Re: [WSG] Safari problems

Thanks, Jan. I am going to take a screen shot today of the problem and I'll post a link to it later. It's the image of the flower that is misaligned on the nav list. On 07/11/05, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On my version of Safari (1.3) The 1.3 branch is fairly OK, it implemented all

RE: [WSG] Standards and The DataGrid

Chris Could you give me an example of what you are providing and what styles they are referring to. Is it a table css formatting issue or an output issue. could you provide a copy of the Datagrid declaration and the html output which the client has issue with. Please contact me off list

[WSG] Site Check : http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/test3/index.html

Thanks for the reviews and suggestions from before. I have made some changes and added some more pages. I would appreciate your feedback once more. I still have some issues to address e.g.: the forms need to be made fully accessible the table needs to be madefully accessible

[WSG] Server Side Includes

Are there any standards issues around using server side includes?For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file="test.html" -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments

[WSG] Standards and .NET

Hi,Yesterday I spoke with you all regarding issues with using CSS and .NET. Below is the site underdevelopment. I'm told div's are casuing a problem, in addition to tdthCould someone look over this and offer suggestions, on Standards based implementation with .NET"Today we found screen resolution

Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes

QM Consulting Ltd wrote: Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional

[WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

Hi, any idea if it's possible to create menu like this one pure css without JS ? http://dojotoolkit.org/~alex/dojo/trunk/demos/widget/Fisheye.html if yes, please shot a kickstart -- Regards Jad madi Blog http://EasyHTTP.com/jad/ Web standards Planet http://W3planet.net/

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

The closest I've seen in css can be found at http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/expand.html. Good luck! CarolynOn 11/8/05, Jad Madi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,any idea if it's possible to create menu like this one pure css without JS

[WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

Hi, any idea if it's possible to create menu like this one pure css without JS ? http://dojotoolkit.org/~alex/dojo/trunk/demos/widget/Fisheye.html if yes, please shot a kickstart -- Regards Jad madi Blog http://EasyHTTP.com/jad/ Web standards Planet http://W3planet.net/

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

That has about as much to do with AJAX as my mother does. Whats wrong with using the fisheye widget? Dojo code is standards compliant, effiecientJS. Why would you try to do something like that in _pure_ CSS? If your going to do that you might as well try to do it in plain text aswell. HTH w

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

My point exactly why not use JS ? 2005/11/8, Wayne Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That has about as much to do with AJAX as my mother does. Whats wrong with using the fisheye widget? Dojo code is standards compliant, effiecient JS. Why would you try to do something like that in _pure_ CSS? If

Re: [WSG] Standards and .NET

http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/ASPNET2XHTML.asp VS2005 drastically improves this situ. hth :] w Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, Yesterday I spoke with you all regarding issues with using CSS and .NET. Below is the site underdevelopment. I'm told div's are casuing a problem, in addition to

RE: [WSG] Standards and .NET

Hi Chris, To echo what Wayne says - Visual Studio 2005 is MUCH better when it comes to css/standards layouts. Unfortunately it is still fairly new, and so not going to be commonly used for a wee while. When dealing with older .net stuff - like I also currently am - yes it is a headache. How

Re: [WSG] Standards and .NET

A few tips based on my experience of working with ASP.NET 1.1: * First up, consider sticking to an HTML 4 DOCTYPE. It's really not as big a deal as some advocates would have you think ;-) - Critically, if you try and force it to use XHTML and someone accidentally clicks 'Design View' your code is

[WSG] Scalable background-image?

Is there any way using CSS to get a background-image to scale? I've created an accessible interface that uses em for layout and font sizing control. Everything scales beautifully as the font size changes except for background images, which remain at the size of the original image. I can't

RE: [WSG] Standards and .NET

Avoid using the pre-wrapped ASP.NET controls. DataGrids aren't so bad, but you get much more mark-up control by using a Repeater. Similarly, rather than using an asp:label, there's a mark-upless version that doesn't insert span elements. I forget the name, sorry, but it does exist. I think Ben

RE: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

Using a PNG you could achieve a similar effect. This was actually demoed at WE05. You should be able to find the presentation and podcast on the WE05 website. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jad Madi Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 6:17

RE: [WSG] Scalable background-image?

I'm going with 'no' here. I've seen some cool stuff with % in layered divs but no bg images. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Smith Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 8:34 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Scalable

Re: [WSG] Scalable background-image?

As far as i know, there is no way to change the scaling of the background image - but, by changing the viewable area of the background, you can effectively change the size.the general way this is done is by intentionally making the background larger than it has to be, so that if the font size is

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

Paul Noone wrote: Using a PNG you could achieve a similar effect. Did you mean SVG? -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk |

RE: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

Damn these infernal acronyms. ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:10 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax) Paul Noone wrote: Using a PNG you could

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

You would have to use javascript to detect the mouse position over the icons to correctly scale the image, you might be able to go from having a small icon to a large icon just using CSS. PNGs will allow you to have nice alpha blending around the edges of the images not matter what the

Re: [WSG] css instead of JS(ajax)

This seems to be a great way to illustrate one of the key points of the whole standards compliant, semantic web concept. Basically, XHTML - Content (what it says) CSS - Form (what it looks like) JavaScript/DOM - Behaviour (what happens when I do this ...) The Fisheye example looks

Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes

Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter

Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes

It's not seen by the browser at all, unless SSI's are turned off or they are not being processed by the web server. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

SSI is irrelevant to standards, as the code is parsed by the webserver (and the include file placed in the output code) before the browser/client receives it Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday,

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

Paul, I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. Yes, the server needs to be configured to interpret the SSI file, and it's similar to PHP in that he code is parsed

Re: [WSG] disabling autocomplete and validation

I'd have to agree with Patrick. Poking into the DOM and adding the autocomplete attribute is clean enough for the sort of thing you are doing. I look at it this way.. the markup is what the web server sends. The DOM gives us hooks into the document once its loaded into the browsers memory. I'm

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. I don't think anyone is arguing that the content of the include is irrelevant, the original

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. This is an issue with the *code in the include* NOT with server side includes. This list is about standards-compliant code - SSI has no bearing on whether a site is or isn't standards

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

I caught the comment from I think Richard. 'Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments' You might actually be a little confused. This is a comment !-- Something in here -- Note the '!'. In the code for a SSI, there is not '!'. In other words. This is not a comment. --

Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes

Paul Menard wrote: You might actually be a little confused. This is a comment !-- Something in here -- Note the '!'. In the code for a SSI, there is not '!'. In other words. This is not a comment. -- #include file=test.html -- Good grief -- where did you get that idea? Your example

[WSG] Next Wellington WSG meeting

Just a reminder that this will be on Thursday 17th November. More details here: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event50.cfm Free Webstock http://www.webstock.org.nz poster for everyone attending :) Mike ** The discussion list for

RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes

I wasn't arguing either. I was simply pointing out that the code still needs to be valid, well-formed and semantically correct. I teach a class at the local college and you'd be amazed at the number of students taking web-based courses with mimimal computer experience therefore I wouldn't

Re: [WSG] Naked metadata - RDF in HTML

Hi Ian, Liddy, Charles, Peter, Misha, Alan, Patrick, Andy, Geoff, DC-General and WSG Thank you for all your help and comments. In particular, thank you, Ian, for RDF in HTML. Last week, I wrote to the DC-General and the Web Standards Group mailing lists. I was lamenting the fact that