RE: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[Peter Firminger]

Netscape isn't tied to the OS like IE is on Windows, so it 
isn't an issue. You can load any number of other browsers, but without the 
aforementioned installations, you are generally stuck with one version of IE 
unless you set up a dual-boot system.
 
P

  
  
  From: Universal Head 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 
  4:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] 
  Could someone please do a little testing for me?
  What about Netscape?On 05/02/2004, at 3:09 PM, Mark 
  Stanton wrote:
  Here's a screeny of IE5 on windows. My cursor is over the work 
"removal".There's a pretty easy way to get different versions of IE 
running side byside - check some of these 
links:http://www.insert-title.com/web_design/?page=articles/dev/multi_IEhttp://www.clagnut.com/blog/259/http://www.google.com.au/search?q=IE+side+by+sideUniversal 
  Head Design 
  That Works.7/43 Bridge Rd StanmoreNSW 2048 AustraliaT (+612) 
  9517 1466F (+612) 9565 4747E [EMAIL PROTECTED]W 
  www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[Universal Head]

What about Netscape?



On 05/02/2004, at 3:09 PM, Mark Stanton wrote:

Here's a screeny of IE5 on windows. My cursor is over the work "removal".
There's a pretty easy way to get different versions of IE running side by
side - check some of these links:

http://www.insert-title.com/web_design/?page=articles/dev/multi_IE
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/259/
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=IE+side+by+side


Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

RE: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[Peter Ottery]

Title: RE: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?





hi, PC IE5 still has some overlapping happening:


http://www.c41.com.au/fleming_test.gif




-Original Message-
From: Seona Bellamy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 2:34 PM
To: WSG List
Subject: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?




Hi all,


I need to do a small test in IE5, but I don't have access to a copy of it.
And since the bit I need to test is the hover action on the menus,
BrowserCam is not going to do the trick I think.


So could someone who has IE5 please have a look at
http://www.flemingclinics.com.au and run the mouse over the menu bar at the
side? I need to know where the sub-menus are appearing, since my client (who
is running IE5 has said that they are appearing over the main menu bar. I've
made some code changes, and I want to see if I've shifted it far enough. And
frankly, I would prefer to do it without resorting to asking my client,
since every time I talk to him I'm faced with the urge to smack him around
the head lately. *sigh*


Cheers,


Seona.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[Lucian Teo]

On IE5 / Mac the dropdown menus don't expand at all.

On Feb 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Seona Bellamy wrote:

Hi all,

I need to do a small test in IE5, but I don't have access to a copy of 
it.
And since the bit I need to test is the hover action on the menus,
BrowserCam is not going to do the trick I think.

So could someone who has IE5 please have a look at
http://www.flemingclinics.com.au and run the mouse over the menu bar 
at the
side? I need to know where the sub-menus are appearing, since my 
client (who
is running IE5 has said that they are appearing over the main menu 
bar. I've
made some code changes, and I want to see if I've shifted it far 
enough. And
frankly, I would prefer to do it without resorting to asking my client,
since every time I talk to him I'm faced with the urge to smack him 
around
the head lately. *sigh*

Cheers,

Seona.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[info]

hi Seona,

macintosh ie 5.2




I have commented on line above which wont work..
menu won't work on This browser...

Hope this helps

Re: [WSG] Image floating question

[James Cowperthwaite]

Ok, if anyone is interested, I decided to go down the 'sliding doors' 
(http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors/) 
path, which has given me the result I was hoping for.

The right image now slides over the top of the left instead of breaking and going onto 
a new line.

Maybe not the best way to do it though... any thoughts?

