Re: [WSG] Zeroing default padding/margin
Hi all, I guess I should add my 2 cents as well :) re: Russ' comments -- > 1. Once you have removed all margin and padding, this method relies on you > specifically styling the margins and padding of each HTML element that you > intend to use. On smaller sites where you may only need to style specific > containers and elements this method is very verbose and wasteful. Perhaps listing troublesome elements instead of the wildcard selector would be a more favourable option for some, I prefer the clean slate approach. RE: Verbosity; probably, but not necessarily. I've most recently used this technique with a 5 page brochure-ware site to accompany my band's upcoming ep and I honestly don't think it added a noticable amount of weight. The benefits were immedietly noticable -- this site's design (url not avail. yet) took a 3 lazy hours to code and wasn't checked once in IE during the coding. Guess what? IE6 was identical in every way to Moz/FF+Op the very first time! My jaw dropped and I danced around the house like an idiot while the singer and bass player just stared at me as though I had lost the plot. I'm not going to pretend to be some kind of css-jedi that doesn't need to test in IE -- I was as surprised as anyone else would be. That declaration and a solid knowledge of when to throw in a 'position:relative;' were entirely responsible for slashing potentially up to an hour of debugging (depending on how many early evening beverages were consumed during ;) > 2. If you were to pass your site on to others who were less aware of CSS, > this method could cause great confusion. The method relies on an > understanding that any used HTML elements will have to be specifically > styled. If you were to pass your site to others who are less aware off css AND told them that they didn't have to worry about cancelling 'empty space' because everything was up to them, this method could cause great liberation. Well, I doubt it; but you get the idea. In the cases I've seen - mostly on codingforums.com - beginners develop bad cases of 'class-itis' due to a fear of using tag name selectors. This encourages/forces them to address the elements immedietly and individually; hopefully causing a greater focus on semantics in the process. ie "What content does this page have? What tags will I use?" instead of "Hmm... better use another div for this sentance". High hopes, I know :\ We can't on the one hand say "Don't rely on browser defaults" and on the other say "don't screw with the defaults -- future code monkeys will be confused". Each to their own; but you knew I wasn't going to agree from the get go. Lachlan wrote: >I found out later that a significant portion of the class has now adopted it for their own stylesheets. That's fantastic :D I didn't think anyone would even care about such a simple tactic. Many thanks for sharing! ...and to finally get to Nick's question: Personally, I don't think I'll ever stop using it; but there's no prize for guessing I was going to say that. All the client sites I've done since using this trick (none of which have been added to my folio...Damn I'm slack!) have had the CSS split up into: - default.css [page layout only] - type.css [all global typography, starting with declarations like p, pre, blockquote, etc...] - any other site specific stuff (eg. menu.css) Splitting the css into positioning and typography can be very helpful in conjunction to the global reset, but you have to have your wits about you to keep things neat and well ordered. -- Andrew http://leftjustified.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] Appreciate browser check, please
Hi Natalie It sure is ! Thanks for checking. Lyn Natalie Buxton wrote: Seems to be working fine on Mac - Mozilla/Safari and on Windows XP Mozilla/IE. My sis lives in Mandurah, Im from Perth, and family is from Midland. What a small world this interweb is ** 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] w3c badges
The only other one I have is this: http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/w3c_xhtml.png (html 1.0). Michael Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:19:30 +1000 Subject: Re: [WSG] w3c badges > On 10/17/04 8:58 PM "Michael Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > > > Here are two nicer looking ones > > > > http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validx.gif (xhtml 1.1) > > http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validc.gif (css) > > > > Michael Dale > > Those are pretty nice! Are there more? > > Thanks > > Rick Faaberg > > ** > 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] w3c badges
< my 2c > Good: It helps promote standards Not so good: you look like a pratt if it doesn't validate I think it's a matter of personal taste. I use text links on my sites, but not on sites I develop for work I think it you do use them, it's probably good to have an explanation (alt, title or fuller explanation?) somewhere for the users that don't have a clue what they mean. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:34:38 +1000, Jason Foss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Customers don't really care - it's true - but I've started using those > "Steal these Buttons" ones (on clients' sites as well) to try and help build > awareness. I don't think it does any harm... > > Jason > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rick Faaberg > Sent: Monday, 18 October 2004 2:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [WSG] w3c badges > > > I also agree with your last point - the general public neither knows > > nor cares about this stuff. We developers only do it for > > self-congratulation and brownie points from other developers and > > standards zealots. I'd certainly think twice (or more) before putting them > on a client's site. > > What is your opinion (and practice) with regard to putting the W3C badges on > you clients' sites? > > I'm thinking "just don't do it". > > Best, > > Rick Faaberg > > ** > 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 > ** > > -- Gmail invites - just ask nicely ** 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] w3c badges
