Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
David Hucklesby wrote: The validator still needs a DTD though. If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5 support. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Vanishing icon within a Span Element in IE7
Can someone please tell me how to fix this so it'll show up in IE?
Hi Cole,
It does appear to be a bug in IE. The following CSS is turning off the
display of the icon in c_project_help_error.css:
span.smallHelpIcon span {
display:none;
}
By commenting that section out, the icon displays (along with the text you
were trying to replace with the icon). Instead of using the nested spans in
your HTML:
span class=smallHelpIcon
spanhelp icon/span
/span
maybe use an img tag with the alt text = help icon? It is not display as
nicely with images turned off but has the same effect as you seem to be
trying to achieve. Use the following CSS instead:
img.smallHelpIcon {
display:inline;
vertical-align:bottom;
padding:0;
margin:0;
}
Your spans could then be replaced with just an img:
img alt=help icon src=assets/icon/forms/h_small.png
class=smallHelpIcon /
Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
Re: [WSG] First AttemptHi Susie, I always have used Dreamweaver in split view. I can also get all 'Teach Yourself' books from the libary tomorrow. Today I am going to study the links people have sent and read .Dreamweaver MX Trainig from the Source'. Thanks Susie! Kate - Original Message - From: Susie Gardner-Brown To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] First Attempt Seconded ... (or 10th, whatever!) You (one) really have to be able to handcode. I use Dreamweaver but I always have it open in both views, never just the design view, and I frequently swap into the code view only and work on it that way. It's the only way to see what's going on, and fix up things that aren't working. It's the only way to make sure you are making an accessible website. I seem to remember I originally learnt from a book called something like 'Teach yourself HTML in 14 days'. It worked! Plus there are heaps of places online where you can learn too. Some offer online tutorials like the ones mentioned here, plus plenty of others. Some places have 6-week courses that cost about $US25. eg http://www.lvsonline.com . I've done a few courses there and found them pretty good. I'm sure there are lots of other similar places. Good luck ... :) - susie On 25/11/08 1:59 AM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Kate wrote: Wow! You hand code For now, and I think, the foreseeable future, this is still the only way available if you want to get it right... ...although its a long road Yes it is! But worth it, and if you start simply, and follow the excellent advice that others here have offered, I think you'll find it's quite easy to find your way, and to find others who will be happy to help when the going gets tough. Good luck! Andrew www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
Hello Mustafa, I guess for a first one, well second really. My first was back in 2000 with not even a table just images and text and someone gave me one or two awards lolol This new one should be a big improvement as I have learnt quite a lot from the lists I am on now. Its amazing how just watching questions and answers teaches you some of this stuff. HTML I am not too thick aabout but CSS apart from the very basic I *do need to study. I do need to study how frames work (naming) too. Many thanks Mustafa! Kate - Original Message - From: Mustafa Quilon To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] First Attempt Well, I started with Dreamweaver's design view, since, that was what I was thought. My first site was a table crap :) I didn't know what was going on. I decided to learn the nuts bolts of HTML. My next site was table based but with a valid code. Then, I joined various lists, communities and saw what really was going on. Thought myself CSS. My first CSS site took a fair amount of time and I faced lots of newbie issues. However, with a little bit of research I overcame them. Now, I just hate the thought of table based layouts. However, that is not the topic of discussion :) I still use Dreamweaver, with display styles switched off (View - Style Rendering - Display Styles). For some minor edits I use Textpad on a PC. Its just a matter of preference. Re: The link[1] Ron gave, it is a must-read for someone starting out in web development. Make sure you go through the curriculum. Re: Embedding Flash, I have used the flash satay method, however, swfobject [2] is the way forward. Also, read extensively on Web Accessibility, Usability and Progressive Enhancement. *watches out for that someone with a big stick* [1] Opera WS Curriculum - http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/1-introduction-to-the-web-standards-cur/ [2] swfobject - http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/ - Mustafa *** 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] Safari Legend problems
Dear all, Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with versions 3.1 or 3.2 on Windows. We need to know whether this is still a problem with 3.2 on the Mac. Clare - Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland Number SC327000 Registered office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. Authorised and regulated by Financial Services Authority. == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] First Attempt
Hi Kate You said: do need to study how frames work (naming) too. Nononono! Frames are awful for accessibility and usability (iFrames are arguably better). I can't think of an example of a really good framed site (although other list members may be able to offer some). I used to say the same of Flash, but did eventually find some sites demonstrating really clever and appropriate uses for it. Elizabeth Spiegel Web editing 0409 986 158 GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001 www.spiegelweb.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***image001.png
Re: [WSG] Safari Legend problems
On Nov 25, 2008, at 1:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are
visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with
versions 3.1 or 3.2 on Windows. We need to know whether this is
still a problem with 3.2 on the Mac.
