemenu a {margin-bottom:2px}
That way, you can even keep the three BRs :)
---
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] xhtml strict break tag bug?
on 17/11/2006 16:46 Thierry Koblentz said the following: snip On the other hand, I have a question regarding accessibility: is a BR element as good as a printable character when it comes to separate these links? No. As far as I am aware, it's equivalent to use whitespace to separate links - which means that it could create probems for some users. I'm not sure if JAWS 7 can audibly separate the links itself. Certainly, older screen readers will have problems and, probably, anyone using a braille display. Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] xhtml strict break tag bug?
Mel wrote: No. As far as I am aware, it's equivalent to use whitespace to separate links - which means that it could create probems for some users. I'm not sure if JAWS 7 can audibly separate the links itself. Certainly, older screen readers will have problems and, probably, anyone using a braille display. That's what I thought. Thanks Mel. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] XHTML strict maxlength
Hi all, Just having some trouble with validating I keep getting the report this report about the maxlength property: Error Line 69 column 100: there is no attribute "maxlength". ...id="good-turn-description" maxlength="50" title="Tell us about it"//textar. And my line of code is:textarea name="test" cols="40" rows="5" id="description" maxlength="50" title="Tell us about it"//textarea And my doctype is:!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?! Cheers,Paul **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 strict maxlength
On 8/10/06, Paul Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just having some trouble with validating I keep getting the report this report about the maxlength property: Error Line 69 column 100: there is no attribute maxlength. ...id=good-turn-description maxlength=50 title=Tell us about it//textar. Textarea does not support maxlength in any version of HTML... it's only valid (and only works) with input type=text. HTH, K. -- Kay Smoljak http://www.cleverstarfish.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] XHTML strict maxlength
On 8/10/06, Paul Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?! If you read the dtd you'll see that maxlenght is a valid attribute for input but not for textarea. ** 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 strict maxlength
Paul Collins wrote: As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?! Cheers, Paul It's only valid on input elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_input There is no equivalent for textarea: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_textarea Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.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] XHTML strict maxlength
On Thursday 10 August 2006 13:50, Paul Collins wrote: Hi all, Just having some trouble with validating I keep getting the report this report about the maxlength property: Error Line 69 column 100: there is no attribute maxlength. ...id=good-turn-description maxlength=50 title=Tell us about it//textar.And my line of code is: textarea name=test cols=40 rows=5 id=description maxlength=50 title=Tell us about it//textarea And my doctype is: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?! Cheers, Paul Maybe textarea maxlength=50/textarea instead of textarea maxlength=50 //textarea :) Cheers -- Pierre-Henri Lavigne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +33 (0)6.18.75.32.67 ** 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 strict maxlength
As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?! Not for textarea. Only for input. From the x-html strict dtd... !ELEMENT textarea (#PCDATA) !-- multi-line text field -- !ATTLIST textarea %attrs; %focus; nameCDATA #IMPLIED rows%Number; #REQUIRED cols%Number; #REQUIRED disabled(disabled) #IMPLIED readonly(readonly) #IMPLIED onselect%Script; #IMPLIED onchange%Script; #IMPLIED -- Ben Wong e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.onehero.net ** 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 strict maxlength
Well, you learn something new everyday! Thanks all for your help - Original Message - From: Ben Wong To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML strict maxlength As far as I can see, maxlength is a valid XHTML strict attribute, can anyone tell me why this isn't validating?!Not for textarea. Only for input.From the x-html strict dtd...!ELEMENT textarea (#PCDATA) !-- multi-line text field --!ATTLIST textarea %attrs; %focus; name CDATA #IMPLIED rows %Number; #REQUIRED cols %Number; #REQUIRED disabled (disabled) #IMPLIED readonly (readonly) #IMPLIED onselect %Script; #IMPLIED onchange %Script; #IMPLIED -- Ben Wonge: [EMAIL PROTECTED]w: http://blog.onehero.net**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor 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] XHTML strict image spacing
Paul, on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 at 16:36 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: Surprisingly, I can't seem to find any information on this. The XHTML Strict doctype I am using seems to put a space between images. There is nothing wrong with this behaviour. The img-tag is an inline element. If placed in a paragraph, an image should align with the baseline of the text (display:inline). If placed outside of text-containers you'll probably prefer to see no space under the image, to achieve this you've got to change the the formatting to display:block. In the transitional doctypes the browser tries to detect what you prefer. You may take a look at: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#box-gen http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#normal-flow regards Martin ** 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 strict image spacing
Thanks Daz, much appreciated
Paul
- Original Message -
From:
Darren
West
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:54
PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML strict image
spacing
Hi Paul,This article explains the reason why - http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.htmlYou
could try floating the images to the left or using negative margins - depends
on the design its impacting though. Daz
On 02/08/06, Paul
Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surprisingly, I can't seem to find any
information on this. The XHTML Strict doctype I am using seems to put a
space between images. I have got aronud this by using
img {display:block}
in the CSS, however this isn't really ideal as
it throws a lot of designs out where I had been using a line break
br/ to clear them. Can anyone explain to me why the Strict doctype
does this and a better method of fixing it?