On 10/17/04 8:58 PM "Michael Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > Here are two nicer looking ones > > http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validx.gif (xhtml 1.1) > http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validc.gif (css) > > Michael Dale Those are pretty nice! Are there more? Thanks Rick Faaberg ** 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] w3c badges
I think for most clients you just don't go there - after all, it's their site, not yours. They don't know or care about web standards, and neither do their clients - it just doesn't mean anything to them, so is hardly useful for evangelical purposes. Imagine if all TV commercials had a "SMPTE" banner splashed across their final moments ... (Still, there are always exceptions.) Cheers, Kevin On 18/10/04 2:08 PM, "Rick Faaberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I also agree with your last point - the general public neither knows nor >> cares about this stuff. We developers only do it for self-congratulation and >> brownie points from other developers and standards zealots. I'd certainly >> think twice (or more) before putting them on a client's site. > > What is your opinion (and practice) with regard to putting the W3C badges on > you clients' sites? > > I'm thinking "just don't do it". > > Best, > > Rick Faaberg > > ** > 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] w3c badges
Customers don't really care - it's true - but I've started using those "Steal these Buttons" ones (on clients' sites as well) to try and help build awareness. I don't think it does any harm... Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Faaberg Sent: Monday, 18 October 2004 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] w3c badges > I also agree with your last point - the general public neither knows > nor cares about this stuff. We developers only do it for > self-congratulation and brownie points from other developers and > standards zealots. I'd certainly think twice (or more) before putting them on a client's site. What is your opinion (and practice) with regard to putting the W3C badges on you clients' sites? I'm thinking "just don't do it". Best, Rick Faaberg ** 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] w3c badges
> I also agree with your last point - the general public neither knows nor > cares about this stuff. We developers only do it for self-congratulation and > brownie points from other developers and standards zealots. I'd certainly > think twice (or more) before putting them on a client's site. What is your opinion (and practice) with regard to putting the W3C badges on you clients' sites? I'm thinking "just don't do it". Best, Rick Faaberg ** 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] w3c badges
Here are two nicer looking ones http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validx.gif (xhtml 1.1) http://blog.dalegroup.net/images/validc.gif (css) Michael Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:50:25 +1000 Subject: [WSG] w3c badges > Hi all, > > Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot > more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? > > Or do I just put up text that says "W3C Valid"? Is that what you do? > > Or just forget it entirely, 'cause who beside developers care in the first > place? > > Best, > > Rick Faaberg > > ** > 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] w3c badges
You're free to make your own W3C badges to place on your site. Most people I see, incl. myself, just use text links in the footer. W3C won't hunt you down for infringement or anything. You're right though, if they had some quality official badges that didn't stick out like a sore thumb, I'd probably use them alot more often. :) Rick Faaberg wrote: Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? Or do I just put up text that says "W3C Valid"? Is that what you do? Or just forget it entirely, 'cause who beside developers care in the first place? Best, Rick Faaberg -- Ryan Christie| e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harrisonburg, VA | w: http://theward.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] w3c badges
Have you seen these...? http://www.antipixel.com/blog/archives/2002/10/22/steal_these_buttons.html I made orange versions for my own home page Regards - PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:50:25 -0700, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? ** 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] w3c badges
Hi Rick, You're not tied to using the W3C images, and there are a few good replacements around. I'm using a pretty common set of examples on the front page of my site (http://www.klp.com.au/). They're not mine, and I've forgotten exactly where I borrowed them from (so apologies to the original creator), but they are free to use (otherwise I wouldn't be using them). I also agree with your last point - the general public neither knows nor cares about this stuff. We developers only do it for self-congratulation and brownie points from other developers and standards zealots. I'd certainly think twice (or more) before putting them on a client's site. Cheers, Kevin On 18/10/04 12:50 PM, "Rick Faaberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot > more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? > > Or do I just put up text that says "W3C Valid"? Is that what you do? > > Or just forget it entirely, 'cause who beside developers care in the first > place? > > Best, > > Rick Faaberg > > ** > 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] Off Topic - Usability question for WSG members