Clare
try insert a span tag and use absolute position to hide the legend
instead
legendspanyour legend title /span/legend
span {position:absolute; text-index:-99px}
I recently tried to tame a login form that is placed on the right top
corner with pixel perfect requirement, without span tag, Safari (or
maybe Firefox I can't clearly remember) gave a line-height even though
I declared absolute position and negative text-index. I find that the
only guarantee way to make legend behaves is inserting a span tag even
we don't want the legend be seen.
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour information. You can put a coloured outline around the sprites themselves to avoid jagged edges in IE. Thanks all for the tips. The htacces ones is especially useful :-) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
While I cannot help with the spacing issue I do strongly suggest using png rather than gif. File size is smaller especially when run through pngGauntlet. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 25 November 2008 10:48 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour information. You can put a coloured outline around the sprites themselves to avoid jagged edges in IE. Thanks all for the tips. The htacces ones is especially useful :-) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?
I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and use the @import method for style sheets and not link. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hall Sent: 24 November 2008 21:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles? On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 10:24 -0500, Brett Patterson wrote: I have no idea why, but for some reason I cannot remember which is read first! Are scripts or styles read first? As others have mentioned, they are read in the order they occur in the document. And which is the recommended order to list them? Styles or Scripts first? Yahoo's performance best practice guide recommends styles in the head and scripts as the last thing before the /body in a document. See http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#css_top for more info. Cheers Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)
Foskett, Mike wrote: I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and use the @import method for style sheets and not link. Why? Netscape 4 isn't an issue any more so using @import to hide CSS from it is pointless, but it does trigger a FOUC in MSIE, which is undesirable. Embedding a stylesheet in a document which does nothing except load an external stylesheet is conceptually inelegant (and very slightly off track for the separation of style from content). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
No, I may have to disagree. GIF files are (a majority of them, if not all, are) smaller. They have to be. Considering GIF only supports up to a maximum of 256 colors. (it is 8-bit). Try http://www.sitepoint.com/article/gif-jpg-png-whats-difference/ ---or--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format You should never have to use a pngGauntlet-type compressor. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: While I cannot help with the spacing issue I do strongly suggest using png rather than gif. File size is smaller especially when run through pngGauntlet. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 25 November 2008 10:48 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour information. You can put a coloured outline around the sprites themselves to avoid jagged edges in IE. Thanks all for the tips. The htacces ones is especially useful :-) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?
Ooh! Thanks for the link. Valuable reading. I do not, however, understand the ETags. So, I guess I must do a lot more research. Thanks. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and use the @import method for style sheets and not link. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hall Sent: 24 November 2008 21:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles? On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 10:24 -0500, Brett Patterson wrote: I have no idea why, but for some reason I cannot remember which is read first! Are scripts or styles read first? As others have mentioned, they are read in the order they occur in the document. And which is the recommended order to list them? Styles or Scripts first? Yahoo's performance best practice guide recommends styles in the head and scripts as the last thing before the /body in a document. See http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#css_top for more info. Cheers Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: David Hucklesby wrote: The validator still needs a DTD though. If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5 support. And the W3C validator misinterprets XHTML5 to be some lesser XHTML flavor... http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fxhtml5-en.xhtml ...so it is a bit too experimental to be of practical use today. The http://html5.validator.nu/ validator OTOH gets it right... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fxhtml5-en.xhtmlshowimagereport=yesshowsource=yes ...and is also useful for checking details. The W3C validator gets HTML5 alright, but I'm not sure if it gets it right... http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-en.html ...since the http://html5.validator.nu/ comes to another conclusion... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-en.htmlshowimagereport=yesshowsource=yes ...obviously because I've left the xml declaration in there. So, the future doesn't change the HTML vs. XHTML-XML relations, or lack of same. We will still have one standard, that can be applied to the web in (at least) two different ways... http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html ...if they don't change something in the xHTML5 spec in the near future. Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't supported by the most used browser. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)
