Re: [WSG] Jquery and/or Yahoo UI
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:23:04 +1000, Kit Grose wrote: [...] > > I'm a big fan of JS libraries. I use Prototype (and Script.aculo.us) and YUI > quite a > lot as the basis of a lot of my larger JS-based sites. The advantage of YUI > isn't so > much its ability to maintain strong standards, but its very strong > cross-browser > compatibility (so if you use Yahoo.DOM, you're getting a standard DOM across > every > browser; as with events, etc.). > > Prototype's biggest strength is its ability to keep common functions short > and simple > in your own code files. I can perform complex AJAX throughout a webapp with > maybe three > lines of JS (plenty of PHP, mind you). > > I've never really tried jQuery, because it's been marketed wrong for me. I've > been > using Javascript since ~1998 and have been doing things with it the "old" way > (when > everyone declared their variables on a global scope and functions were all > called on > the onclick, onmouseover events explicitly in code, and when anything fancy > was called > DHTML). I've spent the years since then developing my syntax and thinking to > keep in > line with the industry, and am comfortable with the syntax people have come to > associate with "new" Javascript (Object notation, DOM manipulation, etc.). > jQuery is > marketed as a way to change JS syntax significantly (with a view to greater > speed, > marketed as a sort of Rails on the client side), which would mean a massive > change for > someone who already has four different programming/ scripting languages to > flick > between on a daily basis (not counting HTML and CSS syntax). I've heard only > good > things from people starting out with JS though. > Just chiming in here to say that I think all of Kit's comments are right "on the money". I was initially very attracted to jQuery because I am much more familiar with CSS syntax than JavaScript/ECMAScript. However, using it does not make me a better scripter, while YUI simply gives me cross-browser routines where I need them, so I can make better choices of technique as I learn the language. Protoype etc. I have yet to learn, but I understand the same thing is true. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Catch 22 list problem
That's pretty much what we did; usually and , with where appropriate. But I still look longingly at the counters in CSS, and grimace everytime someone says, "But we have to add in another point between 2 and 3..." On 2007-Oct-14, at 14:10 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Certainly for this example, the use of an ordered list is incorrect - there is a strong hint there in the description; this should be marked up with tags, with the identifier as the first bit of text, ie the number is content in this example. If you think about it, the 'label' of each item MUST remain the same, regardless of how much or little of the document is quoted, and more to the point adding or removing content MUST NOT alter the numbering. This is the exact opposite of what an OL is intended to do. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Jquery and/or Yahoo UI
You're right; innerHTML is much, much, MUCH faster to execute (see http:// www.quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html for numbers). It's also quicker to code and to implement. However it leaves you with less handles on the elements you're inserting, and 'feels' wrong (in the same way that sometimes a big table is the easiest way to centre content, but doesn't feel right), standards-wise. I'm a big fan of JS libraries. I use Prototype (and Script.aculo.us) and YUI quite a lot as the basis of a lot of my larger JS-based sites. The advantage of YUI isn't so much its ability to maintain strong standards, but its very strong cross-browser compatibility (so if you use Yahoo.DOM, you're getting a standard DOM across every browser; as with events, etc.). Prototype's biggest strength is its ability to keep common functions short and simple in your own code files. I can perform complex AJAX throughout a webapp with maybe three lines of JS (plenty of PHP, mind you). I've never really tried jQuery, because it's been marketed wrong for me. I've been using Javascript since ~1998 and have been doing things with it the "old" way (when everyone declared their variables on a global scope and functions were all called on the onclick, onmouseover events explicitly in code, and when anything fancy was called DHTML). I've spent the years since then developing my syntax and thinking to keep in line with the industry, and am comfortable with the syntax people have come to associate with "new" Javascript (Object notation, DOM manipulation, etc.). jQuery is marketed as a way to change JS syntax significantly (with a view to greater speed, marketed as a sort of Rails on the client side), which would mean a massive change for someone who already has four different programming/ scripting languages to flick between on a daily basis (not counting HTML and CSS syntax). I've heard only good things from people starting out with JS though. Cheers, Kit *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Catch 22 list problem
Going back to the original post: >Pick your poison: > >1. Invalid code >2. Use a transitional DOCTYPE >3. Set value with DOM-script I'm surprised that no one has said #2; just fall back to a transitional doctype. You can still write your markup with standards in mind, use the deprecated attribute, *and* validate without any scripting etc. This is exactly what I did a couple of years ago when redesigning a site. I created the templates in XHTML 1.0 Strict, but due to a ton of legacy data concerns just changed the doctype to HTML 4.0 Trans and all was well. Of course, you may have production issues that prevent the Transitional doctype, in which case I'd go with the invalid. ~ Tim tjameswhite.com'>http://www.tjameswhite.com";>tjameswhite.com Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Catch 22 list problem
Certainly for this example, the use of an ordered list is incorrect - there is a strong hint there in the description; this should be marked up with tags, with the identifier as the first bit of text, ie the number is content in this example. If you think about it, the 'label' of each item MUST remain the same, regardless of how much or little of the document is quoted, and more to the point adding or removing content MUST NOT alter the numbering. This is the exact opposite of what an OL is intended to do. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Friesen Sent: Sat 10/13/2007 11:53 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Catch 22 list problem My 2ยข At my College, we often wish to publish excerpts from official policy manuals &tc where we're showing Section 2.4.7, Paragraphs B through G, points 3-16, and so on... The CSS counter mechanisms are great for showing the whole document, but fall completely apart when you want to reference just a piece of the document... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** <>
Re: [WSG] IE 7 check please
Thanks Donna, thanks for checking.