Sorry everyone, I hadn't realised. Thanks for the email. Lisa -Original Message- From: Hugh Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Off Topic - Usability question for WSG members Lisa, Not answering your question, but as far as usability of the *WSG list* is concerned, please remember to use plain text emails. Sorry that you happen to be the one who cops criticism this time, but could all list members please remember *not* to use HTML emails. In your case, Lisa (and in many others) your text looks really tiny in my email program, which affects legibility. :) Hugh Todd > What I'd like to know is your personal opinion of what you think > impacts the user experience both positively and negatively. ** 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] Off Topic - Usability question for WSG members
Lisa, Not answering your question, but as far as usability of the *WSG list* is concerned, please remember to use plain text emails. Sorry that you happen to be the one who cops criticism this time, but could all list members please remember *not* to use HTML emails. In your case, Lisa (and in many others) your text looks really tiny in my email program, which affects legibility. :) Hugh Todd What I'd like to know is your personal opinion of what you think impacts the user experience both positively and negatively. ** 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] w3c badges
Maybe you can try making your own here: http://kalsey.com/tools/buttonmaker/ You can make the colors match your site. hope that helps, Zulema · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Z u l e m a O r t i z W e b D e s i g n e r email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://zoblue.com/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Rick Faaberg wrote: Hi all, Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? Or do I just put up text that says "W3C Valid"? Is that what you do? Or just forget it entirely, 'cause who beside developers care in the first place? Best, Rick Faaberg ** 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] Off Topic - Usability question for WSG members
Hello all,All of us here are interested in the use of web standards for various reasons including the positive impact it has on the user experience.Add these considerations to the interface design and there's a lot of things to consider with regard to the final impact on the end user.What I'd like to know is your personal opinion of what you think impacts the user experience both positively and negatively. This might be based on testing you've done, research, reading or intuition, but what I want is your personal ideas on:1) The 5 most common usability issues that typically hinder a positive user experience.2) The 5 most common usability issues that typically add to a positive user experience. Listing 1 as the highest rating and 5 as the lowest rating. Also if you could indicate your role (eg web designer, programmer, educator etc) and whether or not you have completed user testing in the past, that would be great. My intention is to compile all answers and report back to the list once more with the final results. No respondants or the organisation for which they work will be identified personally. The information is being gathered for personal interest only and will not be used in any way for commercial use or profit.Please reply to me off-list. Thanks in advance, Lisa
Re: [WSG] Zeroing default padding/margin
Thanks for the reply Russ, I agree that it's really down to the situation. Some further thoughts from your points: Smaller sites would presumably have less people working on them and therefore the issue of confusion is possibly less relevant, though the problem of verbosity may be. On the other hand presumably in most cases you'd be starting from a "base" stylesheet anyway so verbosity with regards to maintenance may not be an issue either. That really leaves potentially heavy stylesheets and hence file sizes. On larger sites I wonder if the verbosity issue balances out ...e.g. you don't specifically need to set margins:0; padding: 0; on numerous elements just as you do need to set them otherwise on other elements. However, the introduction of new, and therefore "zero'd" elements (e.g. an in an article added by a CMS) is a good point. So to narrow down my original question: How do those who use it find the balance between file size/verbosity and the debugging benefits/time saving? Thanks, Nick 1. Once you have removed all margin and padding, this method relies on you specifically styling the margins and padding of each HTML element that you intend to use. On smaller sites where you may only need to style specific containers and elements this method is very verbose and wasteful. 2. If you were to pass your site on to others who were less aware of CSS, this method could cause great confusion. The method relies on an understanding that any used HTML elements will have to be specifically styled. You may have styled all elements you needed at the time, but what if a new element was added by someone else at a later date? They may have no idea why the element does not operate like it should. ** 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] w3c badges
Hi all, Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? Or do I just put up text that says "W3C Valid"? Is that what you do? Or just forget it entirely, 'cause who beside developers care in the first place? Best, Rick Faaberg ** 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] Urgent Help, why is site flaking out on Mac 5.2?
