On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:03 -0500, Andrew Ballard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
> wrote:
> > There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> > Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> > standard ratified by ISO (whi
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
> There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> didn't explain all the deta
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
>>> Sheridan) wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100,
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> > Sheridan) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> > >
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> Sheridan) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> >There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some dif
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan)
wrote:
>On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
>
...
>
>There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
>Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> >I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
> >department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
> >to do to accomodate this
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
>department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
>to do to accomodate this gotcha:
>
> Nothing
>
>See, that was tough. Why was it so h
tedd wrote:
> At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
>> document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it
>> keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for
>> skinnable apps). In
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 19:09 +, Lester Caine wrote:
> Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premature!
> >> What is ne
At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since
it keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true
for skinnable apps). In my experience I've se
Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
"The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thorou
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
>> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
>
> Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got sm
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relat
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
> the asi
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar s
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's a
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>> "aside". Sure it's aside,
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not e
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic mean
Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing IE8 to ins
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when ther
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one eleme
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:56:36PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP,
> and produce
> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6,
> and think my
> webpages display correctly on any of
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these,
particularly with regards to semantic content?
I expect semantic markup to (eventually) improve how pages are indexed.
Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I
know IE use
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
>> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
>> browsers. It's a l
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Bob McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> >> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> >> browsers. It's a lot less work
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:20 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
> >
> > Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> > Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> > browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the othe
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
allow
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:20 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> From: Ashley Sheridan
> > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> >> From: Robert Cummings
> >>> Lester Caine wrote:
> James McLean wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Feb 201
From: Ashley Sheridan
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
>> From: Robert Cummings
>>> Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
>> Maas) wrote:
>>>
Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
developers maili
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> From: Robert Cummings
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> James McLean wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
> Maas) wrote:
> > as for using IE6 ... WTF .
From: Robert Cummings
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> James McLean wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
> developers mailing list r
Richard Quadling wrote:
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technolog
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my we
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:41 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> >Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premat
At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out b
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
> heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
> of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
> technology, which could go s
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:02 -0600, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
> > Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> > have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> > somewhat premature!
> > What is needed is someone to kick M$ t
Lester Caine wrote:
> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> somewhat premature!
> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> allowing IE8 to install on W2k mac
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my websites go on behind-t
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>>as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
>>developers mailing list right?
>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in t
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
>> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
>> 0200), that I can
>> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
>> http://www.php.net/man
Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
> 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:32 +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
> 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get '
53 matches
Mail list logo
