Re: [WSG] Opera Labs and Opera 9 Preview 2
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:11 pm, heretic wrote: Maybe the standards community prefer to ride ponies instead of real race-horses? ;-) Must be something to do with keeping nearer the earth. Opera spoils web developers, and makes Internet Explorer (and Firefox, to a lesser extent) that much more shocking ;-) hehehehh ahhh dear, we're the mac users of the browser world aren't we ;) [grabs his fireproof suit] speaking of macs, i wonder if the new mac version of opera will change the stuff that angered joe clark? [http://blog.fawny.org/2005/02/01/opera/] i don't have a mac to try it out. Hmm, if they could clone the interface of Omniweb (they already cloned a couple of features) or Camino, it would become a very nice browser. - granted, they did make some serious progress with Opera 9 (tp1 and tp2) Part of Joe Clark's issues are fixed. But the UI design still feels like poor. The 'looks' are still out of place and Windoze like. That said, to stay on topic, with the latest release, they've made good progress in fixing their rendering bugs. A whole bunch of margin-collapse bugs are fixed, quite a few issues with relative positioning as well. And speed is back, on Mac at least (tp 1 felt more like one of those big heavy duty horses used in the fields rather than Georg's race horse. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Fontography
Hello Listees,
Fonts come into an area which confuses me. To begin with, there doesn't
seem to be any standardisation amongst the various fonts : 14px Times is
smaller than 14px Verdana, for example. (to my simple mind, 14 px is 14
px) The space taken up by a font varies too. This makes it hard to
generalise about definitions in CSS, because often the readabiity of a
font is borderline with some fonts and OK with others. (let's not get
into ems here - they are yet another nightmare). So my question : has
anyone studied this for the common fonts, so that one can say :
IF {times} then size=15px else IF {verdana} then size = 14px etc etc.
I've googled and got a bunch of stuff about fonts, but not found
anything which mentions this.
Anyone have any helpful comments?
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Fontography
Designer wrote:
... has anyone studied this for the common fonts, so that one can say
:
IF {times} then size=15px else IF {verdana} then size = 14px etc etc.
I've googled and got a bunch of stuff about fonts, but not found
anything which mentions this.
I think 'font-size-adjust'[1] is what you're looking for. Not sure if
that property has survived to css2.1. It used to work (somewhat) in
Moz/Firefox. Don't know about other browsers at the moment.
regards
Georg
[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list said so? It's a pretty common design pattern, and no-one challenged it. But discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument - let's move on. USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT doesn't support you on this point either. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing for the average user. Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change. Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText Markup Language. What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as it first loads? I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see between a heading and a paragraph. Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and writing. Definition List comes with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one way, six the other. But then you create redundancy for the sake of visual browsers. No, the redundancy is acutally for the opposite of visual browsers, but ultimately every browser/user benefits. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
Search scriptfree http://www.google.com/search?q=free+search+engine+script ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
You can always get the google search this site, or you can find free scripts that search html documents, usually in the asp/php flavor. If the content of your site (articles and such) is databased, its very easy to write a search engine for that. Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com (609)335-3076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Todd Gleaton wrote: Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
2006-02-08
Thread
Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net)
try http://www.sofotex.com/TSEP---The-Search-Engine-Project-download_L27025.html2006/2/8, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Search scriptfree http://www.google.com/search?q=free+search+engine+script**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
Thanks Terrance, I'll look thru them and see if I can find one that fits my needs. I looked at the first one and it was for non-commercial. I did a google search before and found lots of them but each one always had something I didn't need, advertisements on it or annual payments. tg - Original Message - From: Terrence Wood To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* Search scriptfreehttp://www.google.com/search?q=free+search+engine+script**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
No database here. Just looking for a simple script that searches the site without advertisements or annual fee. thanks for the infotg - Original Message - From: Joseph R. B. Taylor To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* You can always get the google "search this site", or you can find free scripts that search html documents, usually in the asp/php flavor.If the content of your site (articles and such) is databased, its very easy to write a search engine for that.Joseph R. B. TaylorSites by Joe, LLChttp://sitesbyjoe.com(609)335-3076[EMAIL PROTECTED]Todd Gleaton wrote: Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
[WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which element to use. HTML in itself is not a good example of an XML doctype because the paragraph markup does not lend itself to proper hierarchic layout. the heading tags should be able to be subsets of a paragraph, for example. The focus would then shift to CSS and the different display-types that can be defined for ANY tag. Microformats and Micro-Namespaces could then be used to allow true semantic delivery. I take it this has been suggested before, so what are the arguments / counter-arguments ?? Stephen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
Fluid Dynamics (http://www.xav.com/scripts/search/) do a very nice Open Source Perl based search engine script, which even has an automated install from their web site. They also have a very nice, basic, site tracking program called AXS, as well as a few other interesting scripts. Regards, Nick. On 8 Feb 2006, at 20:40, Todd Gleaton wrote: Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
Hi Todd This is self promoting but we might have what you're looking for. Please feel free to check our PHP plug-in Grow Search listed here: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm or directly here: http://www.gr0w.com/amos/growsearch/ There's also a livesearch version available which we've tested but not deployed. Regards Jon www.gr0w.com - Original Message - From: Todd Gleaton To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* No database here. Just looking for a simple script that searches the site without advertisements or annual fee. thanks for the infotg - Original Message - From: Joseph R. B. Taylor To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* You can always get the google search this site, or you can find free scripts that search html documents, usually in the asp/php flavor. If the content of your site (articles and such) is databased, its very easy to write a search engine for that. Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com (609)335-3076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Todd Gleaton wrote: Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Stephen Stagg wrote: Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which element to use. _ Here's a start: http://www.whatwg.org/ As well as I understand, there are dissenting voices about the development of the web: those who want to follow W3C's recommendations towards XHTML, those who want The Semantic Web based on XML, and those who want to extend HTML against the wishes of W3C. Plus those who don't want to change at all. I don't know much more than that, but I'm sure others on the list will fill in the blanks. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic*
If your site meet's the terms of use, you can use Yahoo's API with site:http://yoursite; in the request string On 2/9/06, Jon Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Todd This is self promoting but we might have what you're looking for. Please feel free to check our PHP plug-in Grow Search listed here: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm or directly here: http://www.gr0w.com/amos/growsearch/ There's also a livesearch version available which we've tested but not deployed. Regards Jon www.gr0w.com - Original Message - From: Todd Gleaton To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* No database here. Just looking for a simple script that searches the site without advertisements or annual fee. thanks for the infotg - Original Message - From: Joseph R. B. Taylor To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Search Engine Script *Little off topic* You can always get the google search this site, or you can find free scripts that search html documents, usually in the asp/php flavor. If the content of your site (articles and such) is databased, its very easy to write a search engine for that. Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com (609)335-3076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Todd Gleaton wrote: Hello Everyone, As I said in the Subject...this maybe a little off topic but I thought I would ask the group since I am having a hard time finding what I am looking for. I am looking for a Search script to put on a website that will have about 35 to 40 web pages in it. Most of the scripts I've found through looking you have to pay annually. I am looking for preferablya free script or at least one I can buy for a 1 time fee. Anybody have any suggestions? Thankstg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
On 08/02/06, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which element to use. HTML in itself is not a good example of an XML doctype because the paragraph markup does not lend itself to proper hierarchic layout. the heading tags should be able to be subsets of a paragraph, for example. Well, it's a question of attaching semantic meaning to the structure of the data. XML has zero semantic meaning for elements. In XML, hdusdlejncy wiakhjsem=blah has exactly the same semantic meaning as a href=blah. That is, no meaning at all. We need some kind of attachement mechanism for semantics. This is provided in two possible ways, either externally by the mimetype or internally by namespaces. XHTML, SVG, RSS, Atom etc. can all be summarised as sets of semantics. And by all means things closer to the heart of XML such as XLink, XInclude, XML Schemas, XLS-FO, XLST etc. too. What we really want to do when we create documents isn't usually just to provide a structure for data to present in a certain way. We want to convey some kind of meaning. The meaning can't be conveyed by CSS. It's possible we could create a semantics attachment model, but semantics on the whole aren't easily representable for computer understanding. A much easier solution is to use specific sets of semantics, which we attach by namespaces or mimetypes. All consumers can then see if they support the mimetype or namespace, and attach the semantics of that set of semantics to the underlying structure. In fact, consumers of XML that don't know the semantic set of a namespace are still able to say that the meaning is described by that namespace, even if they don't know in particular what that meaning is. These sets of semantics are of course the XML applications such as XHTML1 or XHTML5. The focus would then shift to CSS and the different display-types that can be defined for ANY tag. Microformats and Micro-Namespaces could then be used to allow true semantic delivery. But really, you need a namespace to attach meaning in XML. XHTML is a known and widely implemented namespace. Why not use this namespace as base for extended semantics, instead of introducing new namespaces for it? And as for microformats, those are actually just extensions of the semantic set of this very namespace, or extensions of other sets of semantics. You can't attach semantics to XML without these tools, really. Microformats are just semantics attached to normally semantically indifferent constructs in an already existing set of semantics. I take it this has been suggested before, so what are the arguments / counter-arguments ?? Arguments for using plain home made XML is that you might want higher granularity and specificity of semantics than provided by preexisting XML applications. But really, to get that you essentially need to create that set of semantics and assign it to a namespace. Just naming something footnote or navigation doesn't mean it gets the semantic meaning of being a footnote or navigation. Nor does it convey any particular definition of how to handle that if no presentational or behavioral hints exists explicitly in the document, because the defaults on not-strictly-semantical aspects are also part of the semantic sets (In my view, at least. Which isn't neccesarily canon...) Counter arguments against it I think I've already mentioned. -- David liorean Andersson uri:http://liorean.web-graphics.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Hi Marilyn This is far from a perfect world. Before we can have perfectly lovely xml documents, we need to make sure all of the resources delivering content are also delivering perfectly lovely xml. Or... a broken page. Not everyone has the resources to put this together. So, it's good to have a more flexible option out there. Those that can use the better technology will have better sites and will be the stars of their high school reunions. Those of us stuck working with partner content that is questionable will still be in the corner sipping a diet-coke and eating way too many cookies. Ted www.tdrake.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marilyn Langfeld Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:46 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference. On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Stephen Stagg wrote: Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which element to use. _ Here's a start: http://www.whatwg.org/ As well as I understand, there are dissenting voices about the development of the web: those who want to follow W3C's recommendations towards XHTML, those who want The Semantic Web based on XML, and those who want to extend HTML against the wishes of W3C. Plus those who don't want to change at all. I don't know much more than that, but I'm sure others on the list will fill in the blanks. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] round corner links
Hello lads, lasses and ponies, Im thinking about making a vertical navigation list with rounded corner(all 4) buttons. I would like to uses two images-for the right and left ends- and a 1px repeater background image running behind. Should i just place two end images on either side of the button text and then use css for the background or is there some way of getting all 3 images in the css as background images? best kvnmcwebn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled
XML in the future?
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?
Effective styling depends on document semantics. Without semantics, you
may as well be using font elements.
Effectively, it all comes down to this:
div class=hFoo Bar/div
.h { font-size: large; font-weight: bold; }
Would you agree that that is a bad idea? How is that any different from
inventing your own markup language and doing this:
mydocument
hFoo Bar/h
...
/mydocument
Microformats and Micro-Namespaces could then be used to allow true
semantic delivery.
A major factor in the development of microformats is that they reuse
existing document semantics, where possible. They aren't just about
making up new class names and relationship values. Micro-Namespaces
is a term you just made up, it means nothing.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] round corner links
At 02:27 PM 2/8/2006, kvnmcwebn wrote:
Im thinking about making a vertical
navigation list with rounded corner(all 4) buttons.
I would like to uses two images-for the right and left ends- and a 1px
repeater background image running behind.
Should i just place two end images on either side of the button text and
then use css for the background or is there some way of getting all 3 images
in the css as background images?
There are various ways to get rounded-corner buttons. The way you're
suggesting -- capping the sides [with fixed-height images] and
filling the middle with a stretchable width -- doesn't sound like it
will accommodate text-resizing, because of course text enlarges
vertically as well as horizontally. A common goal is to create a
curved-corner box that stretches naturally in both directions.