Thanks
James


#header {
  width:100%;
  background:#000 url("../images/ww_banner_bg.gif") right repeat-x bottom;
  font-size:93%;
  line-height:normal;
  height:136px;
  }
#header ul {
  width:100%;
  margin:0;
  padding:0;
  list-style:none;
  }
#header li {
  float:left;
  background:url("../images/ww_banner.gif") no-repeat left top;
  margin:0;
  padding:0;
  width:100%;
  height:136px;
  }
#header a {
  float:right;
  display:block;
  background:url("../images/ww_banner_vine.gif") no-repeat right top;
  padding:0;
  text-decoration:none;
  font-weight:bold;
  color:#765;
  width:292px;
  height:128px;
  }




  

  



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[Martin E]

Thinking long and hard on 
this...
 
Yes, let's stick to Standards when 
creating sites, and leave the UI to the U :~)
 
Martin E.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  James Ellis 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] Overflow 
  scrollbars
  Martin E wrote:
  



Hello,
 
Having said this, I do like the 
colorizing of scrollbars, as it makes for a "branding" of the site with the 
browser itself.But I can't see your branding... let 
  the user have their widgets.
  
 
Just my 1 1/2 cents,
 
Martin 
  E.* 
  The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ 
  * 

[WSG] Could someone please do a little testing for me?

[Seona Bellamy]

Hi all,

I need to do a small test in IE5, but I don't have access to a copy of it.
And since the bit I need to test is the hover action on the menus,
BrowserCam is not going to do the trick I think.

So could someone who has IE5 please have a look at
http://www.flemingclinics.com.au and run the mouse over the menu bar at the
side? I need to know where the sub-menus are appearing, since my client (who
is running IE5 has said that they are appearing over the main menu bar. I've
made some code changes, and I want to see if I've shifted it far enough. And
frankly, I would prefer to do it without resorting to asking my client,
since every time I talk to him I'm faced with the urge to smack him around
the head lately. *sigh*

Cheers,

Seona.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

RE: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Peter Ottery]

Title: RE: [WSG] Second try with [a name]





Taco wrote: 


>> my suggestion was to put   between 
>> the tag, and then set its style to not 
>> display so it does not take up any space, 
>> something like 


If you set display:none on the links opera and mozilla wont recognize them to be on the page and therefore the links *to* them dont work.

you might be better off making font-size: 1px with a colour to match the backgound so they are still there, just invisible.

or doing this as was suggested earlier i think can avoid all this...



pete

RE: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Taco Fleur]

  i. Can you apply your styles to "a:link" instead? Thus keeping "a" 
unstyled.

I could, but I prefer not to.

 ii. Are you wrapping your named anchors around headings? You might 
style the "a", and override with "h2" styles.

I'm not wrapping my anchors around anything anymore (on development anyway) they are 
all empty.
But you said that some browsers might ignore empty anchors, thus my suggestion was to 
put   between the tag, and then set its style to not display so it does not take 
up any space, something like

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*

Re: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Ben Bishop]

Taco,

Your initial post stated the issue was:

to overcome the issue where I have a global style for the a 
element which is also applied to the a name element.

At this stage, you're trying fix your fix:

HTML 4.01: "User agents should be able to find anchors created by empty 
A elements, but some fail to do so."
Some fail to do so, hhmmm, so a   would do the trick? Maybe with display: none so it doesn't take up any space??

Take a step back. Two suggestions:

 i. Can you apply your styles to "a:link" instead? Thus keeping "a" 
unstyled.
ii. Are you wrapping your named anchors around headings? You might 
style the "a", and override with "h2" styles.

hth,

Ben
http://www.daemon.com.au/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

RE: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Taco Fleur]

Taco,

Blacklisted? Now there's an idea ;-)
-

You see, I knew you guys were thinking about it ;-))

-
The simple answer to your question is:

HTML 4.01: "User agents should be able to find anchors created by empty 
A elements, but some fail to do so."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#edef-A

-

Some fail to do so, hhmmm, so a   would do the trick? Maybe with display: none so 
it doesn't take up any space??

-

XHTML 1.0: "has deprecated the name attribute of the a, applet, form, 
frame, iframe, img, and map elements, and it will be removed from XHTML 
in subsequent versions."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_8

It's all in the W3C specifications.