I am not concerned how thinkvitamin has errors and warnings and text
got chopped off because that is beyond my control but the owner of the
My quest is whether IE 7 has issue with "elastic + fluid' layout, as
shown on that two sites and mine.
hi Tee, yes, i knew you were using vitamin to evaluate the problem, what
i should have said was that because of their errors, it didn't seem like
you could figure out whether or not IE7 was doing something wrong.
Anyhow, I found the answer myself. In my layout I have an element with
background image, and I have a span class for image replacement.
h3 {url(image.png) no-repeat}
h3 span {position:absolute; text-indent: -3000px}
heading 3
Apparently the position:absolute or the text-indent was causing that
extra 70px white space in IE 7, thus resulting a horizontal scrollbar.
Note that 70px extra is there whether the screen is 800px or 900px.
it's just not noticeable with wider screen.
It goes away when I change the absolute to relative, or text-indent:
-3000px to 'left: -3000px'
cool! i'll try to remember this for when it comes up for me, who knows
when.
donna
--
Donna Jones
Portland, Maine
207 772 0266
www.westendwebs.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] IE 7 check please
On Oct 14, 2007, at 12:14 AM, Donna Jones wrote:
Tee, i just looked more at the http://www.thinkvitamin.com/ site.
yes, i get the scroll bar at 800 wide in IE7 (not standalone). and
yes, its because its not chopping off the footer (wouldn't have
noticed, probably, though if Kepler hadn't noticed and then you re-
mentioned it). In IE6 it doesn't chop off the footer and there is
no scroll BUT its broken, the divisions don't line up right (they
sorta fall all over the place). In mozilla there is no scroll but
the footer is chopped off. so, it seems like out of those three
that IE7 is handling it best. In mozilla, using Tidy, it says
there are 136! warnings. and , some in particular are missing
division endings. also, just noticed at 800 wide in mozilla the
divisions overlap in a way that doesn't work well, at all. i think
someone needs to take a look at it!
Thanks Donna, thanks for checking.
I am not concerned how thinkvitamin has errors and warnings and text
got chopped off because that is beyond my control but the owner of
the site. That site is made for wider screen audience but made
consideration for 800px screen user (a close to none-existence for
its audiences I would say). So my take is they aware of the issue and
decided not to bother.
My quest is whether IE 7 has issue with "elastic + fluid' layout, as
shown on that two sites and mine.
Anyhow, I found the answer myself. In my layout I have an element
with background image, and I have a span class for image replacement.
h3 {url(image.png) no-repeat}
h3 span {position:absolute; text-indent: -3000px}
heading 3
Apparently the position:absolute or the text-indent was causing that
extra 70px white space in IE 7, thus resulting a horizontal
scrollbar. Note that 70px extra is there whether the screen is 800px
or 900px. it's just not noticeable with wider screen.
It goes away when I change the absolute to relative, or text-indent:
-3000px to 'left: -3000px'
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] IE 7 check please
For http://www.thinkvitamin.com/ - This site has a scrollbar in IE7 around 884px. It appears that this is caused by the footer. In FireFox it just ignores that the right portion of the footer is being chopped off and doesn't give you a scrollbar but as soon as the footer content doesn't fit in IE7 the scroll bar appears. I didn't noticed that the content in footer being chopped off, but yes, this is what I was trying to determine whether IE 7 has issue with elastic + fluid layout (is there a name for such layout?), or other browsers that got the words chopped off is wrong. I made the screenshots for Firefox in Mac and PC, and IE 6 Vs IE 7 standalone. http://lotusseedsdesign.com/ff.png http://lotusseedsdesign.com/ie.png - you can clearly see IE 7 has scollbar at 800px and the reason for it is footer text. Tee, i just looked more at the http://www.thinkvitamin.com/ site. yes, i get the scroll bar at 800 wide in IE7 (not standalone). and yes, its because its not chopping off the footer (wouldn't have noticed, probably, though if Kepler hadn't noticed and then you re-mentioned it). In IE6 it doesn't chop off the footer and there is no scroll BUT its broken, the divisions don't line up right (they sorta fall all over the place). In mozilla there is no scroll but the footer is chopped off. so, it seems like out of those three that IE7 is handling it best. In mozilla, using Tidy, it says there are 136! warnings. and , some in particular are missing division endings. also, just noticed at 800 wide in mozilla the divisions overlap in a way that doesn't work well, at all. i think someone needs to take a look at it! cheers Donna I am trying to fix a similar layout that I submitted to accessites.org. My layout initially was elastic and aimed for 1024 screen user, however they found horizontal scrollbar at 800px - 800px without horizontal scrollbar is one of the criteria. I wanted this be fixed, so I amended my layout to "elastic + fluid" like the above two sites, and I am getting some 70px scrollbar at 800px screen in my standalone IE 7, not IE 6. (no special treatment is served for IE 6/7 for the outer wrap). At 800px screen in other browsers, no words being chopped off though. Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Donna Jones Portland, Maine 207 772 0266 www.westendwebs.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
