RE: [WSG] IE 7 Promo Images
lucky it's a promo :p From: Sean M. Hall (Dante) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] IE 7 Promo Images Date: 8 Jun 2004 03:39:27 + Hey guys. Yerba Buena Web Design (my own small design agency, which hasn't even officially opened yet) has created two IE 7 Promo Images. Dean Edwards modified the first one (to fit his layout and design) and made it the official IE 7 Logo. http://www.geocities.com/seanmhall2003/ie7.html I'd like your opinion on these two images (please remember that I'm a beginner at design). I hope you like them :) _ Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-aupage=hotmail/es2 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] new window losing it's anchor place
Phillips, Wendy wrote: The page that opens in the new window has a number of anchor links - this is just one of them. I've tried changing to different anchors and the same problem occurs, unless it is the last anchor on the page and there is no where else for the window to shift to. I can only presume it's something to do with the window refreshing itself when it is resized? Yep. More to the point, the page does NOT refresh when the window is resized. Why? Because there is no link between the state of the page and the state of the browser window. So you'll have to create one Since you're already using JS, you can probably figure something out with that. Now I'm no JS-head, but I reckon something like this might do the trick : body onResize=location.reload(); Stuffed if I know how standards-compliant that is, though (seeing as I avoid JS like the plague!) Good luck! Lachlan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] getting ride of table layout
You can get clever and offer abbreviations and such - I believe the attribute is 'abbr'? - but I don't have an URL handy. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6 Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] IE 7 Promo Images
Im having trouble understanding how you think IE7 would be broken?! you're obviously missing the point. this refers to the .htc/behaviour based hack stylesheet to get the current IE to behave in a more standards-compliant way http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/ (but see, that's what happens when authors choose the name of their project unwisely...should have been IE-Reformer or something, not IE7... but I digress). Anyway, in answer to the thread starter...they're cute, in a I was bored and had Paintshop Pro at hand way...but they do lack a bit of refinement, in my humble opinion...(how many fonts can you use in a single graphic?) Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Safari and Opera
On 5 Jun 2004, at 12:44, Roger Johansson wrote: No. Styling form elements the same across platforms and browsers is not possible, since several browsers use the operating system's native widgets, and ignore most attempts at styling them. That's right. A particular example is the file upload box, which Safari displays radically different to IE6 as Safari uses OS X's native widget. -- Rich. www.clagnut.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
It seems to me that the web developer/designer community spends a huge amount of time whinging about the browser developers and their product's non-compliance, when the answer to the problem lies in their own hands. Our apparent willingness to jump through testing/bug-fix hoops because of the newest browser offering from some spotty youths in a garage in St Kilda, beggars belief. Isn't it about time we took a more active role in shaping the future of browsers. We could clearly state that as a community we write/develop for a list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're just going to have to live wiht IE - market forces). Hopefully non-compliant browsers would simply not be developed, because the pages would break in it. If a new browser complies then it can see the pages we have developed. No worries. As far as backward compatability is concerned we should support older browsers but for a set period. Browser software is, by and large free, upgrading is easy, there is little excuse for not upgrading to a compliant browser. However, there is also little need as we spend hours jiggling code so that old, non-compliant browsers, can read the pages. If you can read the pages why change your browser. People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled, unreadable pages. Looking at other software applications for instance, if a spreadsheet didnt add, subtract and divide correctly no-one would use it. The user wouldn't think of having someone fudge some code so it would do these basic functions, so why do we with Browsers? The developer community can take a stand here and have some real input to the future of browser technology. The first step should be a clear and unequivocal statement that we will not write fixes for new non-compliant browsers. Design a new Browser by all means, but make it compliant. Hottest day of the year so far, and I'm pissed off trying to fix a lump of code that is apparently compliant but breaks in one browser because some halfwit can't be bothered to develop compliant software. For god's sake I could be sailing!! Having dangled my coat for someone to stand on I wait with baited breath. :) Best regards Giles * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] IE relative bug
Hi ! Hope you can help with my latest site at http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/underwear.php? The submenu under SPAR 10% og KONTAKT, is placed behind the images, and this is only occuring in Internet Explorer... - and this is obviously not what it is menat to be! I think it has some to do with the relative positioning of the gallery, but how can I help it? The css for det menu is placed here: http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/styles/navigation.css and the css for the gallery is found here: http://www.smartpage.dk/HBW/styles/galleri.css Any help will be appreciated! Regards Anders! * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] IE 7 Promo Images