By the way, you probably only need two images to get that horizontal
stretch, e.g. a lefthand cap (aligned left) and a righthand piece
(aligned right) that includes a very long width. If the lefthand cap
lies on top of the righthand piece, as the box expands horizontally
more and more of the righthand piece is revealed. If the long piece
is, say, one or two thousand pixels wide, it's unlikely to break in
text-resizing even though it doesn't use a repeating background.
If your box edge is really just a one-pixel line, why use an image at
all for the top, bottom, and sides? E.g., {border-top: 1px solid #XXX;}
Francky Kleyneman demonstrates a technique that uses images* for the
top bottom, including all four corners, and a simple CSS border for
the sides. He does this by adding extra (empty) divs clustered
around the content to support the imagery:
http://home.tiscali.nl/developerscorner/liquidcorners/liquidcorners.htm
* He actually uses just one image, making use of the four quadrants
of it separately as the backgrounds for the four parts of his boxes.
Francky's technique works fine unless you need a more complex box
edge, say transparent edges, drop-shadows, etc.
Stu Nicholls demonstrates a couple of techniques:
- using a very large text bullet to create the curves at each corner:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/curves.html
This technique breaks easily on text-resizing, although it might have
potential to work with further tweaking since the corner bullets
resize with the content text.
- snazzy borders based on a technique by Alessandro Fulciniti in
which empty elements are nested around the content to contain borders
of staggered lengths:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/snazzy.html
- and krazy korners using a similar technique:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/krazy.html
Since none of these techniques use images they don't support
transparency, although you can create interestingly complex edges by
varying the border colors.
If you google css rounded corners I'm sure you'll find others.
Good luck,
Paul
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
[WSG] Attention STDS Managers / Strategists :: Visual baseline management technique
G'day from australia boys and girls. This ones for the large organisation scale Managers / Strategists among us. I am of course starting with the presumption that we are all using some form of visual baseline to handle the management of our visual assets (imgs, css etc..) within our respective environments. Also knowing that there (also presumably) is a web standards strategy in place to handle the application of those assets to the applications / sites that use them. Regarding the management of changes to the baseline. Eg. New interactive device creation to handle a specific interactivity requirement has to be created and added to the baseline to allow its implementation into a specific intranet web product. What are your thoughts on governing of the inclusion of the new device with respect to: - Maintaining multiple devices which meet the same need, where multiples are needed for issues of technical capability or other requirement. (assuming that the visual assets are distributed to multiple development / deployment platforms) - Cataloging of the assets within the library, and exposing that catalogue to the systems designers and more importantly to the interface design teams. - handling the removal or deprication of a device from active duty. - conversation about any other issues you may have encountered as related to this topic. BenWG Peace out, or out in pieces Where do you want to go today? Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many current tags. Want to include flash on your site? define a CSS rule:flashmovie{ display:flash;} and then your document reads:flashmovie src=""file://a.c.v/me.swf">file://a.c.v/me.swf" /Hell, even I know what that means :))Effective styling depends on document semanticsWrong, I see the point you are trying to make, but Styling is totally autonomous, It takes pre-defined rules and applies them to a list of tags, the CSS processor in modern browsers shouldn't care WHAT the semantic content of its tags are. div class="h"Foo Bar/div.h { font-size: large; font-weight: bold; }Would you agree that that is a bad idea?No (except the h doesn't provide any clue to the content) , but it seems silly to use a DIV element, which REDUCES semantics, having no meaning to anyone. Rather use, similar to that which you suggest:mydocument paragraph headingThis Heading Belongs to this Para/heading contentblah, blah, /content /paragraph/mydocumentThis is not meaningless, It is more readable than HTML, to a human. And when computers start to need to read websites automatically...A major factor in the development of microformats is that they reuse existing document semantics, where possible. They aren't just about making up new class names and relationship values. No, they re-use existing Standard formats, where possible, not Semantics. 'Semantics' means 'meaning'. Take the hCard format, a sample from the specification reads:span class="tel" span class="type"home/span: span class="value"+1.415.555.1212/span/spanHow in any way does a span element have semantic meaning? Then remove it. A sample from my imaginary XML hCard format reads:tel typehome/type value+1.415.555.1212/value/telNow that begins to have real semantic meaning, and is easy to read for a human. "Micro-Namespaces" is a term you just made up, it means nothing.I DID make it up but NO it is not meaningless, If you take the two parts separately, micro means small(ancient greek, µikros = small), namespace is a defined XML feature. My point is that When we get to the stage of using pure XML, the namespace and the format ideas could merge to allow a hCard namespace to be defined, if the hCard is a micro-format, then the xmlns hCard(or whatever) could also have a micro sticked before it. :)I understand that this is already possible in most modern browsers but it will never be used or properly implemented unless HTML is dropped as a language. Worried about screen-readers? I don't see why, the screen-readers would have to parse the CSS to find clues about how to read the content, but then modern ones already do.