It's broken in Firefox 1.0PR as well (iMAC running OSX 10.2.8) but looks OK in Safari. You have the logo top left in a separate div to the header for some reason. Why not make it one div running across the page width? Or, take off the height 100px from #homecorner and make the BG colour black. Regards PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:38:39 -0500 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you look at a site for me and tell me why it's degrading so badly under Mac 5.2? > Working well on most other browsers that I've checked, but if you have a different > one and want to test and let me know, I would appreciate that. ** 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] Validator error
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Well, I tried recreating a simple document like the one you describe, with missing ALT attribute on the image...but can't seem to reproduce the slew of errors you're reporting. Any chance you can upload the broken page so we can have a look if there's anything specific to your document that may be causing this behaviour? I should clear up two points: there were non-SGML character warnings and, since I fixed the problem, what I would like to know is "Why?" (I suppose my post was in part a rant, but only in part.) Try: —Test Thanks. ** 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] Appreciate browser check, please
Seems to be working fine on Mac - Mozilla/Safari and on Windows XP Mozilla/IE. My sis lives in Mandurah, Im from Perth, and family is from Midland. What a small world this interweb is. :) On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:24:45 +0100, Jorge Laranjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the attachment. > Ok, from now on i'll send them to the person concerned > > > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:51:00 +1000, Nick Gleitzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 18 Oct 2004, at 12:33 AM, Jorge Laranjo wrote: > > > > > Looks good in Safari 1.2.3 (v 125.9) in the Mac OS X. > > > In Attach i send you a Shoot of that look... > > > > Jorge - please, no attachments to this list. 100KB+ for a message is > > too big. If you would like to help out with screenshots, send them > > off-list to the person concerned. Thanks - > > 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 > > ** > > > > > > -- > Atentamente, > Jorge Laranjo > > email > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > site > http://lesi.host.sk/fueg0/ > msn > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > aim > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > jabber > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > -- -- Freelance Website Designer/Developer www.pixelkitty.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] Zeroing default padding/margin
Not sure about the * declaration but the 11 browsers intrigues me? What joe bloggs user out there looks at a website in 11 browsers? Broken to us in Netscape 4 might mean "works fine" to the Netscape 4 user. If one browser gives me 2px padding and another gives me 1px then I'm not fussed as long as the content is readable and understandable. Cheers James Nick Lo wrote: It doesn’t seem like much at first, but wait till you look at your mildly styled form in 11 browsers to find the positioning identical in all of them; or your button-style lists are perfect the first time, every time." ** 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] Zeroing default padding/margin
Nick Lo wrote: I was just reading the article excerpted below and was curious as to how many on the list have used this technique of initially setting all padding and margins to 0 and if so how successful was it? Well, I've used it a few times since I read that article and it rocks In the relatively short time since then I've included in two of my own projects and suggested its use to a student. In the former case, I've found the added control makes everything so much easier. In the latter case it allowed her to centre her inline unordered list (she was seriously struggling with her navigation), and a few other things on her page all fell into place. I found out later that a significant portion of the class has now adopted it for their own stylesheets I haven't encountered any problems with its use yet. I can't really envisage any. Obviously you need to add padding and margins specifically to most elements now, but I find that a benefit. After all, I rarely rely on default values for lists, paragraphs or headings So thanks to Andrew (who I believe is a member?). I don't know why I never thought of it before, especially after Eric Meyer's article on removing default CSS; but I didn't, so kudos to you In other words, Nick, I say use it all the time. I am ** 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] Zeroing default padding/margin
Hi Nick,
I think this is very interesting but I have two problems with it:
1. Once you have removed all margin and padding, this method relies on you
specifically styling the margins and padding of each HTML element that you
intend to use. On smaller sites where you may only need to style specific
containers and elements this method is very verbose and wasteful.