Regards,

-- Ben
http://www.daemon.com.au/


Taco Fleur wrote:

> Not sure what the prob is, maybe I am being blacklisted? ;-))
>
> 
>
> Is this still correct though, having nothing in between the tags?
>

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[James Ellis]

Martin E wrote:

  
  
  
  Hello,
   
  Having said this, I
do like the colorizing of scrollbars, as it makes for a "branding" of
the site with the browser itself.

But I can't see your branding... let the user have their widgets.

   
  Just my 1 1/2 cents,
   
  Martin E.
  



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[Universal Head]

Fair enough. However (gasp, the horror) if it works on some user's browsers, and doesn't stuff up the others, why the hell not?
Peter
(just a minute I can hear a knock at the door ... hello - oh help, it's the Validation Squad! )
:)

On 05/02/2004, at 11:14 AM, James Ellis wrote:

Peter

Scrollbar is not in the CSS spec and should not be used - it's an MS "addition" to the CSS spec that messes with the user's UI widgets. Also, your CSS won't validate.

Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Ben Bishop]

Taco,

Blacklisted? Now there's an idea ;-)

The simple answer to your question is:

HTML 4.01: "User agents should be able to find anchors created by empty 
A elements, but some fail to do so."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#edef-A

XHTML 1.0: "has deprecated the name attribute of the a, applet, form, 
frame, iframe, img, and map elements, and it will be removed from XHTML 
in subsequent versions."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_8

It's all in the W3C specifications.

Regards,

-- Ben
http://www.daemon.com.au/
Taco Fleur wrote:

Not sure what the prob is, maybe I am being blacklisted? ;-))



Is this still correct though, having nothing in between the tags?

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Bradley Wright]

Title: Second try with [a name]



I would probably use:
 

 
.. cause I'm a bit of an XML junkie. I think it 
looks nicer. :)
 
Obviously that's just an emotional thing 
though.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NAME 
attribute depreciated now? We're supposed to use ID I think. Browser support can 
be a problem though.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taco 
  Fleur 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:19 
  AM
  Subject: [WSG] Second try with [a 
  name]
  
  Not sure what the prob is, maybe I am being 
  blacklisted? ;-)) 
  Or maybe my question is not clear? 
  Or maybe the answer is that the almighty validator 
  said my HTML was valid including the  thus I 
  don't need confirmation?
   
  OK I have now changed all my anchor tags to the 
  following  
  as you can see there is nothing in between 
  the tags, this is to overcome the issue where I have a global style for the a 
  element which is also applied to the a name element. 
  Is this still correct though, having nothing in 
  between the tags?  
  
  Taco Fleur07 3535 5072 
  Blog: http://www.tacofleur.com/index/blog/Methodology: 
  http://www.tacofleur.com/index/methodology/Tell 
  me and I will forgetShow me and I will rememberTeach me and I will 
  learn 

RE: [WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Mark Stanton]

Hey Taco

>Is this still correct though, having nothing in between the tags? 

See my previous email on this subject:
 


The * means "A*A may occur zero or more times" -
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.3.3.1

So yes empty 's are fine.

Cheers

Mark


--
Mark Stanton
Technical Director
Gruden Pty Ltd
Tel: 9956 6388
Mob: 0410 458 201
Fax: 9956 8433
http://www.gruden.com  

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[Martin E]

Hello,
scrollbar-track-color: #whatever; works in IEx, and some other browsers 
(Preferences... "enable scrollbar colors"), but it's an IE propriety - and it 
does not validate XHTML Strict.
 
Having said this, I do like the 
colorizing of scrollbars, as it makes for a "branding" of the site with the 
browser itself.
 