Edit: Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Sorry, it's late in England. I'm gonna go to bed now :)How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many current tags. Want to include flash on your site? define a CSS rule:flashmovie{ display:flash;} and then your document reads:flashmovie src=""file://a.c.v/me.swf">file://a.c.v/me.swf" /Hell, even I know what that means :))Effective styling depends on document semanticsWrong, I see the point you are trying to make, but Styling is totally autonomous, It takes pre-defined rules and applies them to a list of tags, the CSS processor in modern browsers shouldn't care WHAT the semantic content of its tags is. div class="h"Foo Bar/div.h { font-size: large; font-weight: bold; }Would you agree that that is a bad idea?No (except the h doesn't provide any clue to the content) , but it seems silly to use a DIV element, which REDUCES semantics, having no meaning to anyone. Rather use, similar to that which you suggest:mydocument paragraph headingThis Heading Belongs to this Para/heading contentblah, blah, /content /paragraph/mydocumentThis is not meaningless, It is more readable than HTML, to a human. It may not have semantic meaning, but who needs semantic meaning.A major factor in the development of microformats is that they reuse existing document semantics, where possible. They aren't just about making up new class names and relationship values. No, they re-use existing Standard formats, where possible, not Semantics. 'Semantics' means 'meaning in the context of a language'. Take the hCard format, a sample from the specification reads:span class="tel" span class="type"home/span: span class="value"+1.415.555.1212/span/spanHow in any way does a span element have semantic meaning? The micro-format adds semantic meaning to the span elements in the example. Why not remove it. A sample from my imaginary XML hCard format reads:tel typehome/type value+1.415.555.1212/value/telNow THAT also to has real semantic meaning in the context of my (imaginary) proposed hCard format, and is easy to read for a human. Oh and it's lighter on bandwidth also. "Micro-Namespaces" is a term you just made up, it means nothing.I DID make it up but NO it is not meaningless, If you take the two parts separately, micro means small(ancient greek, µikros = small), namespace is a defined XML feature. My point is that When we get to the stage of using pure XML, the namespace and the format ideas could merge to allow a hCard namespace to be defined, if the hCard is a micro-format, then the xmlns hCard(or whatever) could also have a micro- stuck before it. :)I understand that this is already possible in most modern browsers but it will never be used or properly implemented unless HTML is dropped as a language. Worried about screen-readers? I don't see why, the screen-readers would have to parse the CSS to find clues about how to read the content, but then modern ones already do. :)Stephen.
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Stephen Stagg wrote:
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?
That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the
display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and
extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many
current tags. Want to include flash on your site? define a CSS rule:
You seem to want to move the semantics from the markup layer to the
presentation layer. Do I really need to explain why that is not a good
idea?
flashmovie{ display:flash;}
and then your document reads:
flashmovie src=file://a.c.v/me.swf /
This shows that you have very little understanding of how the display
property works; and probably little understanding of CSS in general.
That's already possible with existing css:
flashmovie { content: attr(src); }
In fact, it's already possible with existing markup: object. Why do
you insist on reinventing the wheel? Are you aware of the reason why
applet was deprectaed? Obviously not, because you want to introduce a
flashmovie element.
Hell, even I know what that means :))
You may think you know what it means based on the tag-name, but without
any formally defined meaning that can be understood by a UA,
flashmovie is as meaningless as foobar.
