Re: [WSG] Dev. For Mobile Browsers
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] ***
[WSG] couple of bugs in Opera v9.5
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] ***
[WSG] Dev. For Mobile Browsers
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] ***
Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox
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}
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]
***
Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox
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
--
---
Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox
> 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] ***
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest
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] An interesting take....
> 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] ***