Am 08.06.2004 um 05:39 schrieb Sean M. Hall (Dante): http://www.geocities.com/seanmhall2003/ie7.html I'd like your opinion on these two images (please remember that I'm a beginner at design). it crashes my safari for some reason? regards, michael PS: it would be nice if you'd use plain text emails. -- Michael Zeltner Netalley Networks LLP http://www.netalleynetworks.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
It seems to me that the web developer/designer community spends a huge amount of time whinging about the browser developers and their product's non-compliance, when the answer to the problem lies in their own hands. The onus is shared between content developers, browser developers, users and clients, actually... Our apparent willingness to jump through testing/bug-fix hoops because of the newest browser offering from some spotty youths in a garage in St Kilda, beggars belief. And what browser would that be then? We could clearly state that as a community we write/develop for a list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're just going to have to live wiht IE - market forces). Ah...so already here, you're making a compromise with the IE clause. Cute. Strong words to start with, but then watered down... Hopefully non-compliant browsers would simply not be developed, because the pages would break in it. Were it not for your IE clause, that may almost be true. As far as backward compatability is concerned we should support older browsers but for a set period. Browser software is, by and large free, upgrading is easy, there is little excuse for not upgrading to a compliant browser. However, there is also little need as we spend hours jiggling code so that old, non-compliant browsers, can read the pages. If you can read the pages why change your browser. I think we need to make a clear distinction here: if by backwards compatibility you're referring to the *visual* layout of pages etc, then I agree...we should not carry on accommodating old, non-compliant browsers. However, in terms of accessibility, we need to ensure that, within reason, pages at least work (content readable, navigation working, etc) in older browsers *within reason*. People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled, unreadable pages. Oh...a hardliner. Unfortunately, where these tough ideas (still, softened by your previous IE clause) meet the reality of clients and market driven forces, there's bound to be problems... The developer community can take a stand here and have some real input to the future of browser technology. Idealistic, but...unless you're going to get consensus from each and every web developer out there, it's not going to work. Clients will just go off and find developers with less hardline attitudes, the ones that need the money to flow in, and bend to the will of the ones who pay the bills at the end of the day. Hottest day of the year so far, and I'm pissed off trying to fix a lump of code that is apparently compliant but breaks in one browser because some halfwit can't be bothered to develop compliant software. For god's sake I could be sailing!! Design (in all fields and disciplines) is about creatively working around constraints... Having dangled my coat for someone to stand on I wait with baited breath. :) There ya go ;) Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] Help with making DIVs behave
Hi all, Sorry for the basic question but I am new to making DIVs behave. I am converting my old site from tables to DIVs and trying to get a similar look. The page troubling me is: http://www.blackwork.com/test/sample.html The CSS is at: http://www.blackwork.com/test/stitches.css - the rules relating to the div class site is right at the bottom. I want the image to fill the div so that the div completely contains it and the bottom border appears after the image. Thanks in advance for your advice. Rosemary Norwood Blackwork Web Intelligence * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Help with making DIVs behave
Hi Rosie,
The div's not misbehaving, it's the floated image ... but that's how
floats are meant to work.
Clearing the float by adding dl { clear:both; } to your stylesheet will
give you what you want.
Cheers,
Mike
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Rosie Norwood wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry for the basic question but I am new to making DIVs behave. I am
converting my old site from tables to DIVs and trying to get a similar
look.
The page troubling me is: http://www.blackwork.com/test/sample.html
The CSS is at: http://www.blackwork.com/test/stitches.css - the rules
relating to the div class site is right at the bottom.
I want the image to fill the div so that the div completely contains it
and the bottom border appears after the image.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] Help with making DIVs behave
Subject: Re: [WSG] Help with making DIVs behave
Hi Rosie,
The div's not misbehaving, it's the floated image ... but that's how
floats are meant to work.
Clearing the float by adding dl { clear:both; } to your stylesheet will
give you what you want.
Cheers,
Mike
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Rosie Norwood wrote:
The page troubling me is: http://www.blackwork.com/test/sample.html
The CSS is at: http://www.blackwork.com/test/stitches.css - the rules
relating to the div class site is right at the bottom.
I want the image to fill the div so that the div completely contains it
and the bottom border appears after the image.
That will clear the lower image but you'll need to do the same for the
Archbishop Wood dl as well otherwise Techniques is next to the image and
the techniques themselves are below the image at1024 resolution, awkward
looking.
If you want the Techniques next to the images you need to rework the design
with multiple floats.
