Lachlan Hunt wrote:
.html opens normally in any browser
.xhtml
Firefox will report well-formedness errors, page info dialog will
typically show application/xhtml+xml.
Just to make sure I've got it (somewhat) right at my end...
I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up,
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea. I
joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of
web sites about standards) and everything was rosy in the garden. Of
course, I had
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up, so for the
last 2 years I've used the following procedure:
- Creating an xhtml 1.0 document.
- Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'.
- Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension
Oddly enough I've been thinking about making a similar post.
I would have said all you said and then added two more tidbits.
1. Just read on some blog (pointed to from this list) where doctypes
are useful only for validation, otherwise of no use.
2. A friend just got back into the web
On 04/12/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bob,
please understand any blunt or straightforward response is by no means
a personal attack on you, but I feel the rant mode growing inside of
me :-)
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been
On 04/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time
away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables
and the usual tag soup.
I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with
the modern way
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my
friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his
(fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers
which he built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through
trying to get a
designer wrote:
Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my knowledge of CSS, which
(although I'd been using it for a few years) seemed a good idea.
Yes, that is a very good idea.
I joined the CSS list, then this one, I read Jeffrey Zeldman (and a lot of
web sites about standards) and
Bob Schwartz wrote:
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my friend
to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his (fairly
complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers which he
built without jumping through any of the hoops I go through
[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML,
it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some
other method.]
You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about
15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to
On 12/4/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.
Though the moment that someone starts doing some scripting they are
doomed probably. (As it differs.) Or body { background:#eee } in
CSS...
--
Anne van Kesteren
On 04/12/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the core of the issue not designing with CSS vs tables, rather
than with the standards themselves?
Yes, there's an ongoing confusion between standards compliance
(validation) and observance of good practices (css layouts, etc.)
--
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Lachlan wrote:
I challenge you to name several readily available
off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.
I meant on the back end. The use of XStandard on the front end
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
Please do not reply to this thread on list.
If you wish to answer the original question, please do so offlist.
Reason for closure: This thread has moved a long way from the original
question. It has now moved into the area of strongly held personal opinions.
This is just one
- Creating an xhtml 1.0 document.
- Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'.
- Serving it as 'xhtml' with the extension '.xhtml' to browsers that can
make anything out of it - Opera, Moz/FF, Safari - internally and on line.
Info: application/xhtml+xml - no errors -
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. A friend just got back into the web design game after a long time
away. He sent me his site: pure HTML 2.0, no doctype lots of tables
and the usual tag soup.
I mentioned to him that things had changed and he should get with
the modern way
Donna Jones wrote:
- Creating an xhtml 1.0 document.
- Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'.
...
line 2 above, how do you convert to xml? I have Tidy installed on
mozilla/fx but i don't see anyway to convert. More explanation would
be appreciated!
I use a rather
My biggest reason for following standards originally was selfish: vastly
increased ease of maintainability. When you separate content from
presentation, you can change the presentation aspect of the site once
and it goes into effect across the entire site. I really, really liked
that aspect
Lachlan Hunt said:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
I'm more or less aware of how easy it is to mess things up, so for the
last 2 years I've used the following procedure:
- Creating an xhtml 1.0 document.
- Cleaning out 'human bugs' in HTMLTidy - 'convert to xml'.
- Serving it as 'xhtml'
Hi Lachlan,
Lachlan Hunt wrote: [snipped]
MIME Types
As I promised, this is a (not so) brief discussion of MIME types and
how they relate to this discussion of HTML vs. XHTML.
I will certainly read and inwardly digest this!
Many thanks,
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
On 12/4/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of those. I just mentioned that I was unable to convice my
friend to change his ways and his strongest reason not to was his
(fairly complicated) site that worked just fine in a lot of browsers
which he built without jumping through any of
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width, the right column
body
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
ivanovitch wrote:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
Instead of trying to float the columns next to each other, you could avoid
much pain to the brain by wrapping the fixed image column inside the content
column.
--
| |||
| |||
|
ivanovitch escribió:
Folks - you've helped out before, and I'm asking again. Pardon if this
sounds all too simple, but I've yet to find a solution either in this
list's archives, or on the web.
I'm trying to create a fluid layout with two columns, but whilst the
left column is variable width,
Samuel Richardson wrote:
body
div id="sidebar"/div
div id="content"/div
/body
#sidebar
{
float : right;
width : 190px;
}
#content
{
margin-right : 190px;
}
This is the exact design of my site http://www.smashignred.com except
the side bar is
I forgot to add, if you want to apply a background image or footer then
wrap then
body
div id=contentwrap
div id=sidebar/div
div id=content/div
div style=clear : both;nbsp;/div
/div
/body
Add background images to the #contentwrap for a faux column effect, also
if you add a footer
If you have any problems the clear div being applied after the column divs
(as I did) you can try applying the following to the contentwrap div, and
any other container that holds floats.
/* *** Float containers fix:
http://www.csscreator.com/attributes/containedfloat.php *** */
There's a simpler way of clearing floats without using the clear
attribute.
If you apply overflow: hidden; to the container DIV it will then
expand to contain all the floats (as long as a height hasn't been
specified, then it will possibly clip the floats).
The only issue with this is that
I'm going to have to go with Lachlan on this one. IE has as much support
for XHTML as it does for application/foo-bar. If I serve my
application/foo-bar as text/plain, IE will display the page as plain
text. If it 'looks' correct that is only a coincidence.
More importantly IE's HTML parser is
This closed discussion is quite welcome and appropriate to continue on the CMS
list.
If you are not on this list, log in to http://webstandardsgroup.org/ and
follow the link Edit your login details and mail list subscriptions then
select the Full CMS list radio button to participate.
Regards,
Alan Trick wrote:
If you want another potentially good thing gone bad from missuse you
don't have to look any furthur than RSS and it's 9 (I think, but it
could easily be higher) almost completely incompatible versions.
It was 10 at last count, 9 mentioned here
ADMIN
THREAD CLOSED
AGAIN!
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Thanks everyone: it was the float clearing that proved to be the thorn
in my side (right side). And the IE-Mac fix is also appreciated.
Only one more nut to crack with the site. I'll return for assistance
with another right floater if I can't use what I've just learned.
Thanks again: a terrific
Hi there,
- Does anyone know of an accessible PeopleSoft built application?
I haven't heard of one which is what I would call accessible :)
- Has the issue of PeopleSoft generated code been an issue or is the
responsibility that of the company using it?
The PS code is all tables and bad
35 matches
Mail list logo
