On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:06:21 +0100, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be
able to generate
it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content.
What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every
Justin Thorp wrote:
I am intrigued by the idea and wondered what people thought. I'd be
interested in getting a reaction from a screen reader user.
As with my early, half-finished experimentation
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/57/ the underlying markup is a
clean, structured table.
Ian Fenn wrote:
Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility
guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict.
So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict
are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as
accessible
On Tue February 8 2005 09:22, Andrew Krespanis wrote:
What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with
horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the
latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the
code in question is clean as
OOPS! I just swore on list
SORRY :)
http://leftjustified.net/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the
Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that
doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like
what you intented.
Compliant html pages styled completely with CSS displaying bugs? Easy,
I would make some examples for you now if I wasn't
'Lo
Just made a couple of minisites all mostly buzzword compliant, just
requesting comments :)
http://www.w3bdevil.com/scripts/
http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/
And can I just get some feedback on this older site of mine...
http://www.w3bdevil.com/planetearth
N.B: I'm aware that /turkeys/
Andrew Krespanis wrote:
OOPS! I just swore on listSORRY :)
---
LOL.
First time a long while I've actually gotten a laugh from this list.
Cheers,
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.visidigm.com
Administrator
Guild of
David,
http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/
With a quick once over the only issues I noticed were accessibility ones:
1. Colour contrast appears insufficient? White text on light-grey background.
2.2 Ensure that foreground and background colour combinations provide
sufficient contrast
David R wrote:
http://www.w3bdevil.com/scripts/
- Check z-index on the headline. Left side link Home is overlapping
bottom of W3b's ... in Opera. Fine in FF and IE-win
- *All* text with relative font-size for IE-win, please?
- Otherwise: just fine.
http://www.w3bdevil.com/turkeys/
- No problems
No doctype to be found.
pej
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brendan Smith
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:22 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Web app guidance/site comment
Greetings all,
I'm currently working on a web app that I
Without getting into the debate on the correct semantics of the dl,
I have one general problem with using it (and tables) for this case:
sequential numbering.
Placing his list in a dl or table and manually numbering them
works, but what about when a new item needs to be added to the list
Placing his list in a dl or table and manually numbering them
works, but what about when a new item needs to be added to the list
somewhere in the middle?
I'm assuming a system like this is dynamically handled back-end, so
removing this problem.
I'm not sure what the rational for dropping the
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:26:26 -, Patrick Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm not sure what the rational for dropping the start= from ol
was, and at first glance it seems an odd thing to do. Like others have
mention, I can see cases where it would be useful - a results list
with
1,000 entry,
Title: Message
So I tried using the
bullet image as a background on the li and it seemed to work in IE 6 but not
Firefox or MAC IE5.1, can anyone take a gander and let me know what they think
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php
Cheers
Paul
Title: Message
When I am validating
I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php)
, is there something I can add to my code to make it fully
validate?
Paul
Paul skrev:
So I tried using the bullet image as a background on the li and it
seemed to work in IE 6 but not Firefox or MAC IE5.1, can anyone take a
gander and let me know what they think
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php
Cheers
Paul
Hi.
remove the extra braklet after .bodylinklist
Patrick wrote:
doesn't work all the time, but as a general rule: when you have this
type of inconsistencies, try and be very specific with regards to all
margins and paddings. Otherwise, you're leaving the ones you don't
specify up to the rendering engine's default, which may well vary from
Hi Andy,
So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict
are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as
accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't
serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving
their
Hiya,
Long-time lurker, first time poster. I'm debugging a
just-about-to-go-live site, and have run up against something I've
never seen before. The problem has to do with a disappearing background
image in Safari/Mozilla. It shows in IE, and I can make it show in
Safari/Moz if I change the
Paul wrote:
When I am validating I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php ) , is there something I can
add to my code to make it fully validate?
Well, the validator actually tells you exactly what's wrong and how to
fix it...
Paul skrev:
When I am validating I always seem to only tentatively validate ( i.e
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php ) , is there something I
can add to my code to make it fully validate?
Paul
Hi.
Try adding at content-type
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;
In this instance, all the padding, margin, border, etc. were initially
set
to zero so that shouldn't be the cause here. In the end I couldn't
find the
cause of this IE issue, so I've gone with a table. I can always have
it
changed if I discover the cause and a fix.
Hi Ian. I don't know if
A raised this query a few weeks ago, to no avail. However, chatting with
another developer tonight who had experienced a similar challenge with print
stylesheets, I was offered a resolution: the !important directive. Slapped
it in the print stylesheet on the offending ID for the container and
Paul,
I just checked your layout in IE 5.1.7 Mac (OS 9), on Firefox (OSX). Both of
them look the same and fine. If you'd like a screen shot, I'll send them off
list, just give me an email address. The page is coming along nicely.
Wayne
--
Wayne Godfrey
You need to clear your floats.
Check this: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
(technique discovered by WSG member Tony Aslett ;)
Andrew.
--
http://leftjustified.net/
**
The discussion list for
Andy Budd wrote:
So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict
are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as
accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't
serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving
Geoff Deering wrote:
There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict.
[...]
If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may
need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack
of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is
Can I just offer an opinion here.
When thinking of semantics it sometimes helps to go back 20 years and use
pen and paper.
If you were writing a big list (numbering each item) in a small notepad you
would, on successive pages, keep the numbering going. So on the second page,
the first item may
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know
when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what
the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still
declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional
Aha. Thanks. Clearing ought to do the trick.
Peter
On 8-Feb-05, at 7:30 PM, Peter Asquith wrote:
Hi Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just-about-to-go-live site, and have run up against something I've
never seen before. The problem has to do with a disappearing
background
image in Safari/Mozilla. It
Hey, I'm new here :-)
In response to Geoff's email,
XHTML is the web standard of the future. If we implement it now, we
are just helping move it along faster. A friend of mine recently
created a php script that makes your XHTML into HTML for browsers that
cannot support it. You can check it out
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:49:55 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is
valid and works just as well?
Depends on the client and how they'll be maintaining their site; I've
handed sites over to clients before who were
Geoff Deering wrote:
That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering
parsing engine will work with the different doctypes.
Ok, let's narrow down the field to the core issue: what are the
rendering differences between XHTML1.0 Transitional and XTHML1.0 Strict?
Ok, now the
On 9 Feb 2005, at 00:49, Geoff Deering wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css
driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML
(strict
or transitional) or even XHTML transitional.
That is a misconception.
Provided the XHTML document has
Geoff Deering wrote:
That is my
point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use
transitional or strict.
However, that *was* the point of the original question. To recap:
something can't be done in strict which is not presentational, but
nevertheless has been dropped from
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:50:56 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a document that validates as doctype Strict, then why declare it
as transitional? For what reason are such decisions made? That is my
point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way to go.
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for visited links than unvisited links, but I have got the
feeling there is no way to achieve this?
I was first hoping it could be done by changing the standard order of
the pseudo classes, but that's not the way
Yes, heres the code
a:visited:hover {
**styles**
}
Not sure about its browser compatibility, but I've never seen it not work :p
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:40:34 -0800, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering whether there is any way of creating a different hover
effect for
a:visited:hover {
...styles...
}
OR
a:visited::hover { ... }
(double colon is CSS3 syntax)
Untested, but theoretically it should work...
Andrew.
http://leftjustified.net/
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:40:34 -0800, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was
Is there a way to use the DOM to scan the page for visited links and
assign them a class? I don't know enough about the subject to offer up
a solution myself - I'm not even sure that's possible. Can the DOM
check the 'visitedness' of an a element?
If it can that would be a cross-browser solution.
42 matches
Mail list logo