In either case, a look at float theory would be helpful:
http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/flow-pos.html
drew
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 08:11 PM, Giles Clark wrote: snip Isn't it about time we took a more active role in shaping the future of browsers. We could clearly state that as a community we write/develop for a list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're just going to have to live wiht IE - market forces). Hopefully non-compliant browsers would simply not be developed, because the pages would break in it. If a new browser complies then it can see the pages we have developed. No worries. /snip - original post for full version 'We're just going to have to live with IE' - there's the rub. Over and over, in these threads, we see developers aiming their work at IE 'because it's the browser used by most people'. And why's that? Because it's integrated with the OS of the most popular computing platform on the planet. Never mind that it, and the OS, are lemons. The 'market forces' are one of the most successful business enterprises in history. IE is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Suggesting that we build sites that break in the most used browser and then telling the frustrated site visitors that their software's not up to it is committing our clients to commercial suicide. You'd probably be amazed, and alarmed, at the proportion of people out there that don't even know that they have a choice when it comes to browsers. They use what comes pre-loaded on their PC; they allow auto updates (maybe); they get a new browser when they get a new PC. As developers, we need to remember that not all our site visitors spend as many hours in front of their PCs as we do. They don't understand Standards, and they don't want to. Their maxim: 'Don't make me think.' If a site works, fine. Our clients, with our help, can communicate with them, hopefully in a meaningful way. If it doesn't, we've lost them. And they won't be back. All they know, or care about, is that 'this site doesn't work'. There's a hundred mores sites just waiting in the wings to supply whatever yours couldn't. The best route to change of a system you don't agree with is from within. Get a job at Microsoft, and bring all the influence to bear that you can to ensure that their next generation browser - codenamed Wombat, or Aardvaark, or whatever it is - is Standards compliant. But let's be realistic: legacy browsers, pain in the arse that they are, aren't going away for a few years yet. So let's make our sites work in them. We're in the communication business, yes? (Note: 'Clients' means anyone a site is being built for - including yourself. Doesn't mean money has to change hands.) I think that's 3c - Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t
Title: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act Had to reply to this one because I hear it repeated a lot and it's just not true. People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled, unreadable pages. I have worked in both large corporate and government in the US for over a decade doing web design/development and browser support is a big issue. For instance, just over 1 year ago we did a billing site for an unnamed major corporation who part way through development said by the way - the majority of our administrators will be on OS2 Netscape 4.7 and the application must present it's best face in this browser. Of course the actual users (compared to the internal administrators) were the regular mix of browsers you see in any large public facing site. The point here is that the internal people (the administrators) had no choice in their browser or operating system and just because they're stuck on a dog of an OS doesn't mean I can ignore them or tell them to get a new browser when they're blocked from upgrading. The corporate and government users are stuck with whatever is the current internal image - and most of them are not allowed to change that. The few who can change it become outside help desk support if they do and the help desk can get pissy enough to start saying well you changed your browser so we won't support you on anything Believe me - it happens amazingly often. For some reason many designers/developers seem to forget that free-will (as in changing browsers at will) doesn't exist in many work environments - and that many people in these work environments use the web for research, administering applications, etc. Susan -Original Message- From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act It seems to me that the web developer/designer community spends a huge amount of time whinging about the browser developers and their product's non-compliance, when the answer to the problem lies in their own hands. The onus is shared between content developers, browser developers, users and clients, actually... Our apparent willingness to jump through testing/bug-fix hoops because of the newest browser offering from some spotty youths in a garage in St Kilda, beggars belief. And what browser would that be then? We could clearly state that as a community we write/develop for a list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're just going to have to live wiht IE - market forces). Ah...so already here, you're making a compromise with the IE clause. Cute. Strong words to start with, but then watered down... Hopefully non-compliant browsers would simply not be developed, because the pages would break in it. Were it not for your IE clause, that may almost be true. As far as backward compatability is concerned we should support older browsers but for a set period. Browser software is, by and large free, upgrading is easy, there is little excuse for not upgrading to a compliant browser. However, there is also little need as we spend hours jiggling code so that old, non-compliant browsers, can read the pages. If you can read the pages why change your browser. I think we need to make a clear distinction here: if by backwards compatibility you're referring to the *visual* layout of pages etc, then I agree...we should not carry on accommodating old, non-compliant browsers. However, in terms of accessibility, we need to ensure that, within reason, pages at least work (content readable, navigation working, etc) in older browsers *within