Using the link tag prevents parallel downloads in the same manner as the script tag for javascript. The style tag with the @import method does not. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: 25 November 2008 13:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?) Foskett, Mike wrote: I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and use the @import method for style sheets and not link. Why? Netscape 4 isn't an issue any more so using @import to hide CSS from it is pointless, but it does trigger a FOUC in MSIE, which is undesirable. Embedding a stylesheet in a document which does nothing except load an external stylesheet is conceptually inelegant (and very slightly off track for the separation of style from content). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Brett, i'm not sure if the previous recommendation of PNG was for the 8-bit pngs with transparency, but that's what I'd argue. I often check between GIF and 8-bit PNG when i export, to see which looks the best at the smallest size, and PNG often wins. On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Brett Patterson wrote: No, I may have to disagree. GIF files are (a majority of them, if not all, are) smaller. They have to be. Considering GIF only supports up to a maximum of 256 colors. (it is 8-bit). Try http://www.sitepoint.com/article/gif-jpg-png-whats-difference/ ---or--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format You should never have to use a pngGauntlet-type compressor. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I cannot help with the spacing issue I do strongly suggest using png rather than gif. File size is smaller especially when run through pngGauntlet. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 25 November 2008 10:48 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour information. You can put a coloured outline around the sprites themselves to avoid jagged edges in IE. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Create an 8-bit png in Fireworks (recommended but not essential). Then run it through pngGauntlet and see for yourself. You're going to be surprised. Mike Foskett From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Patterson Sent: 25 November 2008 13:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared No, I may have to disagree. GIF files are (a majority of them, if not all, are) smaller. They have to be. Considering GIF only supports up to a maximum of 256 colors. (it is 8-bit). Try http://www.sitepoint.com/article/gif-jpg-png-whats-difference/ ---or--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format You should never have to use a pngGauntlet-type compressor. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I cannot help with the spacing issue I do strongly suggest using png rather than gif. File size is smaller especially when run through pngGauntlet. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 25 November 2008 10:48 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour information. You can put a coloured outline around the sprites themselves to avoid jagged edges in IE. Thanks all for the tips. The htacces ones is especially useful :-) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** 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] ***
RE: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)
Sorry, I forgot to add that FOUC doesn't occur if the style tag is followed by any other valid tag, eg script .../script which is opened and closed separately. Though to be honest I cannot remember the last time I incurred the bug. Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Foskett, Mike Sent: 25 November 2008 13:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?) Using the link tag prevents parallel downloads in the same manner as the script tag for javascript. The style tag with the @import method does not. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: 25 November 2008 13:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?) Foskett, Mike wrote: I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and use the @import method for style sheets and not link. Why? Netscape 4 isn't an issue any more so using @import to hide CSS from it is pointless, but it does trigger a FOUC in MSIE, which is undesirable. Embedding a stylesheet in a document which does nothing except load an external stylesheet is conceptually inelegant (and very slightly off track for the separation of style from content). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't supported by the most used browser. I'm going to risk venturing an opinion here. The high hopes that many of us may have had for XHTML as the wave of the future seem, sadly, to have foundered on the reef of MS intransigence. Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate future, if ever, serving XHTML strict as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? My preference has been to use HTML 4 strict, and I think for now it may be for the best to recognize this as best practice. If content enters the work-flow as XML, then XSLT can be used to create HTML presentation documents. The HTML 5 spec is very slowly taking shape, and looking promising. So it would appear that for the next few years it will probably best to accept that it's HTML that will be the norm. XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML? IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV. Andrew www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues between the browsers having said that I love PNGs myself On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** life is certain death is short ~furry lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