Just my 1 1/2 cents,
 
Martin E.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Universal 
  Head 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:53 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] Overflow 
  scrollbars
  I've just used overflow:auto on a site and am very surprised 
  about how well it works on a range of browsers too. No more inline frames 
  perhaps ...These work on IEWin only too for a bit of scrollbar customising 
  (discovered on www.squidfingers.com):scrollbar-track-color: 
  #whatever;scrollbar-face-color: #whatever;scrollbar-darkshadow-color: 
  #whatever;scrollbar-shadow-color: #whatever;scrollbar-3dlight-color: 
  #whatever;scrollbar-highlight-color: #whatever;scrollbar-arrow-color: 
  #whatever;PeterOn 05/02/2004, at 2:09 AM, John Penlington 
  wrote:
  I'm pleasantly surprised 
with the use ofoverflow: 
scrollbecause 
it seems to be the W3C's answer to frames pages. Would I be right there?Universal 
  Head Design That 
  Works.7/43 Bridge Rd StanmoreNSW 2048 AustraliaT (+612) 9517 
  1466F (+612) 9565 4747E [EMAIL PROTECTED]W 
  www.universalhead.com

[WSG] Second try with [a name]

[Taco Fleur]

Title: Second try with [a name]






Not sure what the prob is, maybe I am being blacklisted? ;-))


Or maybe my question is not clear?


Or maybe the answer is that the almighty validator said my HTML was valid including the  thus I don't need confirmation?



OK I have now changed all my anchor tags to the following 

 

as you can see there is nothing in between the tags, this is to overcome the issue where I have a global style for the a element which is also applied to the a name element. 

Is this still correct though, having nothing in between the tags?




Taco Fleur
07 3535 5072

Blog: http://www.tacofleur.com/index/blog/
Methodology: http://www.tacofleur.com/index/methodology/
Tell me and I will forget
Show me and I will remember
Teach me and I will learn

RE: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[Chris Stratford]

They
are not real CSS functions…

Just
scraps that IE added in to try and take over…

 



-

Chris
Stratford

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.neester.com

-



 

-Original Message-
From: Universal Head
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004
10:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Overflow
scrollbars

 

I've just used overflow:auto on a site and am very
surprised about how well it works on a range of browsers too. No more inline
frames perhaps ...
These work on IEWin only too for a bit of scrollbar customising (discovered on
www.squidfingers.com):
scrollbar-track-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-face-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-shadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-3dlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-highlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-arrow-color: #whatever;

Peter

On 05/02/2004, at 2:09 AM, John Penlington wrote:

I'm pleasantly
surprised with the use of
overflow: scroll
because it seems to be the W3C's answer to
frames pages. Would I be right there?




Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T (+612) 9517 1466
F (+612) 9565 4747
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[James Ellis]

Peter

Scrollbar is not in the CSS spec and should not be used - it's an MS 
"addition" to the CSS spec that messes with the user's UI widgets. Also, 
your CSS won't validate.

Cheers
James
Universal Head wrote:

I've just used overflow:auto on a site and am very surprised about how 
well it works on a range of browsers too. No more inline frames 
perhaps ...
These work on IEWin only too for a bit of scrollbar customising 
(discovered on www.squidfingers.com):
scrollbar-track-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-face-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-shadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-3dlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-highlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-arrow-color: #whatever;

Peter
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[Universal Head]

I've just used overflow:auto on a site and am very surprised about how well it works on a range of browsers too. No more inline frames perhaps ...
These work  on IEWin only too for a bit of scrollbar customising (discovered on www.squidfingers.com):
scrollbar-track-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-face-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-shadow-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-3dlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-highlight-color: #whatever;
scrollbar-arrow-color: #whatever;

Peter

On 05/02/2004, at 2:09 AM, John Penlington wrote:

I'm pleasantly surprised with the use of
overflow: scroll
because it seems to be the W3C's answer to frames pages. Would I be right there?

Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[James Ellis]

John, 

Not really, position : fixed; is the way to go here if you want content
to remain fixed in the viewport. Although Winternet Explorer doesn't
support it.

Cheers
James

John Penlington wrote:

  
  
  
  This is my first post.
   