reason*. People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled, unreadable pages. Oh...a hardliner. Unfortunately, where these tough ideas (still, softened by your previous IE clause) meet the reality of clients and market driven forces, there's bound to be problems... The developer community can take a stand here and have some real input to the future of browser technology. Idealistic, but...unless you're going to get consensus from each and every web developer out there, it's not going to work. Clients will just go off and find developers with less hardline attitudes, the ones that need the money to flow in, and bend to the will of the ones who pay the bills at the end of the day. Hottest day of the year so far, and I'm pissed off trying to fix a lump of code that is apparently compliant but breaks in one browser because some halfwit can't be bothered to develop compliant software. For god's sake I could be sailing!! Design (in all fields and disciplines) is about creatively working around constraints... Having dangled my coat for someone to stand on I wait with baited breath. :) There ya go ;) Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster /
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
If we are going to make sites that only work in certain browsers why not just code to IE's standards and not bother with the obscure browsers like firefox and opera. That way we don't need standards at all! I can have my marquee tag back and my ActiveX controls - Ill be able to do all kinds of great things. After all nearly everyone uses IE... Seriously though, If you are going to take this hardline attitude by purposefully excluding users of certain browsers then you may as well do what I was saying above. Don't loose site of the objective - with standards we are trying to let more browsers work with our sites not less. Don't get too bitter about IE people it's not good for your health. Quoting Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 08:11 PM, Giles Clark wrote: snip Isn't it about time we took a more active role in shaping the future of browsers. We could clearly state that as a community we write/develop for a list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're just going to have to live wiht IE - market forces). Hopefully non-compliant browsers would simply not be developed, because the pages would break in it. If a new browser complies then it can see the pages we have developed. No worries. /snip - original post for full version 'We're just going to have to live with IE' - there's the rub. Over and over, in these threads, we see developers aiming their work at IE 'because it's the browser used by most people'. And why's that? Because it's integrated with the OS of the most popular computing platform on the planet. Never mind that it, and the OS, are lemons. The 'market forces' are one of the most successful business enterprises in history. IE is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Suggesting that we build sites that break in the most used browser and then telling the frustrated site visitors that their software's not up to it is committing our clients to commercial suicide. You'd probably be amazed, and alarmed, at the proportion of people out there that don't even know that they have a choice when it comes to browsers. They use what comes pre-loaded on their PC; they allow auto updates (maybe); they get a new browser when they get a new PC. As developers, we need to remember that not all our site visitors spend as many hours in front of their PCs as we do. They don't understand Standards, and they don't want to. Their maxim: 'Don't make me think.' If a site works, fine. Our clients, with our help, can communicate with them, hopefully in a meaningful way. If it doesn't, we've lost them. And they won't be back. All they know, or care about, is that 'this site doesn't work'. There's a hundred mores sites just waiting in the wings to supply whatever yours couldn't. The best route to change of a system you don't agree with is from within. Get a job at Microsoft, and bring all the influence to bear that you can to ensure that their next generation browser - codenamed Wombat, or Aardvaark, or whatever it is - is Standards compliant. But let's be realistic: legacy browsers, pain in the arse that they are, aren't going away for a few years yet. So let's make our sites work in them. We're in the communication business, yes? (Note: 'Clients' means anyone a site is being built for - including yourself. Doesn't mean money has to change hands.) I think that's 3c - Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 01:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we are going to make sites that only work in certain browsers why not just code to IE's standards and not bother with the obscure browsers like firefox and opera. That way we don't need standards at all! I can have my marquee tag back and my ActiveX controls - Ill be able to do all kinds of great things. After all nearly everyone uses IE... Seriously though, If you are going to take this hardline attitude by purposefully excluding users of certain browsers then you may as well do what I was saying above. Don't loose site of the objective - with standards we are trying to let more browsers work with our sites not less. Don't get too bitter about IE people it's not good for your health. No, no - I'm not suggesting for a second we should *only* develop for IE, or any other certain browsers! Just the opposite - I make a point of delivering my clients' message to the maximum number of visitors. And I'm not bitter; just realistic. That's why I say 'IE is here to stay'. Thanks to the many gurus around, we have a whole menu of hacks available so we *can* deliver Standards-driven sites to non-compliant browsers. I just think we have to keep an eye on the past, even as we move forward. Someone said in a recent post on another thread, 'IE/Mac is no longer being developed, so it's a dead duck.' Huh? Did all the IE/Mac users just stop, there and then, when that news was announced? No - and that's why I'll keep hacking for, and testing in, the widest possible range of browsers I can. I owe it to my clients. 100% compliant browsers. Write once, publish anywhere. It's the dream of Standards, right? I'm all for it; I'll do my bit, and more. But it's not the real world - not yet. Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