wouldn't best practise for CSS sprites include image quality? On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson wrote: First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8- bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. Brett, I am afraid that you might be using a bad image processing program that does not do a good job of optimizing PNGs. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Please, could I ask you to take this discussion off-list if you want to continue. It's really degenerated to an unresolvable cycle of I'm right, No, I'M right... When it just comes down to Use the best available solution for the problem at hand All compressed image file formats have strengths and weaknesses. Andrew On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson wrote: First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8- bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** 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] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
* Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate future, if ever, serving XHTML strict * as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 http://www.neighborwebmaster.com www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] ***BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Gelotte;Kepler;;Mr. FN:Kepler Gelotte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ORG:Neighbor Webmaster TITLE:Web Designer TEL;WORK;VOICE:(732) 302-0904 TEL;WORK;FAX:(732) 302-0904 ADR;WORK:;;156 Normandy Dr;Piscataway;NJ;08854;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:156 Normandy Dr=0D=0APiscataway, NJ 08854=0D=0AUnited States of America URL;WORK:http://www.neighborwebmaster.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20070415T052107Z END:VCARD
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues between the browsers That's easily resolved by stripping the gamma correction data from the image using pngcrush. http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/ -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Hi, Im new here not sure whats going on but as far as web performance goes a handy little online tool is http://www.smushit.com/ ( It goes beyond Photoshop customisation) Heather _ De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Andrew Maben Envoyé : mardi 25 novembre 2008 17:54 À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Objet : Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared Please, could I ask you to take this discussion off-list if you want to continue. It's really degenerated to an unresolvable cycle of I'm right, No, I'M right... When it just comes down to Use the best available solution for the problem at hand All compressed image file formats have strengths and weaknesses. Andrew On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson wrote: First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Andrew Maben wrote: XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML? IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV. Of course. We have choices and preferences :-) Since HTML5 allows XHTML syntax more or less all the way, it doesn't really matter which flavor the document is coded in as long as it is served as 'text/html' ... and provided with the proper standards mode triggering doctype on top. It's just a trigger anyway. Since I personally wouldn't dream of intentionally letting IE6 switch to its not very standards compliant 'Strict' mode, while at the same time I definitely want IE7 and 8 and so on to obey W3C standards as best they can, I'll probably plug in an xml declaration on top no matter which mode-trigger I use - even if it's declared non-valid. So 'text/html' it is, and probably will be for most coders for a long time - maybe until internet as we know it is obsolete, and most of it will probably be non-valid and subject to error-recovery until the very end. I personally don't think the xHTML5 standard will have much influence on markup quality as such, although I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. Serving properly coded documents as 'application/xhtml+xml' is nice when one wants to push the boundaries and/or add in something that doesn't work when served as 'text/html', and knows those at the receiving end got a proper browser (or something else) that can handle it all. We're already filtering out weak, old and obsolete browsers from stuff they can't handle - from CSS for instance, or ignoring these browsers' existence entirely. Thus, letting weak browsers filter themselves out from everything, can be an interesting option, at times. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Kepler Gelotte wrote: There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Any practical instance of which, in practice, has to deal not only with tag soup HTML but also malformed XML, which rather undermines this point. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Sorry Mike I do not have an example at the moment - just remember past headaches with it - apparently there is a solution http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/ per a previous email on this thread - you can google the issue I'm sure Neal There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF Never come across that, have you a reference or example? I have come across something similar with Safari and Photoshop images not blending. But it wasn't png related it was a gamma setting in Photoshop. Brett: PNGgauntlet is freeware: http://brh.numbera.com/software/pnggauntlet/ As is PNGcrush: http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/ If you're not using a decent compressor then png's are 15% - 20% oversized. I'll have to agree to disagree with you on gif file-size being smaller. Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 November 2008 15:59 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues between the browsers having said that I love PNGs myself On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** life is certain death is short ~furry lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** life is certain death is short ~furry lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Kepler Gelotte wrote: Ø as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Given that it is easier to use an HTML parser then it is to trust page authors serving XHTML as text/html to produce something that is well formed - that isn't much of an advantage. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