This means you are almost replicating aspects of the supposed default
browser style sheet:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/sample.html
2. If you were to pass your site on to others who were less aware of CSS,
this method could cause great confusion. The method relies on an
understanding that any used HTML elements will have to be specifically
styled.
You may have styled all elements you needed at the time, but what if a new
element was added by someone else at a later date? They may have no idea why
the element does not operate like it should.
For example, what if you never needed a blockquote (and therefore never
specifically styled this element) but someone needed in the future? They may
be very confused why the blockquote had no margins - which it normally
would in default behaviour.
A softer option may be to do this on specific troublesome elements (by
troublesome I mean ones that may vary greatly across browsers). For example;
forms, fieldsets, submit buttons etc.
Like anything, I guess it comes down the the needs of the site and the
developer.
2c
Russ
> I was just reading the article excerpted below and was curious as to
> how many on the list have used this technique of initially setting all
> padding and margins to 0 and if so how successful was it?
>
> * {
> padding:0;
> margin:0;
> }
**
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] Validator error
you got it. This link from the w3 might help (I hope): http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html I try to stick with the alpha-based entities anyway, so that when I look at it later, I can easily recall which character I used. > I don't have an answer, but can I add to the question? > > I get 'non-SGML character' warnings (NB warnings, not errors) when I > use, say, & instead of & to escape an ampersand. Which syntax > fpr character entities is correct? Or does it depend on the charset > specified in the Content-Type? I understand that & is Unicode, but > I always (well, usually) specify iso-8859-1. Is this why I'm getting > these warnings? Should I stick to the alpha-based entity descriptions > for iso-8859-1? ** 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] Zeroing default padding/margin
I was just reading the article excerpted below and was curious as to
how many on the list have used this technique of initially setting all
padding and margins to 0 and if so how successful was it?
"A big part of dealing with cross-browser differences is accounting for
the default property values of elements in each browser; namely padding
and margin. I use the following declaration in every new site I design;
it has saved me many hours of nitpicking.
* {
padding:0;
margin:0;
}
It doesn’t seem like much at first, but wait till you look at your
mildly styled form in 11 browsers to find the positioning identical in
all of them; or your button-style lists are perfect the first time,
every time."
http://leftjustified.net/journal/2004/10/07/css-negotiation/
Thanks,
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] Validator error
On 18 Oct 2004, at 6:05 AM, Mordechai Peller wrote: Let me start by saying that I have enough experience with syntax checker to know that the error message doesn't always point to the right place and that one error can generate many messages. But that being said, I think this one takes the cake. The DOCTYPE was set to XHTML 1.0 STRICT and the page had an image missing an alt attribute on line 68 so of course it didn't validate. But instead of just a "Line 68, column 104: required attribute "alt" not specified," I got eight more errors, five before and three after, all "reference to non-SGML character." Fix the missing alt error and everything else validates. What's going on? I don't have an answer, but can I add to the question? I get 'non-SGML character' warnings (NB warnings, not errors) when I use, say, & instead of & to escape an ampersand. Which syntax fpr character entities is correct? Or does it depend on the charset specified in the Content-Type? I understand that & is Unicode, but I always (well, usually) specify iso-8859-1. Is this why I'm getting these warnings? Should I stick to the alpha-based entity descriptions for iso-8859-1? Thx - 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] Validator error
Well, I tried recreating a simple document like the one you describe, with missing ALT attribute on the image...but can't seem to reproduce the slew of errors you're reporting. Any chance you can upload the broken page so we can have a look if there's anything specific to your document that may be causing this behaviour? Patrick Mordechai Peller wrote: Let me start by saying that I have enough experience with syntax checker to know that the error message doesn't always point to the right place and that one error can generate many messages. But that being said, I think this one takes the cake. The DOCTYPE was set to XHTML 1.0 STRICT and the page had an image missing an alt attribute on line 68 so of course it didn't validate. But instead of just a "Line 68, column 104: required attribute "alt" not specified," I got eight more errors, five before and three after, all "reference to non-SGML character." Fix the missing alt error and everything else validates. What's going on? ** 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·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Validator error