hi ther Razvan I'll talk about the visual design your navigation bar hmm need to rethink about it i On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:47:36 +0300, Razvan Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * -- http://www.jadmadi.net/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
Title: RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hey, This is really great, well done man! It looks all there to me usability and accessibility wise, I'll leave it to the bigger guns to find the nitty grittys with it. I'm happy with it though! Take care. Jamie Mason: Design -Original Message- From: Razvan Pop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 June 2003 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t
Title: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act Hi, I'd be happiest if an IE7.x came that was completely standards compliant and auto updated itself (without a facility to disable this) and if MS wanted to add any exclusive extras then they did, but that everything else rendered exactly as the technology creators intended. They get their extra stuff to try and win extra users with, and developers who choose not to use those features still have their pages rendered properly and if they do, those features didn't affect the non IE excluisve components. Hope that made sense :/ Jamie Mason: Design -Original Message- From: Nick Gleitzman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 June 2004 16:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 01:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we are going to make sites that only work in certain browsers why not just code to IE's standards and not bother with the obscure browsers like firefox and opera. That way we don't need standards at all! I can have my marquee tag back and my ActiveX controls - Ill be able to do all kinds of great things. After all nearly everyone uses IE... Seriously though, If you are going to take this hardline attitude by purposefully excluding users of certain browsers then you may as well do what I was saying above. Don't loose site of the objective - with standards we are trying to let more browsers work with our sites not less. Don't get too bitter about IE people it's not good for your health. No, no - I'm not suggesting for a second we should *only* develop for IE, or any other certain browsers! Just the opposite - I make a point of delivering my clients' message to the maximum number of visitors. And I'm not bitter; just realistic. That's why I say 'IE is here to stay'. Thanks to the many gurus around, we have a whole menu of hacks available so we *can* deliver Standards-driven sites to non-compliant browsers. I just think we have to keep an eye on the past, even as we move forward. Someone said in a recent post on another thread, 'IE/Mac is no longer being developed, so it's a dead duck.' Huh? Did all the IE/Mac users just stop, there and then, when that news was announced? No - and that's why I'll keep hacking for, and testing in, the widest possible range of browsers I can. I owe it to my clients. 100% compliant browsers. Write once, publish anywhere. It's the dream of Standards, right? I'm all for it; I'll do my bit, and more. But it's not the real world - not yet. Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
Rarvan, Two quick points: 1. Please use % or ems for stating font-size. 2. Please separate adjacent links with a printable character. Or recode them as a list. Nice site keep it up. mike 2k:)2 -Original Message- From: Razvan Pop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 June 2003 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
Mike Foskett wrote: Rarvan, Two quick points: 1. Please use % or ems for stating font-size. 2. Please separate adjacent links with a printable character. Or recode them as a list. You are talking about the bottom navigation? Nice site keep it up. mike 2k:)2 -Original Message- From: Razvan Pop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 June 2003 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
My comments are mainly about the interface: Can I suggest you use a list for the navigation bar at top? You have for the one at bottom... Maybe a bit more contrast in that navbar? even a bit more padding around the words themselves? You might like to look at the way the word 'SEOed' is rendered across the site; I count about five variations. If you're going to deliver a site in English, you should be extra careful to check spelling and grammar. You have some errors that need to be fixed. (Presume that English is not your first language.) Hope this helps. Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 01:47 AM, Razvan Pop wrote: Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] getting ride of table layout
hmm well its bad idea to use table in my case. I'll try to find a better way to list my hosting plans maybe boxes module ah its hard to build a good site heh Thank you folks On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:34:58 +0100, Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can get clever and offer abbreviations and such - I believe the attribute is 'abbr'? - but I don't have an URL handy. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6 Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * -- http://www.jadmadi.net/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t