Effective styling depends on document semantics
Wrong, I see the point you are trying to make,
No, you clearly do not.
but Styling is totally autonomous, It takes pre-defined rules and
applies them to a list of tags, the CSS processor in modern browsers
shouldn't care WHAT the semantic content of its tags are.
If there are no semantics, that removes all ability of the UA to do
anything useful with the content of the element, beyond rendering it to
the screen. Without the semantics of being a heading, how could a UA
build a TOC or (like Opera) provide easy keyboard shortcuts/voice
commands to navigate from heading to heading. Or what about hyperlinks?
Or any other semantic element in HTML. Without semantics, how could
Google effectively index your page? How could it determine what the
title of the document is for displaying in search results?
There are many things that can be done with semantics beyond simple
rendering with CSS.
div class=hFoo Bar/div
.h { font-size: large; font-weight: bold; }
Would you agree that that is a bad idea?
No (except the h doesn't provide any clue to the content) , but it seems
silly to use a DIV element, which REDUCES semantics, having no meaning
to anyone. Rather use, similar to that which you suggest:
mydocument
paragraph
headingThis Heading Belongs to this Para/heading
contentblah, blah, /content
/paragraph
/mydocument
Your custom heading element and div class=h have identical
meaning: none at all.
This is not meaningless
In that case, neither is this:
a
b
cThis Heading Belongs to this Para/c
dblah, blah, /d
/b
/a
If you disagree, what could a UA do with your markup that it couldn't
also do with mine? In fact, both are completely meaningless because
both are undefined.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote:
flashmovie{ display:flash;}
and then your document reads:
flashmovie src=file://a.c.v/me.swf /
This shows that you have very little understanding of how the display
property works; and probably little understanding of CSS in general.
That's already possible with existing css:
flashmovie { content: attr(src); }
Correction, that should have been:
flashmovie { content: attr(src, url); }
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
On 2/9/06, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not meaningless, It is more readable than HTML, to a human. And when computers start to need to read websites automatically... Humans read content, computers read markup. Humans don't read HTML (excusing, perhaps, the rare breed that inhabit this list and certain other niches of the web) for its semantics, relying instead on visual/aural cues to determine the importance of content. Markup is for computers. Computers need to read websites automatically today... search engine, anyone? RSS/Atom auto-discovery in modern browsers? Copying and pasting semantic web content as rich text into another application? (If you're doing it all with CSS, the default styles of elements are often inherited... with non-(machine-defined)-semantic markup this isn't possible). It IS meaningless for all intents and purposes. Consider a plain text document: humans make a distinction between types of content, computers do not... hence markup. Admittedly, we also use markup to provide communication cues... but that's ancillary to the core of it. Unpopular though this idea may be, web standards (recommendations, whatever) are actually about ensuring that User Agents can do something meaningful with what they're handed. It's the User Agent's job to communicate that to the actual user... so we're catering for machines, not humans. Josh ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Joshua Street wrote: It IS meaningless for all intents and purposes. Consider a plain text document: humans make a distinction between types of content, computers do not... hence markup. Admittedly, we also use markup to provide communication cues... but that's ancillary to the core of it. Unpopular though this idea may be, web standards (recommendations, whatever) are actually about ensuring that User Agents can do something meaningful with what they're handed. It's the User Agent's job to communicate that to the actual user... so we're catering for machines, not humans. That's almost right, except that in the end, we *are* catering for humans. We just need to do so in a way that allows machines to effectively pass on our messages to the user; and that is what requires well-defined, computer-readable semantics. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
Yep... I agree, hence web [...] recommendations are actually about rather than accessibility is actually about. Specs are purpose-agnostic (see pages that validate but are a semantic blight on the face of the web)... ironically, guidelines (human-language, practical documents) are actually more useful for applying technologies than the documents that define the technologies themselves! Josh On 2/9/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in the end, we *are* catering for humans. We just need to do so in a way that allows machines to effectively pass on our messages to the user; and that is what requires well-defined, computer-readable semantics. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT doesn't support you on this point either. Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html (#6) A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be missing some subtle nuances here, but it seems to me that Jump links do not fit the bill. Interaction consistency is an additional reason it's wrong to open new browser windows: the standard result of clicking a link is that the destination page replaces the origination page in the same browser window. Anything else is a violation of the users' expectations and makes them feel insecure in their mastery of the Web. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html (#3) In this short section the author says *twice* that it is all about *consistency*, and again he use the words *replace the origination page*; so my understanding of that document is that jump links are considered by the author as bad as popup windows. Note that my point is not to say that showing/hiding elements is better than using jump links, I'm just saying that - IMO - jump links are not issue free as it has been suggested. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing for the average user. Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change. Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText Markup Language. Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Anyway, I guess you missed my point. The *only* elements that move are the ones below the Qs, users can see that the elements above are still there, the navigation menu still appears in the exact same place in the sidebar etc. They may be surprised by what just happend, but they know for a fact that they didn't leave that document. IMO, this is very different when they click on a link that takes them way down the page, they lose all visual bearings. What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about My guess is that if that question is at the bottom of the viewport there is a good chance that the user already knows how it works (for having clicked on previous questions). The Open All link at the top of the document is an extra hint. screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as it first loads? I don't know, you tell me. As far as I know the Qs As are fully accessible to screen-readers users with or without script support, with or without styles applied. I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see between a heading and a paragraph. Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and writing. I didn't say they had no purpose, I said that I didn't see the same relationship between the 2. Do you see the same relationship between them? Definition List comes with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one way, six the other. I appreciate the fact that you think discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument but that structural hack (a DIV) vs. generic mechanism for adding extra structure to a document is not. ;) Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be missing some subtle nuances here Yes, you have completely missed the point of the recommendation. You are misquoting a recommendation against using javascript links to open new windows. The replacing the current page part of the quote means not a page opened via javascript. Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] word verification
** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] 3 column layout - centre column forced below side columns in IE at low resolution
I recently launched an overhaul of the interface of www.education.gov.au. Its been a bit of a battle trying to get the client to sacrifice things for the sake of accessibility and standards-compliance, not to mention the state of the legacy content and CMS templates, battles still raging anyway , those things aside... There is a problem with the 3-column layout I've implemented. In IE at resolutions around 800x600 and below the centre column is dropping below the left and right floated columns. I know its to do with the animated GIF logo at the top of the centre column and have already made a fix (not in production yet) so the problem doesn't occur at 800x600. What I'm looking for is suggestions of better columnar layout in which rather than the centre column dropping down, columns stay where they should and the browser's horizontal scrollbar appears instead. URL:www.education.gov.au CSS:http://www.education.gov.au/intranet.css http://www.education.gov.au/styles/basic.css http://www.education.gov.au/styles/layout.css http://www.education.gov.au/styles/content.css etc... so many, you're better off using the FF Web Dev extension! Any advice is much appreciated! Regards, Miles. IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of education.au limited except where the sender expressly states otherwise. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses or any other defects. education.au limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll see that both articles make as much sense . It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast that's how I read it... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll see that both articles make as much sense . It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast that's how I read it... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] 3 column layout - centre column forced below side columns in IE at low resolution
What I'm looking for is suggestions of better columnar layout in which rather than the centre column dropping down, columns stay where they should and the browser's horizontal scrollbar appears instead. This problem is due to IE's rendering of content and containers. Other browsers honour container width and either wrap or poke content out. IE will force the container to stay as wide as the widest content inside - which could be an image, a flash component, a url or even a long word. This means columns drop down till they find space that accommodates them. Here are a range of off-the-top-of-the-head suggestions - some of which may be totally impractical: 1. make the three columns float (or at least the left and middle) so that the third column will drop rather than the main one. 2. use min-width so the page never collapses below a certain point (would need something like Dean Edwards IE7 added so IE will honour the min-width) 3. use javascript to redraw the layout when the page hits a narrower width - flipping to a new css file: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/ResolutionLayout/ 4. place decorative image elements as background images so that containers can collapse without restrictions. 5. make the entire layout liquid so that the page can collapse much further without breaking - at present the left and right columns are locked to a set width which means the middle column does all the collapsing. I'm sure other more valuable offerings will come from others... :) Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