Let me start by saying that I have enough experience with syntax checker to know that the error message doesn't always point to the right place and that one error can generate many messages. But that being said, I think this one takes the cake. The DOCTYPE was set to XHTML 1.0 STRICT and the page had an image missing an alt attribute on line 68 so of course it didn't validate. But instead of just a "Line 68, column 104: required attribute "alt" not specified," I got eight more errors, five before and three after, all "reference to non-SGML character." Fix the missing alt error and everything else validates. What's going on? ** 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] Appreciate browser check, please
Sorry for the attachment. Ok, from now on i'll send them to the person concerned On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:51:00 +1000, Nick Gleitzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 18 Oct 2004, at 12:33 AM, Jorge Laranjo wrote: > > > Looks good in Safari 1.2.3 (v 125.9) in the Mac OS X. > > In Attach i send you a Shoot of that look... > > Jorge - please, no attachments to this list. 100KB+ for a message is > too big. If you would like to help out with screenshots, send them > off-list to the person concerned. Thanks - > 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 > ** > > -- Atentamente, Jorge Laranjo email > [EMAIL PROTECTED] site > http://lesi.host.sk/fueg0/ msn > [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim > [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Appreciate browser check, please
On 18 Oct 2004, at 12:33 AM, Jorge Laranjo wrote: Looks good in Safari 1.2.3 (v 125.9) in the Mac OS X. In Attach i send you a Shoot of that look... Jorge - please, no attachments to this list. 100KB+ for a message is too big. If you would like to help out with screenshots, send them off-list to the person concerned. Thanks - 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 **
[WSG] A blog about css
Hi there folks! I'm portuguese but i run an English Blog about CSS. Please contribute for the cause and leave your comments. The URL is http://lesi.host.sk/fueg0/ Hope that can be useful. Thanks and keep the good work. -- Atentamente, Jorge Laranjo email > [EMAIL PROTECTED] site > http://lesi.host.sk/fueg0/ msn > [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim > [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Adding full doctype to pages
Thanks, Kay. I have just posted the pages asking for a browser check so will give that a day or two then I will add the full doctype to the relevant pages and post again. Kind regards Lyn Kay Smoljak wrote: Hi Lyn, On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:09:28 +0800, Lyn Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am using the full doc type http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> on my main page. I thought I should add it to all the other pages but when I did so, the contents of the left column moved towards the center in IE and Opera so I took it off and things reverted to normal. You should definitely have a full doctype on every page - without it your pages are not valid. The differences are due to IE and Opera going into "quirks mode" - emulating old (bad) browser behaviour - when no doctype is present. If you post the pages exhibiting the problem, I'm sure someone here will be able to give you some idea as to why. Cheers, Kay. ** 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] Adding full doctype to pages
Hi Lyn, On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:09:28 +0800, Lyn Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am using the full doc type Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> on my main page. > > I thought I should add it to all the other pages but when I did so, the > contents of the left column moved towards the center in IE and Opera > so I took it off and things reverted to normal. You should definitely have a full doctype on every page - without it your pages are not valid. The differences are due to IE and Opera going into "quirks mode" - emulating old (bad) browser behaviour - when no doctype is present. If you post the pages exhibiting the problem, I'm sure someone here will be able to give you some idea as to why. Cheers, Kay. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.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] Some links for light reading (17/10/04)
Validation is being argued about again. It began with this post: http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/10/abcnews-redesigns Which received some interesting comments via WASP: http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2004_10.html#a000460 Then posts followed thick and fast: http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archive/2004/10/standards-equals-validation# more http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200410/abc_news_all_that_glitters/ http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/10/14/ http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/10/standards There are heaps more posts on the subject but on to other stuff... Writing Lean CSS http://www.orderedlist.com/articles/writing_lean_css A few tips for using Lynx: http://www.brainstormsandraves.com/articles/browsers/lynx/ Unearthing the origins of Firefox: http://news.com.com/Unearthing+the+origins+of+Firefox/2008-1032_3-5406708.ht ml Visited Links and Updates http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/archives/70.php Styling even more form controls: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200410/styling_even_more_form_controls / Introduction to Databases: http://digital-web.com/articles/introduction_to_databases/ Thanks Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