Title: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act If we are talking IE: Isnt the problem is that Microsoft is going to integrate its next version of IE directly into its operating system, which maybe an issue unto itself? Right or wrong they dont want to spend the money to patch or upgrade the current browser. Longhorn (the name of the next operating system) keeps getting postponed. In the meantime, I think as a web developer, one designs for the browser their users use. It would take a special interest group, maybe one for some disability, to publicize that using IE is inaccessible to them, and since IE is fairly accessible to most groups, I dont see that happening. Nancy Johnson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie Mason Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:24 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t Hi, I'd be happiest if an IE7.x came that was completely standards compliant and auto updated itself (without a facility to disable this) and if MS wanted to add any exclusive extras then they did, but that everything else rendered exactly as the technology creators intended. They get their extra stuff to try and win extra users with, and developers who choose not to use those features still have their pages rendered properly and if they do, those features didn't affect the non IE excluisve components. Hope that made sense :/ Jamie Mason: Design -Original Message- From: Nick Gleitzman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 June 2004 16:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 01:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we are going to make sites that only work in certain browsers why not just code to IE's standards and not bother with the obscure browsers like firefox and opera. That way we don't need standards at all! I can have my marquee tag back and my ActiveX controls - Ill be able to do all kinds of great things. After all nearly everyone uses IE... Seriously though, If you are going to take this hardline attitude by purposefully excluding users of certain browsers then you may as well do what I was saying above. Don't loose site of the objective - with standards we are trying to let more browsers work with our sites not less. Don't get too bitter about IE people it's not good for your health. No, no - I'm not suggesting for a second we should *only* develop for IE, or any other certain browsers! Just the opposite - I make a point of delivering my clients' message to the maximum number of visitors. And I'm not bitter; just realistic. That's why I say 'IE is here to stay'. Thanks to the many gurus around, we have a whole menu of hacks available so we *can* deliver Standards-driven sites to non-compliant browsers. I just think we have to keep an eye on the past, even as we move forward. Someone said in a recent post on another thread, 'IE/Mac is no longer being developed, so it's a dead duck.' Huh? Did all the IE/Mac users just stop, there and then, when that news was announced? No - and that's why I'll keep hacking for, and testing in, the widest possible range of browsers I can. I owe it to my clients. 100% compliant browsers. Write once, publish anywhere. It's the dream of Standards, right? I'm all for it; I'll do my bit, and more. But it's not the real world - not yet. Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t
On 6/8/04 2:21 PM, Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we are talking IE: Isn¹t the problem is that Microsoft is going to integrate its next version of IE directly into its operating system, which maybe an issue unto itself? Right or wrong they don¹t want to spend the money to patch or upgrade the current browser. Longhorn (the name of the next operating system) keeps getting postponed. In the meantime, I think as a web developer, one designs for the browser their users use. It would take a special interest group, maybe one for some disability, to publicize that using IE is inaccessible to them, and since IE is fairly accessible to most groups, I don¹t see that happening. Perhaps the solution is to add features¹ that only standards compliant browser users can see? These features would have to be standards compliant of course. Aren¹t cool and unique features what fuelled the initial browser war to begin with? You just have to give people something other than security and speed to get them to download Moz or something like it. People need something more tangible (if pop up pr0n 24/7 wasn¹t enough). Perhaps its time to return to the best viewed in¹ but have it best viewed in W3C standards compliant browsers?¹ My 0.02 Jesse -- Jesse Rodgers Manager, Web Communications Communications Public Affairs - University of Waterloo [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 519.888.4567 ext. 3874 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] webstandardsgroup.se registered - feedback wanted
Hi, I just registered webstandardsgroup.se, a potential Swedish sister-site to webstandardsgroup.org. Got some ideas for it already, would be glad to recieve others too (preferably off-list). I'll keep you posted later on when ideas start to take more shape. cheers, /Anton -- What your body lacks, your head compensates. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Ordered list mark-up
Any more thoughts on this one please ?
-Original Message-
From: Bert Doorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 June 2004 11:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Ordered list mark-up
G'day
Well, the specs appear to have provision for it. Unfortunately the vast majority of
browsers do not (yet) seem to support it.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN
HTML
HEAD
TITLEContent alignment in the marker box/TITLE
STYLE type=text/css
LI:before {
display: marker;
content: ( counter(counter,lower-alpha) ) ;
counter-increment: counter;
width: 3em;
text-align: center;
}
/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY
OL
LI This is the first item.
LI This is the second item.
LI This is the third item.
/OL
/BODY
/HTML
I've tested this code in Opera 7.5, MSIE 6, Mozilla 1.6 and Firefox 0.8. It worked
only in Opera, where it displayed both the regular 1 and the (a) like this:
1. (a) This is the first item.
2. (b) This is the second item.
3. (c) This is the third item.
(you'd need to set the ol's list-style to none, to suppress the numbers)
The others just showed a numbered list:
1. This is the first item.
2. This is the second item.
3. This is the third item.
Perhaps others have experimented with this and found a way for it to work in other
browsers.
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
www.betterwebdesign.com.au
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
This e-mail message (along with any attachments) is intended only for the named
addressee and could contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient you are notified that any dissemination, copying or use
of any of the information is prohibited. Please notify us immediately by return
e-mail if you are not the intended recipient and delete all copies of the original
message and attachments.
This footnote also confirms that this message has been checked for computer viruses.
