Re: [WSG] IE floating bug

Rowan Lewis wrote: http://www.pixelcarnage.com/development/evolt_lives See how the input element is pushed down and its surrounding paragraph element isn't? The input element is down the very bottom. I think this is the 3px txt jog [1] The sidebar/panel is a right float #panel { ...

[WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Hi all, I need to convince a bunch of K-12 teachers to teach web standards instead of tables-for-layout and FrontPage and Publisher type of thing to their students. Besides W3C, what sites should I point to for teachers who really have no idea with any of this, and won't read umpteen sites to

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

I really like this: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ I think it covers most everything.On 9/11/05, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all,I need to convince a bunch of K-12 teachers to teach web standards insteadof tables-for-layout and FrontPage and Publisher type of thing to

Re: [WSG] Browsers as copilers (was) Barclays standards redesign

On 9/8/05, Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . they should refuse to parse incorrect code. Hi The issue here is what is incorrect code? -- a web coder can serve up completely valid code, according to the w3c alidator, that is really awful (this, also, is purely subjective). For actual

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep-Validation Complete]

Hi, One meta-tag was open, and some onClick-.onclick issues were resolved. C On Sep 10, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions wrote: Have you run it through the validators you link to? You are showing errors in the XHTML validator, which stops validation in the CSS

[WSG] Valid Null Value

Hi, Tidy frowns on this tabindex=#. What mark is acceptable as a null value in place of #. C ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the

Re: [WSG] Valid Null Value

Chris Kennon wrote: Tidy frowns on this tabindex=#. What mark is acceptable as a null value in place of #. And Tidy is right. As per spec, tabindex needs to be a (natural) number between 0 and 32767 http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#adef-tabindex Why do you want to assign a

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Rick Faaberg wrote: Any lesson plans out there, by chance? :-) what you think is the best way to get the information is your lesson plan. go with what you know and in what order you do it. when you decide to teach, you are taking on a serious responsibility and making your own outline how

Re: [WSG] Valid Null Value

Hi, I've a default link structure that I use for consistency, sub navigation for this page does not need to be tabbed, as it is in a logical order. I wanted to leave the value blank without removing said attribute/value from each link. I've discovered that leaving the value blank

Re: [WSG] META tag standards?

Best to use lowercase when you are not sure, but there is not realy a standard for it so far I know.. ;) check also the Meta Tag Analyzer http://www.widexl.com/remote/search-engines/metatag-analyzer.html Its more for keywords and stuff but they have a view tips Also a list of best meta

Re: [WSG] META tag standards?

Gene Falck wrote: I understand about using lower case for tags and attributes in XHTML (leaving content capitalization unspecified to accommodate a wide range of strings) but haven't seen anything on those value items that seem to be relatively frequent and standard items. For instance, I see

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Actually, I forgot about this link too. This is a class at Cornell University that teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict. Here's the link: http://cs130.cs.cornell.edu There isn't a complete lesson plan but you can see the syllabus. On 9/11/05, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi all,I need to convince a

Re: [WSG] Browsers as copilers (was) Barclays standards redesign

The issue here is what is incorrect code? -- a web coder can serve up completely valid code, according to the w3c alidator, that is really awful (this, also, is purely subjective). For actual scripting languages the same is true - a coder can serve up code from procedural hell but it runs

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Christian Montoya wrote: Actually, I forgot about this link too. This is a class at Cornell University that teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict. Here's the link: http://cs130.cs.cornell.edu as was brought to my attention not too long ago, if your pages are strict, then the future life of the pages is

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Transitional pages are full of deprecated HTML 4.0 tags that are not allowed in XHTML 1.1 or 2.0. Strict pages can usually be validated as XHTML 1.1 without any changes. Just read the XHTML specifications for differences between XHTML 1.0 and 1.1. It's

Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Wasn't this question asked not long ago? Shouldn't people at least try to check the archives first? R - Original Message - From: Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: [WSG] teaching students developing to web

RE: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

Christian, I agree with that. The word transitional implies that its about moving to newer standards. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent:

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, I've put it through as many hoops (UA's) as I own, let me know how it holds in yours. Overall you're looking good, Chris. Some nit-picking notes-- - a little slow to load - unable to read content if images disabled. - font-size on body okay at 80% better (for me)

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Hi, Very thoughtful and helpful, will implement as many changes as necessary. C On Sep 11, 2005, at 6:42 PM, David Laakso wrote: Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, I've put it through as many hoops (UA's) as I own, let me know how it holds in yours. Overall you're looking good, Chris.

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, I've put it through as many hoops (UA's) as I own, let me know how it holds in yours. Looking good in Opera, Firefox, IE6, Safari iCab. IE/Mac is lost on width-- spreading everything out. --- HTML Tidy lists a number of minor errors. --- div#content-primary

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Hi, Is this suggestion a usability or aesthetic decision? On Sep 11, 2005, at 6:42 PM, David Laakso wrote: - would delete all the buttons and the validator thing in footer On Sep 11, 2005, at 6:42 PM, David Laakso wrote: - would delete all the buttons and the validator thing in footer

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, Is this suggestion a usability or aesthetic decision? On Sep 11, 2005, at 6:42 PM, David Laakso wrote: - would delete all the buttons and the validator thing in footer Neither. -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com

Re: [WSG] Site Check [BushidoDeep]

Chris Kennon wrote: What tidy settings are you using. I get one nested span error from the default settings. However, I would like to see your settings and results. I got some 'href lacks value', 'tabindex lacks value' and an 'action lacks value' -- in addition to the 'nested emphasis span'.