Cheers,
Paul**The
discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor
some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**The
discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor 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] XHTML strict image spacing
On 8/2/06 11:07 AM, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surprisingly, I can't seem to find any information on this. The XHTML Strict doctype I am using seems to put a space between images. Just ran into this on a recent small project. My first use of the Strict doctype. I got around it by floating the images left. Worked like a charm in my particular case. HTH -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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] XHTML Strict
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: The issue is not about the attributes but their value; and in the example I wrote, the validator would choke on the ID's *value*. Because 1st_Section is a valid value for the name attribute but it is *not* for the id attribute. To expand: because the name attribute can contain any CDATA, while id *must* begin with a letter. Which, of course, I should know. I must've hit my head or something. It's a fairly marginal advantage, though, if you ask me. I agree. // Kalle Räisänen. -- We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them. And we demand that there always be more of them, bigger and better and more vivid. -- Daniel Boorstin, The Image. ** 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 Strict
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Surely any conforming user agent should ignore any markup that it does not understand, so is there really any need to stop using name, where it is being used for 'belt and braces' compatibility? For XHTML 1.0 (even strict), using name is still fine. Deprecated, yes, but not invalid. For XHTML 1.1, though, it would be silly to aim for compatibility, as then the question would arise: if you're after compatibility, why move to 1.1? Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / 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 **
Re: [WSG] XHTML Strict
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely any conforming user agent should ignore any markup that it does No, user agents don't ignore markup that is not specified in the DOCTYPE. It generates (or should) a parse error. Most web sites don't serve XHTML correctly as application/xhtml+xml because one browser by a very large US software manufacturer doesn't parse this MIME type. If you want to see examples try: http://www.bathurst-tafe.nsw.edu.au/~steve/index.htm is text/html and http://www.bathurst-tafe.nsw.edu.au/~steve/index.xhtml is application/xhtml+xml When using Windows IE6, for the second link, Windows will try to open the page in another application (usually Dreamweaver if installed). These are both served by Apache from the same directory. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 _ ... (0) ... / / \ .. / / . ) .. V_/_ Linux Powered! ** 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] XHTML Strict
Hi,I normally use a name="section1" to identify a particular section for linking within the same document. However, XHTML Strict won't allow the attribute "name". Is there another way to do this?Thanks, Minh __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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] XHTML Strict
Use IDs a id=section1 Minh D. Tran wrote: Hi, I normally use a name=section1 to identify a particular section for linking within the same document. However, XHTML Strict won't allow the attribute name. Is there another way to do this? Thanks, Minh __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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] XHTML Strict
Minh D. Tran wrote: Hi, I normally use a name=section1 to identify a particular section for linking within the same document. However, XHTML Strict won't allow the attribute name. Is there another way to do this? a id=section1/a or the better method, h1 id=section1This is a header/a A a href=#section1link like this/a will still scroll to the book mark. ** 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 Strict
oh duh! why didn't i think of that. Thanks!Mark Sheppard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use IDs Minh D. Tran wrote: Hi, I normally use to identify a particular section for linking within the same document. However, XHTML Strict won't allow the attribute "name". Is there another way to do this? Thanks, Minh __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help** __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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] XHTML Strict
Minh D. Tran wrote: oh duh! why didn't i think of that. Thanks! Actually, I believe you should use both (id *and* name). Also, you should make sure your jump links work with keyboard navigation: http://juicystudio.com/article/ie-keyboard-navigation.php --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] XHTML Strict
Thierry Koblentz wrote: Minh D. Tran wrote: oh duh! why didn't i think of that. Thanks! Actually, I believe you should use both (id *and* name). Not in XHTML 1.1, where name doesn't exist. And it's deprecated in XHTML 1.0, so you shouldn't use it there either. -- We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them. And we demand that there always be more of them, bigger and better and more vivid. -- Daniel Boorstin, The Image. ** 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 Strict
In XHTML 1.1, name doesn't validate but id does. So we should just do away with name altogether."Rev. Kalle Räisänen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: Minh D. Tran wrote: oh duh! why didn't i think of that. Thanks! Actually, I believe you should use both (id *and* name).Not in XHTML 1.1, where name doesn't exist. And it's deprecated in XHTML 1.0, so you shouldn't use it there either.-- We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake themfor reality. We demand them. And we demand that there always be more ofthem, bigger and better and more vivid.-- Daniel Boorstin, The Image.**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help** __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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] XHTML Strict
Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: Minh D. Tran wrote: oh duh! why didn't i think of that. Thanks! Actually, I believe you should use both (id *and* name). Not in XHTML 1.1, where name doesn't exist. And it's deprecated in XHTML 1.0, so you shouldn't use it there either. I know the validator would complain about the name attribute in applet, form, img elements etc. but as far as I know there is no issue with A elements. I use name all the time with my jump links because I consider this best practice as it offers better browser compatibility and richer anchor names. And my pages *validate* XHTML 1.0 Strict. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] XHTML Strict
From: Brian Cummiskey or the better method, h1 id=section1This is a header/a Surely that can't be right? Something that opens as a h must surely close as a h. -- Peter Williams ** 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 Strict
Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: Yes, the name attribute is deprecated in XHTML 1.0, not removed. It is, however, removed in XHTML 1.1. Deprecation is enough to make me avoid something. I'll give you a point on better backwards (though not forwards) compatibility, but why would name attributes offer richer anchor names? What does name give you that id doesn't? For example one can use: a name=1st_Section/a but not: a id=1st_Section/a --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] XHTML Strict
Thierry Koblentz wrote: Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: I'll give you a point on better backwards (though not forwards) compatibility, but why would name attributes offer richer anchor names? What does name give you that id doesn't? For example one can use: a name=1st_Section/a but not: a id=1st_Section/a Yes, you can. id is a perfectly valid attribute for a (id is a standard attribute that, AFAIK, can be applied to any tag). Doesn't make much sense when used as you do there (as someone said up-thread: use hN id=1st_Section.../hN instead), but there's nothing in the standard(s) to stop you. // Kalle Räisänen. -- We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them. And we demand that there always be more of them, bigger and better and more vivid. -- Daniel Boorstin, The Image. ** 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 Strict
Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: I'll give you a point on better backwards (though not forwards) compatibility, but why would name attributes offer richer anchor names? What does name give you that id doesn't? For example one can use: a name=1st_Section/a but not: a id=1st_Section/a Yes, you can. id is a perfectly valid attribute for a (id is a standard attribute that, AFAIK, can be applied to any tag). Doesn't make much sense when used as you do there (as someone said up-thread: use hN id=1st_Section.../hN instead), but there's nothing in the standard(s) to stop you. Of course I know id is valid. Remember, it's me who suggested up in this thread to use both in a named anchor ;) The issue is not about the attributes but their value; and in the example I wrote, the validator would choke on the ID's *value*. Because 1st_Section is a valid value for the name attribute but it is *not* for the id attribute. So to use your example: hN id=1st_Section.../hN would not validate and would not be backward compatible. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] XHTML Strict
Peter Williams wrote: From: Brian Cummiskey or the better method, h1 id=section1This is a header/a Surely that can't be right? Something that opens as a h must surely close as a h. I'm sure Brian meant: h1 id=section1This is a header/h1 Kat ** 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 Strict
Peter Williams wrote: From: Thierry Koblentz For example one can use: a name=1st_Section/a but not: a id=1st_Section/a Then rhere's the issue that class/id names can't start with a numeric character, so you'd be wiser to use something like name=firstsection or id=firstsection. The whole point of this discussion is about using 1st_Section rather than firstsection. We all know that the latter is fine for both attributes. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
[WSG] XHTML Strict - top margin
I've decided to change from xhtml transitional to strict and now for some reason, even tough I declaredbody {margin:0; padding:0;}p {margin-top:0;}my content still doesn't stick to the top.Would you know Why?TIA,Ellewaznelle.com
Re: [WSG] XHTML Strict - top margin
These spaces are usually caused by margins on the neighboring elements
like h1's and paragraphs, try removing margins on those elements.
Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com
(609)335-3076
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elle Meredith wrote:
I've decided to change from xhtml transitional to strict and now for
some reason, even tough I declared
body {margin:0; padding:0;}
p {margin-top:0;}
my content still doesn't stick to the top.
Would you know Why?
TIA,
Elle
waznelle.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
**
