Re: [WSG] An interesting take....

2008-09-12 Thread Jeff Van Campen
I think his point about reading the browser vendors' blogs rather than specs
gets to the heart of the matter.  The browser vendors are just not going to
wait until 2022 for the HTML5 to be Proposed Recommendation.  Even 2012 --
when it looks like we'll actually be able to start using HTML 5 -- seems a
bit far off.  In the 10 years that it is going to take to develop a test
suite, the browser vendors are likely to have implemented any part of HTML5
that is likely to be relevant and useful.  And their implementation, rather
than the test suite implemetation, will be the de facto standard.

What really confuses me about this is that WHATWG *is* the browser vendors.
It was started to ensure the HTML standard didn't stagnate and reflected
real-world concerns.  What happened?

It really feels as if we need a standards process that is much more agile
and iterative.  Something that is much less monolithic.  If WHATWG and the
W3C are unable to do this, the browser vendors -- and the market -- will.

-jeff


2008/9/12 Andrew Duck [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Jeff Croft posted an interesting comment on the state of the HTML WG/Web
 standards.

 http://jeffcroft.com/blog/2008/sep/11/two-thousand-twenty-two/

 Regards,
 Andrew


 andrew duck
 executive director | asia-pacific | quiqcorp.com
 unit 4, 243 blenheim rd | riccarton, christchurch 8041 new zealand
 p +64 3 341 7692 | f +64 3 341 7693 | m +64 212 934 985 (nz) | e
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




-- 
Jeff Van Campen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] An interesting take....

2008-09-12 Thread michael.brockington
 It really feels as if we need a standards process that is much more
agile and 
 iterative.  Something that is much less monolithic.  If WHATWG and the
W3C 
 are unable to do this, the browser vendors -- and the market -- will.

 -jeff
  


I'm not sure if I said it here before or not, but I really feel that we
need to have an annual, or possibly two-yearly (I can never remember if
that is semi-annual or bi-annual) version of the spec, and most
importantly, it should be labelled as such. Then, the vendors would have
to say that their browser supports HTMLv1971 (that would be IE) or
perhaps HTMLv2008 for (insert your particular favourite.) This would
make it far easier for good browsers to sell themselves to the ignorant
public.

Similarly, the W3C would be prevented from making lots of dramatic,
controversial changes in one go, thereby hopefully avoiding the debacle
we had with the introduction of XHTML without deprecating HTML.

Regards,
Mike

Mike Brockington
Web Development Specialist

www.calcResult.com
www.stephanieBlakey.me.uk
www.edinburgh.gov.uk

This message does not reflect the opinions of any entity other than the
author alone.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest

2008-09-12 Thread Diamond, Robyn - AQISACT
Thank you for you email. I am currently out of the office and will return on 
Tuesday 16 September. I will read your e-mail on my return. 

If you have an urgent enquiry please contact Caroline Shirley on 6272 5605 or 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Kind regards

Robyn Diamond
Senior Online Communication Officer
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service


--
IMPORTANT - This message has been issued by The Department of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The information transmitted is for the use of 
the intended recipient only and may contain sensitive and/or legally privileged 
material. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses and 
defects before opening or sending them on. 

Any reproduction, publication, communication, re-transmission, disclosure, 
dissemination or other use of the information contained in this e-mail by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. The taking 
of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other 
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission 
together with any attachments. If you have received this e-mail as part of a 
valid mailing list and no longer want to receive a message such as this one 
advise the sender by return e-mail accordingly. Only e-mail correspondence 
which includes this footer, has been authorised by DAFF 

--



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox

2008-09-12 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
 By the way, the radio buttons on the above page, is exactly what I wrote
 about annoying thing about Opera that it inherits the borders from input
 element.

Checkbox _is_ an input element. Just like radio – they are all INPUTs only
with different type. If you want to target some type specifically you can
use attribute selector in CSS - but that won't work for older IEs.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox

2008-09-12 Thread Ben Buchanan
By the way, the radio buttons on the above page, is exactly what I wrote
 about annoying thing about Opera that it inherits the borders from input
 element. In my case, adding a class with border none only gotten rid of
  top, left, right borders. I actually needed to use !important to get right
 of border-bottom.

Well given that radio buttons *are* inputs, that's what should happen.
Granted it is annoying but it's per spec. Anyway, given that your beef is
only with Opera, you can solve it easily with this:

input[type=radio] { border: 0; }

You might need to make the selector a bit more specific to avoid the need
for !important, of course; but you get the idea :)

cheers,

Ben

-- 
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox

2008-09-12 Thread tee

Thanks Rachel, Rimantas and Ben,
Well given that radio buttons *are* inputs, that's what should  
happen. Granted it is annoying but it's per spec. Anyway, given that  
your beef is only with Opera, you can solve it easily with this:


input[type=radio] { border: 0; }

You might need to make the selector a bit more specific to avoid the  
need for !important, of course; but you get the idea :)




Yes, I do practice specificity :) But not attribute selector yet, this  
thread makes me think I might as well start doing that.


The thing is, I already used the specificity to try making border:none  
for checkbox


.someclass .another-class .a-new-class-to-make-borders-go-away
{border:none}

input type=checkbox class=a-new-class-to-make-borders-go-away
/

Shouldn't this be enough to make the borders gone entirely? But Opera  
left out the border-bottom.  This must be a bug.


I have actually encountered a few other strange behaviors in Opera  
that I think might be bugs, I have been slowly documented them in one  
test page. I will post the test page in a new thread when it is  
completed.


tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] Dev. For Mobile Browsers

2008-09-12 Thread James Jeffery
Anyone got any good resources on developing for mobile browsers? It's an
area I have never really looked into, but am interested in.

Cheers.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] couple of bugs in Opera v9.5

2008-09-12 Thread tee
As mentioned in my Opera not playing nice with checkbox post, I have  
collected a list of bugs that I stumbled doing just one website. There  
are two more strange behavior in Opera related to floated elements  
with 'clearing' which I have not been able to duplicate. Will add them  
to my list if I stumble it again (which I believe I will :-)


http://lotusseedsdesign.com/opera-test/opera.html

Have not checked in PC version nor IE.

tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Dev. For Mobile Browsers

2008-09-12 Thread James Gollan
There is a good introductory book by cameron moll - not very techie  
but nice starting point

http://mobilewebbook.com/

And i have a few links
http://delicious.com/gollyg/mobile

On 13/09/2008, at 12:13 PM, James Jeffery wrote:

Anyone got any good resources on developing for mobile browsers?  
It's an area I have never really looked into, but am interested in.


Cheers.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***