OK. So, lets agree that (Start here quoting you:::If you're not using a decent compressor then png's are 15% - 20% oversized.:::end quoting you here.) we are both right. I am simply stating as such without using a compressor (Start quoting you:::If you're not using a decent compressor then png's are 15% - 20% oversized.:::), there for gif file-size IS smaller. In which case I am right, especially here if you are required to use GIFs either way, for backwards compatibility. Note, the linked site talks about IE 5.5 and 6 --- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/ To Andrew, one of the smartest things I have read to date. Agreed!!! On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF Never come across that, have you a reference or example? I have come across something similar with Safari and Photoshop images not blending. But it wasn't png related it was a gamma setting in Photoshop. Brett: PNGgauntlet is freeware: http://brh.numbera.com/software/pnggauntlet/ As is PNGcrush: http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/ If you're not using a decent compressor then png's are 15% - 20% oversized. I'll have to agree to disagree with you on gif file-size being smaller. Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 November 2008 15:59 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues between the browsers having said that I love PNGs myself On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** life is certain death is short ~furry lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two serialisations. A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5). The XHTML2 working group is working on all sorts of different things, including XHTML 2.0. See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/XHTML2-WG-charter and http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/ for more. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] the Name attribute
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?. -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
That is strange, the examples didn't show. Any idea as to why? On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?. -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
Brett Patterson wrote: I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?. Because (on the elements upon which it was deprecated) it did nothing except duplicate the functionality of the id attribute. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Thanks Heather for the link. I have taken a quick glance at smushit.com, and it looks promising. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Heather [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:17 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared Hi, I�m new here not sure what�s going on but as far as web performance goes a handy little online tool is http://www.smushit.com/ ( It goes beyond Photoshop customisation) Heather _ De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Andrew Maben Envoy� : mardi 25 novembre 2008 17:54 � : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Objet : Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared Please, could I ask you to take this discussion off-list if you want to continue. It's really degenerated to an unresolvable cycle of I'm right, No, I'M right... When it just comes down to Use the best available solution for the problem at hand All compressed image file formats have strengths and weaknesses. Andrew On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson wrote: First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject, because neither MIke nor me ever mentioned it looking best, although I would have to agree, PNG most certainly does look best, depending on the image. And fifthly, Mike, sorry, but no, without using a PNGGauntlet or whatever, I am not. All I simply stated is that gif files have to be smaller, (probably should have said before) without using pnggauntlet. And I say without, because anyone else may not have, or know where to get it. Well...and sixthly, I use PNGs just as much you, but there are a lot of times when PNGs will not cut the job, and GIFs are, again, majority of the time smaller and better. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Brett, you're wrong. The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which is the same as the gif format. The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the different methods of compression that a png will handle natively. I suggest you try a few comparisons out yourself. They don't always work out smaller but most often they do. Seconded. You can make 8 bit PNGs with as little as 8 colors or as many as 256. Just try Save for Web Devices in Photoshop CS3. I don't even bother with GIFs anymore, the 8-bit PNGs come out smaller almost every time. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** 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] *** *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements document: that have no height declared wasDennis Lapcewich/R6/USDAFS received by: at:11/25/2008 10:56:38 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? No typo, but I understand the confusion. We may call it 'HTML5', '(x)HTML5', 'xHTML5' or 'HTML5 + XML serialization', as the 'HTML5' drafts in existence to date cover both HTML and XHTML as two flavors, or rather serializations, of the same markup language. See: http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/ Keep in mind that we're reading drafts, so nothing is set in stone, and won't be for years to come. Gives us a good indication of how they're continuing, and smoothing, the relationship between 'HTML' and XHTML that began with 'HTML4' and 'XHTML1.0' though. To exemplify: one can in most cases just change doctype and a meta, and serve a valid and tested XHTML1.0 Strict document... http://www.gunlaug.no/html5-demo.html ...as valid HTML5 (text/html)... