Thank you very much Steve it really works, you were right it just needed
that i put that line
thanks again
- Original Message -
From: Steve Clason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Help with CSS ul
On
Yes, it really needs frames of course . . . :-) )
(Sorry - couldn't resist! )
Kenny Graham wrote:
i like tabs as much as anybody else, but when it's _that_ bad, it's
time to move them from the top to the side. wouldn't look nearly as
bad as a vertical nav, and wouldnt have the flyouts
Ok people... time to stop replying to this now... I have at my evil disposal an equally evil remove buttonCheersJames---admin.
Hi guys,
This is probably going to sound really weird but I need this for
something I'm working on.
Question: Is it possible to make IE6 use the broken box model for a PART
of the document?
This means I have an XHTML 1.0 Strict / Transitional document with a
div in it for which the
inner
G'day
This is probably going to sound really weird but I need this for
something I'm working on.
Yep, you got that right but I won't ask why :-)
Question: Is it possible to make IE6 use the broken box model for a PART
of the document?
As far as I know, the only way you'd get that
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:
Question: Is it possible to make IE6 use the broken box model for a
PART of the document?
No, DOCTYPE switching applies to the whole document, not just parts of
the document.
The different box model may one day be able to be chosen using the
proposed
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:
Question: Is it possible to make IE6 use the broken box model for a
PART of the document?
No, DOCTYPE switching applies to the whole document, not just parts of
the document.
The different box model may one day be able to be chosen using
About the 'why':
I'm working on a little Backbase application. From what I've seen so far
it seems to require quirks mode to function right
in Internet Explorer. You can see this because their website at
www.backbase.com has !-- -- on top of the page.
Now I want to include a little backbase
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
As for quirks mode, you should basically try to forget it even exists
as an alternative and never, under any circumstances, attempt to
develop a page using it. Use of quirks mode is never a good solution
to any problem.
IMHO, throwing IE6 into quirksmode is sometimes the
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
IMHO, throwing IE6 into quirksmode is sometimes the only way to make
it behave.
Agreed. Makes IE6 behave almost according to standards without any of
its Strict but not very standard limitations.
However, using a !-- comment -- to achieve Quirks mode in IE6 should
be
Hi all,
how would/do you markup the source attribution for data tables when there
is already a caption?
EXAMPLE
Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators
[data]
.
.
.
[data]
Source: Foo Corp 2005
Should the caption be changed to include the attribution?
Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source:
I suppose I have always very much disliked server-side includes, for no
reason I can immediately think up, they just seem like bad form. But if
I really think about it, it doesn't matter what goes on as long as it
gets to the client in a standards-compliant, semantically correct form.
A business
Hi,
this discussion has been had before - follow this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg22706.html
:)
Paul
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lamberson
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:26 AM
Chris Lamberson said:
it doesn't matter what goes on as long as it gets to the client in a
standards-compliant, semantically correct form.
Correct.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Hi Paul,
My question is: are server-side includes good, bad, or neither in the eyes of
standards and semantics?
Neither. There's no connection between the use of SSI and semantics or
standards. SSI enables elements of a page to be modularised (note that there
are specific SSI commands for
Good evening gentleman. I want to thank all of you for your interesting replies to my question. I will gather all of the info and try to come up with an educated reply ! At any rate, there is a lot to think about. My client may not be dead set on using frames. I will use the info garnered in this
Hi,
Should the caption be changed to include the attribution?
Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source: Foo Corp 2005)
I'd go with this solution. It's a logical place for attribution and it
doesn't really go anywhere else without losing specific association
with the table contents.
h
--
Kevin Ross said:
Isn't using a dynamic frameset, still using frames?
Yes.
What is the advantage?
None that I'm aware of.
I will suggest that we just open a new window... I feel more comfortable
with that as opposed to frames. Comments?
Pop-up's are the lesser of the two evils, and if you
As one last comment I'd add that pop-ups and new window
targets are very different beasts. An accessible popup is almost but not quite
impossible, although always less desirable than a simple
target="_blank".
--Paul A NooneWebmaster, ASHM[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technically, there are several ways of placing attribution and
signaling its source for a table, depending on whether or not it is
taken in toto from the source or adapted. Attribution format also
depends on the discipline and audience. First, a super-scripted
number after the title would
Hi all,
Some of you might have read my recent article, WebPatterns and
WebSemantics
http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/2005/11/webpatterns_and.html
In a nutshell, a pattern is a a problem which occurs over and over
again … and … the core of the solution to that problem. When we
Hey John :o)
Martijn van Welie's been hacking away at something like this for a bit -
check it out :o)
http://www.welie.com/patterns/index.html
R
- Original Message -
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:34 PM
Actually, it would be great if we could have something like this which would
form a 'toolkit' of sorts where we can take 'developer-authorised' code
snippets and put them in our pages. Such as finally having a collection of
code so we don't have to ask: What's the most semantic and valid way of
Love the idea. I don't think it should be a replacement for many things
which are best learnt through hard expereince, but rather a 7 steps to
success guide for building a standards-based website.
Sure, you could include best practice code samples, particularly for
off-page techniques etc. But I
I think you'll find their are too many variables in a website to do this
easily. Plus you'll never convince designers to stick to those set
layouts :D
Richard Czeiger wrote:
Actually, it would be great if we could have something like this which
would form a 'toolkit' of sorts where we can
Kevin Ross wrote:
However, I still have a few questions...
Isn't using a dynamic frameset, still using frames?
Yes.
What is the advantage, other than being able to place the frame where
I want?
What I understood from your questions is that you were going to build the
entire site using
I don't know, Sam...
I mean, we're not forcing someone to use these patterns. But let's face it,
they're patterns because lots of people use them.
For example:
previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next
look familiar?
Google and almost every multi-page set of results uses this. I'd call it a
Greeting,
I'd been working on solving this problem in the last three hours
however I can't seemed to pinpoint the cause.
In IE 6/ 5.5, my form drops to the bottom. I know this is a common IE
bug and I was able to solve the problem in other sites by declaring
clear left (or both or right)
G'day
So I declared 'display: inline' in the #formWrapper, it solves the
problem but my background color shrinks to a small square above the the
form in Firefox and Opera (both PC and Mac); in Safari and IE, the
background color completely gone.
Have you tried display:inline-block ?
On Dec 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
Have you tried display:inline-block ? It's valid CSS [1], Mozilla
ignores it and it ~may~ do what you want it to in MSIE.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-display
Hi Bert, no, display:inline-block doesn't work however
G'day
Hi Bert, no, display:inline-block doesn't work however your suggestion
prompted to use the IE conditional comments in my html' .head tag.
Seems a bit of overkill for a single rule. I avoid hacks
wherever possible, but if you do need one, it's better placed in
the CSS file (e.g.
31 matches
Mail list logo
