On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:40 AM, Edward Lynn wrote:
> These approaches feel a bit hacky to me. It might be an idea to review why
> you are using inline JS as it really shouldn't be necessary in most cases.
> There are plenty of ways of triggered JS early on elements if that is the
> reason of puttin
These approaches feel a bit hacky to me. It might be an idea to review why
you are using inline JS as it really shouldn't be necessary in most cases.
There are plenty of ways of triggered JS early on elements if that is the
reason of putting it inline. What are the times you find the js needs to be
If you use XHTML doctype, you can add CDATA comment, this will prevent possible
validation errors.
Example:
/* */
I mostly work on Magento proje
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Nancy Johnson wrote:
> I think you said it very nicely.
>
> The sites I am work on, one agency designs and gives initial html
> mock-up and we hook it up to an CMS system and the client adds
> content. Could it be managed better? yes, but that is the way we
> wor
I think you said it very nicely.
The sites I am work on, one agency designs and gives initial html
mock-up and we hook it up to an CMS system and the client adds
content. Could it be managed better? yes, but that is the way we
work.
The validator doesn't handle javascript, and although I do my
On Jun 25, 2010, at 5:10 AM, David Dorward wrote:
>
> This is fair. You ask for free support, but provide test data that doesn't
> pass basic, automated QA tests. It doesn't really motivate people to help.
>
Actually it's not always fair.
There are many kinds of validation errors, an experie
On 25 Jun 2010, at 12:32, Nancy Johnson wrote:
> Besides ampersands, I worked on a dynamic site that the convention was
> to add a (+) sign in the friendly URL. The plug takes the page title
> and puts the (+) sign between words.
This is fine. A plus just means a space. in a form encoded URL.
I really don't see how having seo friendly urls changes things. I would
sugest that before you made the seo friendly urls that you may have had
.html in the extension so that the validator knew how to validate the page.
Perhaps you are missing something similar to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD
Besides ampersands, I worked on a dynamic site that the convention was
to add a (+) sign in the friendly URL. The plug takes the page title
and puts the (+) sign between words.
The W3C validator tells me to convert to & and produces 163 errors
per page, a site that validated up to the point of the
I just had problems with ampersands in google static maps,
where if placing multiple pins in 1 map I had to change &markers=
to &markers=, otherwise wouldn't work at all
MM
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Dan Webb wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Years ago, I use to painstakingly and religiously conve
Thanks to nedlud and Chris too.
Just to be clear, and to save others who might be offering editing
suggestions ..
I did just want to know if it's still necessary to do the encoding, I
don't require help with the conversion, I have that under control. And
it's not necessary anyway. The task is to i
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Jelina Korhecz wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> As far as I'm aware, this is still necessary. However, if you're
> doing a huge replacement of & to & you can use BBEdit or (the free
> version) Text Wrangler to find and replace over multiple files.
> (However this program is only availab
Thanks Jelina and David for prompt replies.
I'll continue to do encode them.
cheers,
dan.
Jelina wrote:
>As far as I'm aware, this is still necessary. (etc)
>
David wrote:
>Yes (etc)
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:39 PM, I wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Years ago, I use to painstaki
Notepad++ is a good free editor for Windows that should work for this.
On 25 June 2010 15:54, Jelina Korhecz wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> As far as I'm aware, this is still necessary. However, if you're
> doing a huge replacement of & to & you can use BBEdit or (the free
> version) Text Wrangler to fin
On 25 Jun 2010, at 06:39, Dan Webb wrote:
> Years ago, I use to painstakingly and religiously convert & to &
> when ever I encountered it (HTML 4.01 Strict doctype).
>
> It's still pegged as invalid by the W3C validator, but is it really
> still necessary these days?
Yes
> What could possibly
Hi Dan,
As far as I'm aware, this is still necessary. However, if you're
doing a huge replacement of & to & you can use BBEdit or (the free
version) Text Wrangler to find and replace over multiple files.
(However this program is only available on the mac--I'm not sure if
Windows/Linux has a simil
Hi folks,
Years ago, I use to painstakingly and religiously convert & to &
when ever I encountered it (HTML 4.01 Strict doctype).
It's still pegged as invalid by the W3C validator, but is it really
still necessary these days? What could possibly go wrong in modern
browsers?
I'm talking specifica
17 matches
Mail list logo