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-demo.htmlshowsource=yes ...or as valid XHTML5 (application/xhtml+xml)... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-demo.xhtmlshowsource=yes Note which validator I use - http://html5.validator.nu/, as the experimental W3C HTML5 validator won't play ball yet. I can't judge which one is more correct on every detail than the other, as both validators are new and experimental and will be tuned to spec in time. Thus, I may have to make minor adjustments to how I modify my old markup, once the dust settles around xHTML5 :-) Unless they introduce major changes to the specs, the syntactic differences are not creating any real problems for us who serve valid XHTML1.0 as 'text/html' and/or 'application/xhtml+xml' today. Only one or two HTML4/XHTML1.0 elements are signaled to be deprecated in xHTML5, so that's not a problem. Serving a document as 'text/html' vs. as 'application/xhtml+xml' does of course introduce potential problems in other areas, but nothing really new for the average document there either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: HTML reached end of life?? (Was: Re: [WSG] Sorry Link)
Sorry, I'll have to take note of that point if I reference that article again. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com On 25/11/2008, at 12:26 PM, rch lib wrote: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! ... Things change ... yes, well, I do realise that. The point is, that a newbie was directed to this resource, and it's clearly outdated (and it made me do a double-take when I read it). I didn't want her to go there, read that, and go what the . So I was just making sure it was noted. lib. At 06:07 PM 24/11/2008 -0500, you wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:28 PM, rch lib [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I took a look at that Drew Mclellan article. He says: Step 3: Future-proof your site with XHTML HTML has reached the end of its life and is no longer being developed as a mark-up language. Its replacement is Extensible HTML (XHTML)—an implementation of XML that works in all browsers, old and new. Even though XHTML is strict XML, its tags and attributes are so similar to HTML that old browsers do not spot the difference. Using XML is advantageous because it's a modern, future-proof standard. Is that correct?? Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: HTML reached end of life?? (Was: Re: [WSG] Sorry Link)
Sorry, I'll have to make mention of that point next time I reference it. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com On 25/11/2008, at 12:26 PM, rch lib wrote: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! ... Things change ... yes, well, I do realise that. The point is, that a newbie was directed to this resource, and it's clearly outdated (and it made me do a double-take when I read it). I didn't want her to go there, read that, and go what the . So I was just making sure it was noted. lib. At 06:07 PM 24/11/2008 -0500, you wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:28 PM, rch lib [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I took a look at that Drew Mclellan article. He says: Step 3: Future-proof your site with XHTML HTML has reached the end of its life and is no longer being developed as a mark-up language. Its replacement is Extensible HTML (XHTML)—an implementation of XML that works in all browsers, old and new. Even though XHTML is strict XML, its tags and attributes are so similar to HTML that old browsers do not spot the difference. Using XML is advantageous because it's a modern, future-proof standard. Is that correct?? Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared
Gif Vs PNG If using PNG 8 / GIF, with the same amount of colours. Say 256. Gif are often smaller than PNG in small sizes, less than 20px by 20px example. I'll have to find out at what point a PNG is lighter. I suspect it's around 500px. In all the other cases PNG images will be lighter. Although I haven't tested smshit and other tools, but they might remove information from the header to make it lighter then GIF in every case. The header in the PNG file is bigger than the header in GIF files, but uses less space to save the image information. That's why a PNG is heavier at really small size but will always be smaller at larger sizes. Although if you use the Save As then PNG in Photoshop instead of Save for web. Photoshop adds an overhead of about 35kb-40kb (not really 20%), not sure why, but probably color preset info, and a load of other stuff. Shitty converters probably do the same. Differences between FF and IE: Gamma differences... That's not a really a browser related problem (arguable). The gamma is adjusted to have the images look the same on both Mac and Windows. (1.8 vs 2.2 gamma) Some browsers don't adjust gamma and some others do. I usually don't save any colour information in the files, it's less trouble with differences in the image colours and the colours set in the style sheet. And I'm mostly working with print designers which doesn't help. To remove any colours info, I think http://smushit.com/ can be used. In photoshop, just uncheck Convert to sRGB. Although don't forget to colour proof whatever you do; Mac sRGB, Win sRGB an then Proof Colors. Cheers, Johan Johan Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/11/26 Dennis Lapcewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements document: that have no height declared wasDennis Lapcewich/R6/USDAFS received by: at:11/25/2008 10:56:38 *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
