On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Jeffery
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never had a problem with character encodings on web pages, but since I
reinstalled the OS on my iMac I have had an issue.
Some of my characters, especially when using ' seem to mess up. This is the
page, content and
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:32 AM, James Jeffery
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't own the server.
You don't need to own the server to be able to alter its behavior.
Many (most?) ISPs allow you to customize aspects of your site.
Anyway. I saved as ISO-8859-1, and it works on windows now but not
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM, John Unsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just a quick question. I'm writing up a website for a simple brochure
site, and the copy I'm provided with refers to something 1/3 of
total or colour 2/3 of natural and so on. And it just occured to
me, would
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:13 AM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp
I don't know about the demo version on that page, but they used to offer a
full version that would work for 30 minutes at a time (you needed
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Hucklesby wrote:
FWIW - The META content-type is only relevant to pages read from
a local file-- for example, when someone saves your page to disk.
Not true. I recently had some non-local UTF-8 files where some
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Barney Carroll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
I've got a problem with character set encoding I'd like to rectify. I use
UTF-8 as a matter of convenience and ideology, and don't believe it should
be that much of a problem. My editor (Notepad++) is set to
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.
Cheers
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
On Mon, May 12
it as valid HTML.
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Hassan Schroeder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One argument against the use of transitional doctypes is that they're
now more than eight years old which makes them about half as old as
the Web itself. Do you want to base your site on what was status quo
half
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has
almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I
have managed to get into the long-term plan: ...website that is compliant
with
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Ca Phun Ung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Brown wrote:
Rachel May wrote:
I created the PNGs in Photoshop (CS3) and just wondering if there are
any better tools or ways of saving the PNGs for smaller file size, while
still retaining their high quality??
%2Fwww.beverlywilson.com%2F
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:15:19 -0400, Nikita The Spider replied:
Kristine,
If your server is already specifying the character set (a.k.a. encoding)
then you don't
need to do so in your HTML. In fact, I'd recommend against doing so, ...
The META tag is needed
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kristine Cummins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone tell me how to fix this W3C warning – I'm new to understanding
this part.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beverlywilson.com%2F
Kristine,
If your server is already specifying the character
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Kristine Cummins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I launched a new site a few days ago and received a report that the site is
showing in another language and/or foreign characters even though meta
http-equiv=content-language content=en / is declared in the HEAD.
That
On Nov 11, 2007 8:33 AM, Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10-Nov-07, at 6:33 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
I'm searching for first-hand, authoritative statistics on colour
blindness, for use in a formal, academic document. Would anyone be
able to point me in
On 10/19/07, Chris Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed this page also uses entity encoding. This is a solution I have
used myself but the more I think about it the more I realise realise how
ineffective it is really.
take the following PHP code:
// some page fetching function
$html
On 10/18/07, Anders Nawroth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Nikita The Spider The Spider skrev:
You might be interested in an experiment I ran that compared a few
techniques for protecting one's email address from harvesting bots.
The short answer: entity references worked very well
I
On 10/18/07, Anders Nawroth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray Leventhal skrev:
As a matter of preference, I generally try to eliminate all mailto:
links on any site I've been asked to work on. In place, I use a contact
form,
Me too :-)
But then you get form-post spam after a while ...
I
On 10/17/07, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
can anyone tell me what is the best accessible way (if any) of encoding
a mailto: link? I want to make the email addresses on a site usable to
screen reader users, but don't want them harvested by spambots.
Hi Rick,
You might be
21 matches
Mail list logo
