tee wrote:
1) wrap the input inside 'label' is bad practice - so I have not done
that for years.
No it isn't. Using the for attribute is best practise, but there is no
harm in doing both (unless you need the elements to be separate for
styling purposes).
2) learned that 'button' is better
Wondering if people have insights into the length of a url for an
article, and whether or not it is recommended to complete the name of
an article in the url. For instance:
http://egovau.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-collaborative-online-groups-need-to.html
The name of this article is Do
What puts me off about about Contribute is the cost; very few of my clients are
willing to pay that amount of cash. There aren't many open source alternatives
to choose from, I'm currently riding with SnippetMaster ( do a search), one or
two bugs, but all in all an excellent, web based
Hi
Several people are misunderstanding why some of us are challenging the
use of Contribute (please note, challenging, not refusing) and why a
consultant might discover (please note: discover, not insist) where a
CMS might be a better solution for the client in the long run and
better
Todd Budnikas wrote:
Wondering if people have insights into the length of a url for an
article, and whether or not it is recommended to complete the name of an
article in the url. For instance:
http://egovau.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-collaborative-online-groups-need-to.html
The name of this
..and if you are truncating url paths based on a page title at a certain
point, you'll end up with some odd urls sooner or later..
e.g example.com/blog/why-xyz-browser-sucks.html
when your title is:
Why XYZ browser sucks less than ABC browser
RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) doesn't set a maximum length on
Thanks for spreading the word, Russ.
Here's some more perspective on the situation:
* With real world implementations WCAG 2.0 steps closer to expected December 2008
publication blog post
http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/11/with_real_world_implementation.html
* WCAG 2.0 moves to last stage for
I will be out of the office starting 05/11/2008 and will not return until
10/11/2008.
I will respond to your message when I return. If your matter is urgent,
please call me on the mobile, 0448 010 941.
***
List Guidelines:
other than making sense and having a strong connection with the page
the content is on, there is no direct reason, other than being a bit
sensible about it, I wouldn't advise testing out the 2048 characters.
On 05/11/2008, at 9:32 AM, James Ellis wrote:
RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) doesn't set a
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other than making sense and having a strong connection with the page the
content is on, there is no direct reason, other than being a bit sensible
about it, I wouldn't advise testing out the 2048 characters.
of course there
More reasons to keep 'em short:
1. Makes it easy to quote URL (maybe over the phone)
2. I've seen a few email or publication programs break URLs where there's a
line return, so breaks the hyperlink
3. Makes layout difficult for desktop publishers and marketing ie.
May also be worth considering the use of an alias URL that redirects the
user to the desired location on the page. They're good for referencing
URLs in non-electronic media as they're more descriptive, easier to
remember, and easier for the user to correctly type into their browser's
address bar.
i completely agree with Justin, and all points from just about
everyone who responded, so thanks. A follow-up question is then do you
paraphrase an article title into a url, or just chop it?
/music/a-fresh-and-powerful-new-cd-from-the-most-influential/
or
/music/influential-musician-new-cd/
From: silky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Todd Budnikas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i completely agree with Justin, and all points from just
Just a quick note that if you're going to shorten
Do collaborative online groups need to be successful
to make a URL, it would be better, from the SEO viewpoint, to cut out
the common words, do, need, to etc. So, your URL would be
collaborative-online-groups-successful.html
not
I said no direct reason, but you point is a good reason to consider
short URLs but this is not always possible, but yes, typablity is a
good thing too.
On 05/11/2008, at 11:27 AM, silky wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other than making sense
Sorry for being a bit off topic but.
I think you missed a point about friendly URLs
For each of these examples you state, you really don't want to burden
your marketing team with urls like your example:
Wait so would it make more sense to include keywords in your link for
you main navigation?
so instead of about I would make it about-andrew-brown?
On 4-Nov-08, at 11:21 PM, Joe Ortenzi wrote:
I said no direct reason, but you point is a good reason to consider
short URLs but this is not
Please stop emailing me!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Ortenzi
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 3:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sorry for being a bit off topic
What?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Ashley Butler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop emailing me!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Ortenzi
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 3:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject:
Yes o.O
...aren't we saying the same thing? Keep the url short and to the point.
Sorry... I exaggerated the example URL to illustrate the point.
Ashley try the unsubscribe if you don't want to get emails...
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
-Original Message-
From:
Joe Ortenzi wrote:
the long and friendly URL is really for the final page, which should not
bury a full product list so deeply and should be titled
/product_list.html anyway.
Uh, how about more properly '/product_list' (or '/product-list') --
your customers don't care about the underlying
22 matches
Mail list logo