Thank you for saying that, Elizabeth, couldn't agree more about both frames and Flash... I strongly recommend customers against fully-flash sites due to the inconsistent (compared to web conventions), usually non-spiderable, and inaccessible navigation, but agree it can be useful for specific web-apps (wrapped in suitable HTML navigation, etc.) and some nice branding-related effects... but generally, Flash is overused when HTML + CSS with a sprinkling of Javascript could do the job better and in accordance with web standards. Regards, Dave Elizabeth Spiegel wrote: Hi Kate You said: “do need to study how frames work (naming) too.” Nononono! Frames are awful for accessibility and usability (iFrames are arguably better). I can’t think of an example of a really good framed site (although other list members may be able to offer some). I used to say the same of Flash, but did eventually find some sites demonstrating really clever and appropriate uses for it. *Elizabeth Spiegel* *Web editing* *0409 986 158* *GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001* *www.spiegelweb.com.au* *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Web governance
Andrew, Seeing you have not had any other ideas presented, how about: a) Using the Web Style Guide as a basis for creating your own web style guide for the agency? http://webstyleguide.com/ The 2nd Edition is available online. The 3rd Edition is available for purchase. b) You could also use the Chicago Manual of Style Online for some ideas. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html c) Add that the website has to follow the chosen W3C spec. and validate. You can also Google web style guide and web style guide examples to see other web style guides that have been developed. Ask if the agency has a style guide already for the printed and marketing materials. You can incorporate the applicable parts into the web style guide (e.g. logo use, colour scheme) Hope that helps get you started at least. S. Emerson Accrete Web Solutions http://www.accretewebsolutions.ca *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
Bruce, I couldn't agree more - the road is littered with web developers who don't know how to write XHTML or CSS. We rescue their customers frequently. I'd say that, in order to learn how the web really works, write HTML and CSS from scratch (yes, in a text editor). To get started, find a site on the web that you like and download its HTML and CSS and, for example, make it XHTML 1.0-strict and CSS 2.1 compliant. I recommend that you steer well clear of systems that offer to simplify the web development process by hiding it from you. Web developers using those learn how to use that particular tool, but not the web. There're way too many of the latter. Of course, there are some who say that hand coding websites is too inefficient... but the way to make hand coding more efficient *isn't* to use Dreamweaver or [insert your favourite WYSIWYG HTML editor here]. The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal. The static web, other than as a teaching tool, is dead. Yep, poked it with a stick. Dead. :) Cheers, Dave Bruce wrote: Andrew November 24, 2008 10:59 AM On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Kate wrote: Wow! You hand code For now, and I think, the foreseeable future, this is still the only way available if you want to get it right... ...although its a long road Yes it is! But worth it, and if you start simply, and follow the excellent advice that others here have offered, I think you'll find it's quite easy to find your way, and to find others who will be happy to help when the going gets tough. Good luck! *** 12 years ago on asking advice in starting down this road, a very wise engineer told me, Always code by hand. Use notepad or similar... While that was a difficult undertaking, it is the best advice I have had. I still use a basic editor on occasion, one such as cute html or similar is actually fine. Everyone has their fav, and that's ok, as long as it doesn't do everything for you and one learns nothing. But I have developed a system and basic web standards template system that works, so I have many examples of what I use all the time for clients set in new templates. Now I mostly work with a CMS such as ExpressionEngine and have developed a Web Standards template system that I modify as needed for all my clients. I firmly believe that reinventing the wheel for every site is not the best practice. And that browser hacks may be sometimes required. A lot of the time not, and we may end up using them to save time. When one gets a solid foundation and understanding that hand coding offers, one is never stuck in understanding the underlining principles and what is wrong when things just don't work as expected. I don't know why it don't work, dreamweaver did it isn't the way to impress clients! lol Best viewed in anything you want is a good label to apply to your sites, and perhaps what Web Standards is all about. Good luck, do it the hard way and you will know the road well. Bruce Prochnau bkdesign solutions *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Dave Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there are some who say that hand coding websites is too
inefficient... but the way to make hand coding more efficient *isn't* to
use Dreamweaver or [insert your favourite WYSIWYG HTML editor here].
Actually, as far as coding goes I think using the right editor makes a
big difference to the time it takes to push out code. I use
Dreamweaver, but I just use it because the various auto-complete
features mean I only type about 1/4 of the code produced.
Just as an example for a basic image replacement technique I can
simply type (each line-break represents hitting the enter key):
a { b
url(whatever.jpg) 0 0 no-repeat; dis
b
; h
27px; ov
h
; text-i
-px; widt
100px; }
And Dreamweaver will output:
a { background: url(whatever.jpg) 0 0 no-repeat; display: block;
height: 27px; overflow: hidden; text-indent: -px; width: 100px; }
And that's just a CSS example, not to mention the time saved
developing HTML templates, JavaScript, PHP, etc. Choosing the right
text editor for what you do can save a HUGE amount of time.
