On May 25, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Andrew Krespanis wrote:
On 5/24/05, Ben Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Canada
In The Game, Inc.
Customer Service
135 West Beaver Creek Road Box #604
Richmond Hill
ON
L4B 1C0
I think that one would hav
I've one question, whats wrong with a small header and a paragraph of
formatted text?
On 5/26/05, Patrick Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Prabhath Sirisena
>
> > Anyways, a dialogue is definitely not a place for a definition list.
> > By the name "definition" itself things should be clear. P
> Prabhath Sirisena
> Anyways, a dialogue is definitely not a place for a definition list.
> By the name "definition" itself things should be clear. Perhaps W3C
> should come up with a new element for such uses (or the developer can
> create is own xHTML module, but, like, who cares?).
Until we c
> "Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues,
> with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words."
>
> 'Juliet equals Romeo, oh Romeo...' nope
>
That example has been cited often for an instance where W3C got it
wrong. or not.
Anyways, a dialogue
Andrew Krespanis wrote:
The method I use to decide on the appropriate use of is to say
'equals' in between the and each .
being ultra picky, then, even what the W3C suggest at the end of
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 is wrong
"Another application of DL, for example,
Andrew and all
sorry about jeopardy quoting. I'm leaving the below in for context
This is the ideal situation for a "microformat", an emerging and
exciting way of adding richer semantics to HTML within the existing
standard
http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats
The hCard (bas
On 5/24/05, Ben Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Canada
> In The Game, Inc.
> Customer Service
> 135 West Beaver Creek Road Box #604
> Richmond Hill
> ON
> L4B 1C0
>
I think that one would have to qualify as improper use of a .
The
On May 23, 2005, at 2:13 AM, Ben Ward wrote:
I might also be inclined to put semantic class names on each of those
addresses (such as "street-address", "telephone", "fax". In the
future, this would allow you to use CSS to generate the "Tel" and
"Fax" prefixes for you, or insert an appropriate i
On Sun, 22 May 2005 22:30:53 +0100, Ben Ward wrote:
> Lea - I think the problematic part of the element as
> described in Geoff's link is the part reading "authorship for the
> current document".
Yes, *after* I posted (typical) I went and had a further look around.
The HTML4 specs are more restri
Apologies - I hit send too soon and the example was wrong. I meant
that you could end up with this:
CAMELFORD OFFICE:
20 Market Place
Camelford
Cornwall
PL32 9PD
TEL 01840 212938
FAX 01840 213596
I might also be inclined to p
Nothing 'wrong' with that I don't think. I think that the street
address should probably only be contained within a single , though
(since it is a single entity). Lines could be broken with as
appropraite.
I think it would then be appropraite to wrap the inner text of each
with an too, so you h
So, is this example 'wrong' ?
CAMELFORD OFFICE:
20 Market Place
Camelford
Cornwall
PL32 9PD
TEL 01840 212938
FAX 01840 213596
It's what I generally use for the contact address of whatever business site
I'm pro
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
The first is correct, but should only be used when
referencing the author of a document.
Arguably, though, if these are the contact details of the company
whose site you're on, then it *is* correct (as they would, in the
wider sense, be the au
Lea de Groot wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:48:55 +1000, Geoff Deering wrote:
The first is correct, but should only be used when
referencing the author of a document.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/address.html
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.5.3
It's not used for
Geoff Deering wrote:
The first is correct, but should only be used when referencing
the author of a document.
Arguably, though, if these are the contact details of the company whose
site you're on, then it *is* correct (as they would, in the wider sense,
be the authors of their site - and n
Lea - I think the problematic part of the element as
described in Geoff's link is the part reading "authorship for the
current document". Yes, wrapping a street address is correct. However,
it specifies that the address must be related directly to the document
(e.g. the author's or owner organisat
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:48:55 +1000, Geoff Deering wrote:
> The first is correct, but should only be used when
> referencing the author of a document.
>
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/address.html
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.5.3
>
> It's not used for general cont
Bruce Gilbert wrote:
for an address, which way is best
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
or
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
TIA!
The first is correct, but should only be used when referencing
the author of a document.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/address.html
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-
I would go for the first one, since in this I think the is
given semantic value as a separator (even though, technically the
element has zero semantic value). The first set of markup would by
default display a nice, multi-line formatted address in all browsers
and could be formatted into a comma-s
On 22 May 2005 at 15:57, Bruce Gilbert wrote:
> for an address, which way is best
>
>
> 1st line
> 2nd line
> 3rd line
>
>
> or
>
>
> 1st line
> 2nd line
> 3rd line
>
Hello Bruce,
I do actually not know the DTD, but the second version declares three
adresses. So the first version should
for an address, which way is best
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
or
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
TIA!
--
::Bruce::
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints o
21 matches
Mail list logo
