Amidst all the hubhub about Standards and Validation, some people are
arguing that they use XHTML served correctly as application/xhtml+xml
to ensure that their documents validate. Their reasoning is: if I make
a mistake in my code, browsers will fail to render the documents. This
is partially
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Amidst all the hubhub about Standards and Validation, some people are
arguing that they use XHTML served correctly as application/xhtml+xml
to ensure that their documents validate. Their reasoning is: if I make
a mistake in my code, browsers will fail to render the
Mordechai Peller spoke the following wise words on 18/06/2004 7:47 PM EST:
That's because Firefox, even though it checks for well formedness,
doesn't check for validity.
The best solution is to sniff if the UA accepts application/xhtml+xml,
and if so, serve XHTML, otherwise, convert it to
Hi folks, I have one question and I'd like to share with you.
There's one page on my website that is generated based on a query in my
database. This query could result in more than 100 records. So, my
question is:
Who is the correct way to create a table to receive this information?
What is
I am about to start teaching a web development course to a group of
teenagers and would like to clarify something in my mind before I
mislead them.
In short, I am unhappy with the theory behind placement of navigation
at the end of documents.
As I understand it, the idea of placing navigation at
I speak regularly to David Woodbridge, a blind user at the Royal Blind
Society, Sydney. We used David to test a few of our site over the last few
years.
Before meeting David I always read that navigation should be last I nthe
source. I asked David this when he came to talk to the WSG recently and
There's two schools of thought:
1) navigation first, content second, with a skip to the content link
2) content first, navigation second, with a skip to the navigation link
It's often argued that 2) is better for SEO, as it top-loads your documents,
putting your relevant content fairly high up
Hi Nico
This is my idea on your question -
If you're going to liken the website to a book, you should make the front
page short and interesting (like a front cover) Title, credits, that sort of
thing. At the bottom of this page you can have some links to main areas
including your sitemap, which
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:32:05 +0100, Nico Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short, I am unhappy with the theory behind placement of navigation
at the end of documents.
If you actually try to use a screen reader, you'll see that listening
to the whole navigation list over and over amd over again
Hi everyone, first post.
Weve been tricking around with this at work and my limited
uderstanding of this is that the skip to content link needs to be
visible as the blind and screen readers are not the only accessibility
concerns we need to cater for.
In particular pointing devices such as wands
Also... and maybe off topic.
I'm not sure I understand the comparison to books.
From my personal experience, when I go to a site the last thing I want
is a cover page. I want current content quickly and the ability to
find what I want quickly.
Most books by nature are linear in flow. A more apt
11 matches
Mail list logo