--
Blake Haswell
http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal. I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they really do need a full-featured CMS. Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often struggles to handle a large number of statements per second from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being hit hard by crawlers. ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be overkill in a lot of cases. A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user data, etc ... (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. bad..) If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server if all they want is a few simple static pages. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
But the ease of updating a site using a CMS such as Drupal or WordPress is often what people are wanting. To code each page individually, for many people would be a right pain in the ass, as well as looking after file structures and all that. Using a CMS is just bleedingly obvious for most people, especially those who are more interested in the content of the site, than going through the process of coding a site. Plus, most hosts give you advance notice of the need to upgrade your hosting from a shared plan to a VPS or a dedi box once you have stretched the limits of the shared plan. Or at least that is my experience with shared hosts. For a website starting out, I've never had a problem using WP on shared hosting. Andrew 2008/11/26 Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal. I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they really do need a full-featured CMS. Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often struggles to handle a large number of statements per second from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being hit hard by crawlers. ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be overkill in a lot of cases. A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user data, etc ... (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. bad..) If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server if all they want is a few simple static pages. *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
If we plan on working in the web design world, you'll find that the real world (at least for the moment) is far from standardized. Frames, iframes, flash, nested table madness - it's out there on both old sites _and_ new. Sometimes you have to go in and fix something on one of these sites...you might join a firm that strictly uses dreamweaver and contribute as their cms solution. It's a mad world! Plan on learning how to do each style as at some point you'll have to do it. Hand coding, dreamweaver (and pals) - plan on being familiar with both styles of development. /The yucky, proprietary dreamweaver template setup made me eventually ditch the software altogether. (using Coda right now) /CSS, javascript and jquery (and pals) - expect to have to deal with them all eventually. We'll skip server-side scripting/etc to be nice. If your cms of choice offers page caching, you can eliminate many of those unnecessary database requests etc. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael MD wrote: The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal. I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they really do need a full-featured CMS. Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often struggles to handle a large number of statements per second from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being hit hard by crawlers. ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be overkill in a lot of cases. A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user data, etc ... (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. bad..) If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server if all they want is a few simple static pages. *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Safari Legend problems
it's text-indent
Sundar
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:16 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 25, 2008, at 1:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are
visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with
versions 3.1 or 3.2 on Windows. We need to know whether this is still a
problem with 3.2 on the Mac.
Clare
try insert a span tag and use absolute position to hide the legend instead
legendspanyour legend title /span/legend
span {position:absolute; text-index:-99px}
I recently tried to tame a login form that is placed on the right top
corner with pixel perfect requirement, without span tag, Safari (or maybe
Firefox I can't clearly remember) gave a line-height even though I declared
absolute position and negative text-index. I find that the only guarantee
way to make legend behaves is inserting a span tag even we don't want the
legend be seen.
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
--
Sundar
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
Actually, Michael Michael MD wrote: I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they really do need a full-featured CMS. Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often struggles to handle a large number of statements per second from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being hit hard by crawlers. ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be overkill in a lot of cases. Hmmm - this has not been my experience with Drupal... With caching turned on, the database queries are close to 0 for any given page, and frankly, as a hosting provider, I can tell you with some certainty that a) 15-40 queries per page is tiny, and will be handled in 0.0001 seconds in most cases, and b) we have servers with 100 active Drupal sites, many doing 10s of GB of traffic per month, and their performance is sub-second for nearly all pages, and certainly for all pages viewed by anonymous users (i.e. the functional equivalent to static pages) thanks to smart caching... A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user data, etc ... (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. bad..) I'm not sure I agree with you at all on this one. If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? So that the customer can change her own content... she doesn't need to allow logins for anyone other than administrators. A decent CMS will cache pages to the extent that you'd be hard pressed to get substantially faster performance from static pages. I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) Again, my experiences create a far different impression. I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server if all they want is a few simple static pages. If all you want (and all you're *ever* going to want) is a few static pages, that's fine, but it's also then not a problem to hand code the XHTML and CSS. If your site is going to grow, then you might as well put it into a CMS from the start. The performance overhead for a CMS like Drupal is tiny. By all means use Dreamweaver as a syntax aid (as suggested by Blake) if you can't remember these things or are a really slow typist (although I can't recommend enough taking the time to learn how to touch type - you'll never regret it)... :) Dave -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