  I'm pleasantly surprised with the
use of
  overflow:
scroll
  because it seems to be the W3C's
answer to frames pages. Would I be right there?
   
  Also I've noticed the vertical
scrollbar is active, but the horizontal scrollbar is greyed out unless
it has work to do.
   
  Is there any way of getting rid of
the greyed-out horizontal scrollbar?
   
  It's not too intrusive, but it would
be nicer not to see it at all.
   
  Thanks for such a useful forum.



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[scott parsons]

use overflow:auto
and as long as your content isn't too wide... no 
horizontal scroll...
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  John Penlington 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 2:09 
  AM
  Subject: [WSG] Overflow scrollbars
  
  This is my first post.
   
  I'm pleasantly surprised with the use 
  of
  overflow: 
  scroll
  because it seems to be the W3C's answer to frames 
  pages. Would I be right there?
   
  Also I've noticed the vertical scrollbar is 
  active, but the horizontal scrollbar is greyed out unless it has work to 
  do.
   
  Is there any way of getting rid of the greyed-out 
  horizontal scrollbar?
   
  It's not too intrusive, but it would be nicer not 
  to see it at all.
   
  Thanks for such a useful 
forum.

[WSG] Overflow scrollbars

[John Penlington]

This is my first post.
 
I'm pleasantly surprised with the use 
of
overflow: 
scroll
because it seems to be the W3C's answer to frames 
pages. Would I be right there?
 
Also I've noticed the vertical scrollbar is active, 
but the horizontal scrollbar is greyed out unless it has work to 
do.
 
Is there any way of getting rid of the greyed-out 
horizontal scrollbar?
 
It's not too intrusive, but it would be nicer not 
to see it at all.
 
Thanks for such a useful 
forum.

Re: [WSG] Image floating question

[Luc]

Good afternoon James,
  
It was foretold that on 4-2-2004 @ 15:28:41 GMT+1100 (which was
5:28:41 where I live) James Cowperthwaite would mumble:
  


JC> With two images, one floated left and the right, is there any way to
JC> force the page scroll horizontally instead of the right image dropping
JC> underneath the left when the width of the browser window becomes less
JC> than the combined widths of the images? 
  
 I have the same problem James. You could use the underscore hack, but
 that doesn't validate, although it's according to css 2.1.

 Using the min-width will not work in IE (oh wonder!).

 You  could place a fix-width div inside the main div to force
 it to be at least that wide i guess.
 
-- 
Best regards,
 Luc
_

http://www.dzinelabs.com

Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 4 and using the best browser: Opera.

"The motor-car will help solve the congestion of traffic." - A. J.
Balfour, c.1910.

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

[WSG] UA's (was: RE: reply to Safari question)

[James Ellis]

There are some good uses for User Agent switching as Ben has outlined. 
Mark here also mentioned that Google is the biggest blind site visitor 
on the web.

A case for UA switching is that it should only be done to highlight the 
follies of browsers sniffing on sites (and I've been there and done 
that). As Nick said stick to your  default setting (or in the case of 
Opera change it to the Opera setting - it used to ship as MSIE me thinks.)

The very fact we can switch UA's and have been able to since the days of 
Opera 5 or so highlights why we should never really trust any kind of 
data (e.g stats) based on information sent by the User Agent - 
HTTP_USER_AGENT, POST, GET , REFERER etc... Always filter what's 
presented to you.

Rounding out, those interested in Ben's line on MS should refer to the 
infamous Swedish Chef [1] edition of Opera 7, especially the part where 
"Oprah 7" [2] rendered MSN similar to IE (as did Opera 6). A good 
example of why building to standards can avoid embarrassment in the long 
run.

[1]http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2003/02/14/index.dml
[2]http://my.opera.com/community/dev/discussion/openweb/20030206/
Bork Bork!

Cheers
James
Ben Bishop wrote:

Using an User Agent switcher, you can see how some sites serve up 
different content based on the user agent.