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
Nick, No, no - I'm not suggesting for a second we should *only* develop for IE, or any other certain browsers! Just the opposite - I make a point of delivering my clients' message to the maximum number of visitors. And I'm not bitter; just realistic. That's why I say 'IE is here to stay'. Thanks to the many gurus around, we have a whole menu of hacks available so we *can* deliver Standards-driven sites to non-compliant browsers. Could it be that your site is broken, not the browser? We don't have any trouble accommodating IE with standards compliant code. I think your taking the argument too far and blaming the tool. IE had CSS support earlier than Netscape did. Don't simply cut down the tall poppy because there is a sympathetic (anti-M$) audience in the web standards community (and no, not all of us agree) and don't try (like you could) to incite another browser war. That's what started all this and Netscape was equally to blame. [note to self, work on sentence structure... Next time] It is a far far easier internet to code for now with compliant code. Look at the crap we had to write when NN 4 and IE 4 were battling it out. Both were very wrong and we had to use things like the '4 horsemen' to accommodate both. No wonder table layouts were used so heavily. There are very few issues remaining if you code your page thoughtfully (not in quirks mode) and ignore the features (like attribute selectors) that don't work in IE. Get over it. PNG Transparency is a slight pain but we still have gif and jpg alternatives so it isn't a killer. The only problem (not for me) is the Mime-type issue for XHTML 1.1 but as I've said before, I've yet to see someone using XHTML for any purpose other than plain mark-up and the best language to do that with (in my opinion) is still HTML 4.01 or if you really really must keep up with the Jones', XHTML 1.0 Transitional (HTML 5.0). There are a few other tweaks required (e.g. white space in lists) but they don't change it from still being standards compliant. Once you learn to code it correctly (or have a base set of code to start each site with), these are not big issues at all. If you have to use a multitude of hacks to get your design to work in IE then you just plain built it wrong. Ask for help. That's what this list is for. If it's XHTML 1.1 then you won't win. The web isn't ready for XHTML 1.1. The major browser doesn't accept it in the required format (and there are other issues with search engines etc. as well). Yes, this is IE's fault, but it's simple, don't use the language. Tell me why you have to use XHTML 1.1. Anyone? Depending on the answer I may have to climb a mountain. 100% compliant browsers. Write once, publish anywhere. It's the dream of Standards, right? I'm all for it; I'll do my bit, and more. But it's not the real world - not yet. I believe it is. But there will always be browser bugs (all of them have bugs) and the only way to do what you want is to lose the niche browsers like Firefox and Opera and go with IE, so that argument will never fly. NN 4 is still a bigger problem than IE (with a much smaller footprint though, thankfully due to IE's dominance winning that war). At least IE gets updated readily by the users (usually automatically) whereas a Netscape (4) user (or a corporation/department) is less likely to upgrade and when they do eventually change, it'll generally be to IE because it's a better business decision. That's exactly what I would do. It's there when you start the machine the first time (assuming they're using Windows which most will), it manages itself with security updates and service packs and (if the web developers do their job correctly) it works flawlessly. Using hacks to fix what you're doing (probably for pixel perfection) is a far bigger problem than IE's compliance. BTW your site http://www.omnivision.com.au/ has a JavaScript error... I suggest you use IE with the debugger turned on to find it :-) P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their ac t
Nancy Johnson wrote: their users use. It would take a special interest group, maybe one for some disability, to publicize that using IE is inaccessible to them, and since IE is fairly accessible to most groups, I dont see that happening. At Sydney's April WSG meeting Checking for Web Access for Blind and Vision Impaired, I asked Robert Spriggs from the Royal Blind Society which operating system and browser they recommend. His answer was Windows and Internet Explorer. Adaptive technology (such as screen magnifiers, screen readers, talking browsers and Braille devices) used by RBS is almost exclusively designed to integrate/interface with Windows and IE. For their clients, Internet Explorer was an important part of accessible Internet. Ben * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
The first step should be a clear and unequivocal statement that we will not write fixes for new non-compliant browsers. Design a new Browser by all means, but make it compliant. By non-compliant you mean that they do not adhere to the standards put down by the W3C whose role is the development of interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential.. The W3C puts out guidelines and specs very much like this standards list has guidelines for posting. However, funnily enough the guidelines (aka standards) for this list are probably more often ignored than the W3C guidelines. Now that's not a dig, just an observation that there are many reasons that browsers may not adhere fully, just as there are reasons people don't adhere to this list's guidelines. Web browsers (or at least the underlying technology of a web browser ...thinking webkit on OS X or gecko, khtml, etc) are not just built by some spotty youths in a garage in St Kilda. On the contrary those spotty youths are more likely to be developing web sites! To encourage better standards we need to do just that...encourage. For example; introducing everyone you know to, e.g., Firefox, would probably do a great deal more for standards than spending time ranting on this list (although that might sooth an instant irritation). As is often pointed out, many people don't even know what a web browser is. I just had to explain to a client, I'm developing a content management system for, what a browser was after I encouraged them to adopt Firefox to use for accessing the admin section (whilst adopting standards for the main site of course). Ironically, in the process of focussing on using non-standard