I will be out of the office starting 19/06/2008 and will not return until
23/06/2008.
I will respond to your message when I return.
For urgent enquiries, please contact Bret Bearham on 3032 3466.
***
WARNING: This e-mail
Ultimately, if the server is configured right, it shouldn't matter,
but standardistas are sticklers for detail./
feel able to reveal the vendor name?
Curious Joe
On Jun 19 2008, at 18:08, Rob Enslin wrote:
Many thanks for all the input.
Now for the fun part... go back to the CMS vendor
I would tend to argue the opposite (though not entirely). Links to external
sites opening in new windows are not a bad idea in certain circumstances
such as when external material might end up inside a frame, as might happen
inside a Learning Management System... it might be advisable at that
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Enslin wrote:
I recently started noticing that our CMS system generated .htm
pages where
previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the
support staff
and was told that the W3C deemed
The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.
But I completely agree, my server can serve a
Opening links in new windows is not an evil thought, no, but it is
best avoided in most circumstances.
We should never use Experienced Users and shift+ctrl+alt as a
benchmark as I would assume these are about 1% or less of most site
traffic and thus a very tiny minority which shouldn't be
My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows based web
server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.
We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of habit.
I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been largely
free from
Exactly!
But as you know, old conventions die hard!
Joe
On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain wrote:
My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows
based web
server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.
We did continue creating .htm for a while after
I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web
developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically
generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end.
My colleagues and I have adopted sites built by such developers, and I
can tell you that
Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I
missing something?
Yes - should have been htm vs html.
And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we currently have
a *great* working relationship and don't want to upset that ;-) [sure you
understand]
Rob
One can only ask.
JOe
On Jun 20, 2008, at 11:16, Rob Enslin wrote:
Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am
I missing something?
Yes - should have been htm vs html.
And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we
currently have a *great*
I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web
developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated
pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end.
Dave, it's not that they (CMS vendor) believes it needs to be done or indeed
compulsory, it's
I've always used:
html{min-height:100.1%;}
to force a vertical scroll-bar in Firefox for fixed width sites that are
centred in the browser window - it stops them jumping sideways when you
navigate between pages that are longer and shorter than the viewport.
With the release of Firefox 3
You should try
html { overflow-y: scroll; }
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:53, Mark Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always used:
html{min-height:100.1%;}
to force a vertical scroll-bar in Firefox for fixed width sites that are
centred in the browser window - it stops them jumping sideways
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
html { overflow-y: scroll; }
Ah, back in the days I tried it Opera wasn't playing ball. I now see that (at
least Opera 9.5) understands this now.
Good stuff.
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise Development
University of Salford
Room
I use:
*html{ overflow:-moz-scrollbars-vertical; }*
... and it works fine for me :-)
Gregorio Espadas
http://espadas.com.mx
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Алексей Тен [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should try
html { overflow-y: scroll; }
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:53, Mark Voss [EMAIL
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about what
file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will agree is still
required as the server needs to know if it is an html, php, css, js,
Mark Voss
html{min-height:100.2%;}
even more subtle
html { min-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 1px; }
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/49/
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford,
Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.. on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the
mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I
would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or
filepath as well ...
James
--
Excuse me, on my previous response to Alastair Campbell I meant to include
.
Also for Zeus
James
--
http://jp29.org/
Semantic Web Page Authoring
...
Validated: HTML/XHTML/XHTML+RDFa ~ CSS ~ RDF/XML - DC
Drawback is of course that only Mozilla based browsers understand this.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Gregorio Espadas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I use:
*html{ overflow:-moz-scrollbars-vertical; }*
... and it works fine for me :-)
Gregorio Espadas
http://espadas.com.mx
On Fri, Jun
21 matches
Mail list logo
