You can still do that with XHTML 1.0 sent as html/text. I've done that
several times when I've made desktop gadgets to extract data from my site.
The parsers doesn't care if the page is sent as html/text instead of
xml/text.
I don't see any point of using XHTML 1.1 unless you use it's modular
If you do content negotiation to send html/text and XHTML 1.0 to IE and
application/xhtml+xml XHTML to anyone else then you're effectivly using
XHTML 1.0 html/text as you'd never be able to make use of the modular XML
nature of XHTML 1.1.
- Original Message -
From: "Nikita The Spider
On 13 May 2008, at 01:36, Nikita The Spider The Spider wrote:
One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke.
... and IE7 and IE8.
Adding support for XHTML hasn't been a priority for Microsoft
(presumably because
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Léo Siqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone have a suggestion to make CSS background printable ?
You could visit every single one of your site users and explain to them how
to turn on background printing on their printer settings. And buy them some
printer
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:04:44 +0300, Michael Persson wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> I think helping your client to install a proper web browser would also
> eliminate other
> website problems also.
>
> IE5 have terrible CSS support and you will need to make table design again to
> make a
> website look
Hi Leo,
If you create a print.css and link your pages to it, you should be able to
control which elements are visible and which ones aren't in the print out.
However, you would normally want a clean text-only, but well styled print
option. This helps to create a nice paper publication while savin
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
dwain
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help
HTH wrote:
>...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you onl
On May 12, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Laert Jansen wrote:
I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top
Well, I'm pretty out of touch with Flash, but looking at your page
source I was struck by:
var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%", "100%", "8",
"#ff");
Could that
I´ve already set the height to 100%. The flash file is 778 x 560 px
I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Laert,
>
> I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in order to
>
> "One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
> application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
> that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
> application/xhtml+xml/
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
> point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
Very very generally, I've found it's less critical which standard you use
than whether your stuff validates in your chosen standard.
Secondly, I see a lot of sites that sp
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
http://Niki
On 12 May 2008, at 22:42, Simon wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've
read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support
it
without a particular hack.
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support it
without a particular hack.
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
point using right now if your site is 1.0 Str
Hi Laert,
I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in order to
eliminate the gap... im not a flash expert but I have published many sites
that are full size...
im using this, might make a difference
html, body {
height: 100%;
font-family:verdana;
}
michael
Chris:
there's also another aproach you can use for testing purposes, if you
have friends that trust you and who are using other operating systems,
or different browsers, quite lighter then using virtual machines:
You can use virtual network computing software, like realvnc for instance.
There's
:) thanks
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college so
> i can't help until i get home
>
> Nice site btw.
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college so i
can't help until i get home
Nice site btw.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
> http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
>
> Would you
Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the black
portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should not exist
that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
thanks
This point originally concerned which character to use IF you use a
character to separate links. It did NOT say that this was the preferred
method.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 2:18 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
> character
>
> Really?
Yes, i know, i know, just check the option at page setup from your browser
to print background and images, but, what make when you client consumer does
understand this simple step ?
I have a new redesign from a website, all HTML strict and CSS validated,
beautiful, but don't print the background i
this is exactly why we use serverside scripts along with a config file
to define some base declarations such as colors.
then we can change the color in one place only, using the below example
#results .fn { font-size: 0.86em; color #739EA8; }
#results .tel { font-size: 0.86em; color #33; }
I tend to agree about SASS, however I'm not sure you can really avoid
repetition in css. (ok, "endlessly" is an overstatement!)
Sure, where possible we'll reuse classes, but there are several places
where this would be hard, or would make our css messier.
For example, if I have a name field colo
I would do it this way:
Body1
Body2
Body3
Body4
Body5
ul.bodyList {
list-style: none;
}
ul.bodyList li {
float: left;
}
ul.bodyList a {
display: block;
text-indent: -px; /* only if you don't want Body1 etc.. to show of
course */
text-decoration: non
Hi there Tony,
There is some really useful articles at http://css.dzone.com/. You might
especially find Presentation Layer Accessibility and AJAX and Screen
Readers - Content Access Issues very useful.
Regards,
Schalk
Steven Workman wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I've always found through usability
Hi Anthony,
I've always found through usability testing, that people use the highest
level of navigation to get back to the start of a task (generally the tabs).
Using the first pattern plus a body ID and CSS to highlight the current tab
(and remove the a:hover cursor) will give the same effect as
Korny Sietsma wrote:
I'd be interested in the thoughts of folks here. A simple template
would have the advantage of (possibly) working well in css editors and
tools; but there also seems to be some buzz around tools like Sass
that take some more repetition out of the CSS.
Is SASS a standard? N
In a way it's like designing websites for disabled people, it's
probably 0.01% of the visitors, but we should provide ways for them to
move around the website and make it more accessible, so it 0.5% uses
IE5 then we should provide a website that is at least working properly
(I wouldn't be concerned
Does anyone have any guides to developing standards based/accessible web
applications like Basecamp ?
For example a common pattern for website navigation is the tab list of links
Cats
Dogs/li>
Mice
However web applications often copy the navigation pattern from desktop apps
of having the tab t
As much as I agree to what your are saying regarding IE5, it is still
ignoring the fact that people are using it, albeit a small proportion.
If your client absolutely _needs_ it, then you will have to code for
it.
I think this has already been mentioned but perhaps if you could get a
hold of some
Hmm - we're currently debating what to do about dynamic css on our
project (Ruby on Rails based)
There seem to be a few options:
- No dynamic css at all
- Simple templated stuff, where the code is basically css + inline ruby:
#whatever { background-color : <%= background_colour %>; }
- Somethin
Dear Scott,
I think helping your client to install a proper web browser would also
eliminate
other website problems also.
IE5 have terrible CSS support and you will need to make table design
again to
make a website look ok in IE5... dont even go there.!!!
using a IE5 is really ancient nad w
Trying to HACK your CSS for different browser can be a disaster for
future browser
versions so its is suggested to never hack the CSS and follow the standards.
It will also make life easier for a front end developer...
tee wrote:
On May 11, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Darren Lovelock wrote:
See her
35 matches
Mail list logo