For a demonstration of making content accessible to different users, 
in this case search engines such as Google, camouflage yourself with 
the Googlebot UA and visit some Microsoft web pages.

Regards,
Ben
Nick Lo wrote:

ability to set the User Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser.


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question

[Ben Bishop]

Using an User Agent switcher, you can see how some sites serve up 
different content based on the user agent.

For a demonstration of making content accessible to different users, in 
this case search engines such as Google, camouflage yourself with the 
Googlebot UA and visit some Microsoft web pages.

Regards,
Ben
Nick Lo wrote:

ability to set the User Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

RE: [WSG] reply to Safari question

[Lindsay Evans]

Nick Lo wrote:
> Here's how to enable it:
>
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030110063041629
>
> However, before you get too excited "it can pretend to be a bunch of
> different browsers" merely refers to it's ability to set the User
> Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser. Useful e.g. when online
> banking with a bank that doesn't recognise Safari as a viable browser
> even if it otherwise functions fine. Now you see Safari ...switch...
> now you see Windows MSIE 6.0, etc., type thing.

I'd just like to weigh in here & say that I think doing this is *incredibly*
counter-productive if you don't also complain to the site in question, if
the bank/whatever turns to their stats at the end of the year/month/etc.,
sees that no-one is using opera/safari/whathaveyou, then they are a lot less
likely to take their silly browser detection crap away.

If, however, they have a pile of emails from customers telling them that
they can't get into their site, then they're a lot more likely to make the
change.

That said, it's also handy to get into NYT articles without registering
(hint, GoogleBot doesn't need to register... :)

--
 Lindsay Evans.
 Developer,
 Red Square Productions.

 [p] 8596.4000
 [f] 8596.4001
 [w] www.redsquare.com.au

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question

[Nick Lo]

Here's how to enable it:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030110063041629

However, before you get too excited "it can pretend to be a bunch of 
different browsers" merely refers to it's ability to set the User Agent 
HTTP header to say it's another browser. Useful e.g. when online 
banking with a bank that doesn't recognise Safari as a viable browser 
even if it otherwise functions fine. Now you see Safari ...switch... 
now you see Windows MSIE 6.0, etc., type thing.

Nick

What tha - how does this work?

On 04/02/2004, at 6:17 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
The debug menu is extremely useful: it can pretend to be a bunch of 
different browsers, it has a basic load test engine built in, it can 
show the DOM tree...
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

[WSG] a name

[Taco Fleur]

Title: Message



OK I have now 
changed all my anchor tags to the following
 

 
as you can see there 
is nothing in between the tags, this is to overcome the issue where I have a 
global style for the a element which is also applied to the a name 
element.
Is this still 
correct though, having nothing in between the tags?
 
Taco 
Fleur
Blog 
http://www.tacofleur.com/index/blog/Methodology 
http://www.tacofleur.com/index/methodology/
Tell me and I will forgetShow 
me and I will rememberTeach me and I will learn 
 

Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question

[Universal Head]

What tha - how does this work?


On 04/02/2004, at 6:17 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
The debug menu is extremely useful: it can pretend to be a bunch of different browsers, it has a basic load test engine built in, it can show the DOM tree...



Peter Gifford

Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question

[Sean A Corfield]

On Mar 3, 2004, at 10:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but why is everyone so enthused about safari?,
Because it's a very good, very fast browser. And it's very well 
integrated with OS X. The debug menu is extremely useful: it can 
pretend to be a bunch of different browsers, it has a basic load test 
engine built in, it can show the DOM tree...

After my frustrations I use Mozilla firebird.
That's good too. I use it as my second browser for those few reticent 
sites that just don't know a standard when it bites them on the nose 
(e.g., Microsoft Exchange WebMail). I just don't like the UI as much.

This means that when you develop for a company, you can do their
profile on the browser. ... just imagine how stoked
they would be with their corporate Branding running all browsers
on their network.
Maybe times have changed but that never seemed to appeal to any company 
I've ever dealt with... :)

Regards,
Sean
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*