browser, I had to introduce them to the concept of a world outside the Internet Explorer version (aka the internet ) that came with their operating system. Then of course your next step is getting all the web designers/developers you know to develop with web standards, etc...then a loong way down the bottom of that list would be Force Microsoft to adopt W3C standards... Nick * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Peter Firminger wrote: Could it be that your site is broken, not the browser? We don't have any trouble accommodating IE with standards compliant code. I think your taking the argument too far and blaming the tool. There are very few issues remaining if you code your page thoughtfully (not in quirks mode) and ignore the features (like attribute selectors) that don't work in IE. Get over it. Giles' original post said I'm pissed off trying to fix a lump of code that is apparently compliant but breaks in one browser because some halfwit can't be bothered to develop compliant software. Ironically, he didn't say which browser - but having also suggested that 'we have to live with IE' because of 'market forces', the inference was there. My answer to Giles was supposed to say, just as you have, 'Get over it.' I obviously have to stop contributing so late at night. N ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
I think the design is great, very clean and easy to read. My only thought as far as standards go is that for the title 'SEOed.com' you could use: h1span class=oneSeo/spanspan class=oneed/spanspan class=one.com/span/h1 instead of an image and format the text with CSS, using some spans to create the desired effect. Just my $0.02... Mt. -Original Message- From: Razvan Pop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Ordered list mark-up
Any more thoughts on this one please ? My only comment is that the CSS solution provided isn't widely supported across commonly used browsers (like IE and Moz). This was highlighted in the original post of the solution. There is no other automatic way I can see of doing what you want (other than styling out the bullet completely and using your own numbering as part of the text when you generate the list). You could either generate the numbers server-side or possibly consider (scary cross-browser issues) some _javascript_ on the client side. Something that W3C should possibly consider would be a different list item type that performed this behaviour. Gary Menzel Web Development Manager IT Operations Brisbane -+- ABN AMRO Morgans Limited Level 29, 123 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 PH: 07 333 44 828 FX: 07 3834 0828 To unsubscribe from this email please forward this email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition includes reading, printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in reliance on the information. If you have received this email in error, we request you contact ABN AMRO Morgans Limited immediately by returning the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy the original. We will refund any reasonable costs associated with notifying ABN AMRO Morgans. This email is confidential and may contain privileged client information. ABN AMRO Morgans has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all its communications, including electronic communications, but accepts no liability for materials transmitted. Materials may also be transmitted without the knowledge of ABN AMRO Morgans. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited its directors and employees do not accept liability for the results of any actions taken or not on the basis of the information in this report. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited and its associates hold or may hold securities in the companies/trusts mentioned herein. Any recommendation is made on the basis of our research of the investment and may not suit the specific requirements of clients. Assessments of suitability to an individuals portfolio can only be made after an examination of the particular clients investments, financial circumstances and requirements. ABN AMRO Morgans Limited (ABN 49 010 669 726 AFSL 235410) A Participant of ASX Group
RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review
I think you should take out sitemap button from main navigation. Also this page http://www.seoed.com/glossary is pretty long and you don't have back to top button. It's clean and simple and I'll give you my $0.02.. regards, jazz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Miles Tillinger Sent: sreda, 9. jun 2004 3:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review I think the design is great, very clean and easy to read. My only thought as far as standards go is that for the title 'SEOed.com' you could use: h1span class=oneSeo/spanspan class=oneed/spanspan class=one.com/span/h1 instead of an image and format the text with CSS, using some spans to create the desired effect. Just my $0.02... Mt. -Original Message- From: Razvan Pop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] www.seoed.com - Please review Hello. http://www.seoed.com/ Please take a look at my site and tell me what you think. :) I would like some more opinions regarding usability and accessibility. I look forward for your feedback. Site in 90% finished. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] IE-Win / Floated List Issue
On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 01:51 PM, Michael Donnermeyer wrote: The Chapters are in an unordered list that's displayed inline and floated to the left. Of course the more proper browsers (Safari, Mozillas, Opera, IE-Mac) are handling everything correctly...IE Win however has decided to be a monster (imagine that). MD, this was just a real quick look, but I can't see where you have the lis floated; they are just inline. Have a look at the solution Kristof came up with recently on a similar issue: http://kristof.f2o.org/test/image_thumbs_and_captions/ I think you'll be able to adapt his code pretty quickly. Hope this helps. Nick ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
ADMIN thread closed Re: [WSG] What Editors do you guys use?
This thread is now closed. Please put up your editors on the WSG website in the category provided. I've provided instructions on how to do this in a previous post. regards James Michael Donnermeyer wrote: On the Macs I usually use either Dreamweaver MX 2004 (code view) or BBEdit 7.1 for all my coding. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
