Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Kevin Rapley wrote: > I would be interested to gather your thoughts around this solution, using > progress tags to mark progress through the form. A possible problem with this is that there is no guarantee that the user has completed earlier fields before moving o

[WSG] all media queries in one style sheet Vs individually served

I fully understand the need to reducing extra HTTP requests, however as the main style sheet gets fatter and fatter with different media queries stuff in it I am starting to doubt the benefit of reducing HTTP requests in this manner. Say, in the main style sheet I serve @media print @media on

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

On 11 Nov 2010, at 00:17, Mathew Robertson wrote: > Here is a reasonably good example: > > http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=136 > > In particular, the 'dir' and 'lang' attributes -> most people just assume > that english is the only language… dir isn’t needed

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

Benjamin always has a way of cutting through the fog and giving succent advice. Ted -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:26 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subjec

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

On Nov 10, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Ted Drake wrote: Thierry's right. It's time to start making those baby steps into HTML5. But you'll also need to add your charset and lang definition Great! Most everyone else is saying HTML5 is 10 years off and not to code for it, not to worry a

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM, cat soul wrote: > Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, To cut a _long_ story very short, if you have to ask this question, use HTML. See also: http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166 http://wiki.w

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, cat soul wrote: Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with , etc? The first line should be a doctype. I recommend either 4.01 strict or HTML5. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

Here is a reasonably good example: http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=136 In particular, the 'dir' and 'lang' attributes -> most people just assume that english is the only language... regards, Ma

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

Thierry's right. It's time to start making those baby steps into HTML5. But you'll also need to add your charset and lang definition ... ted -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz Sent: Wed

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

On 10 Nov 2010, at 22:34, cat soul wrote: > Any thoughts on which we ought to be using HTML, since it works in IE < 9 without having to pretend it is HTML. 4.01, since it is a stable recommendation with mature QA tools (unless you have a need for features added in HTML5 and are willing to lif

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

> Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information > ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with , etc? I'd go with with nothing above that -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz **

[WSG] XHTML or HTML?

Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with , etc? Thank you, cs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://we

Re: [WSG] mixing media queries?

Thank you very much!! This one works (combination of portriat/landscape fails also). @media only screen and (max-width: 480px), only screen and (min-device-width : 768px) and (max-device-width : 1024px) Maybe it's obvious to others however it was not for me and I can now see where my confusion

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. Precisely, and the IE hit certainly pales into insignificance compared to the benefits for us. We run a lot of sites, an awful lot of pages, and an awful lot of visitors. Any reso

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

IE8 and earlier Joseph R. B. Taylor /Web Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design"/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com On 11/10/10 3:45 PM, Kevin Rapley wrote: I would be in

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

I would be interested to gather your thoughts around this solution, using progress tags to mark progress through the form. Form legend text Label for text input Form legend text Label for radio group Radio label Radio label Radio label F

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

On 10 November 2010 18:52, Thierry Koblentz wrote: > > I don't think lists should be used for this (there might be a case for a OL > in case of dependant selects, but that would be a stretch). In the case of > DL, I'd say that the relationship between DTs and DDs is no better than the > one create

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. The bug > apparently only affects stylesheets, and the whole reason I'm assuming you'd > .. > another domain using the same protocol as the one you're currently > using...an e

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On 10/11/2010 18:38, Micky Hulse wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Russ Weakley wrote: Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) Haha! Too true! Back to the drawing board I guess. :D It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. The bug apparently only aff

RE: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

> Understandable; however, with the change in HTML5 from Definition Lists > to Description lists, would it not be more semantically valuable to > mark forms up using and , for labels and inputs, providing the > document with a more solid structure? As stated, my concern with this > is the lack of

RE: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

There are a ton of ways to do this. At the moment I stick with one of two formulas: My Legend My Label I believe the “for” attribute should reference the “id” attribute of the input element. So the above example should be: My Legend My Lab

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

Eric, There are a ton of ways to do this. At the moment I stick with one of two formulas: My Legend My Label Or if its a bunch of checkboxes or something: My Legend Label for the checkbox Label for the checkbox Label for the checkbox Jos

RE: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

I'm with Patrick on this one. The , and elements provide all the semantic structure you need. Anything else is noise. Steve Green Test Partners Ltd -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Eric Taylor Sent: 10 November 2

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Russ Weakley wrote: > Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy!  :) Haha! Too true! Back to the drawing board I guess. :D Dang, I am still undecided about weather or not I should adopt this technique! On one hand, the no-http site was very convicing as

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

Understandable; however, with the change in HTML5 from Definition Lists to Description lists, would it not be more semantically valuable to mark forms up using and , for labels and inputs, providing the document with a more solid structure? As stated, my concern with this is the lack of groupin

Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

On 10/11/2010 17:08, Eric Taylor wrote: From my experience, the best practice, currently, is using Description lists; however, my concern with this method is the lack of semantic grouping when using this set of elements. Another method I have used is using an Unordered list to group each field

[WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

Hi all - this is my first time sending to the list, but was looking for feedback on marking up forms in HTML5. Granted the spec is still a work in progress, but I was wondering if there was any current conversation about this multiple techniques of marking up forms via HTML5. As stated, the pur

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On 10 November 2010 19:22, Russ Weakley wrote: > > Not quite: > > > > > http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ > > Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) > > That last post from a Microsoft guy was interesting though. He says "Until recently

[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: [BULK] WSG Digest

I will be out of the office on Wednesday, November 10th. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org **

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

> Not quite: > > http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Micky Hulse wrote: > I wonder how many folks don't specify the http: part? It sounds like > there are no drawbacks. Not quite: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *