[WSG] computer arts mag article/review
Hello list, I picked up last months edition of computer arts, theres an article about creating liquid css layouts. dissapointing really, didnt got into detail. Also there was a review of Dreamweaver 8. CSS tools beefed up with a new css previewer. Looks good anybody used it yet? -kvnmcwebn ** 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] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Yes, I heard about these. Now if only someone would tell them to center their layouts!On 9/25/05, Jorge Colon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I don't know how long ago they made their switch. Looks like companies are starting to see how important it is to have a web site that uses webstandards.http://www.cingular.com - View Sourcehttp://www.verizonwireless.com - View Source**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review
kvnmcwebn wrote: Also there was a review of Dreamweaver 8. CSS tools beefed up with a new css previewer. Looks good anybody used it yet? I think it is much better than previous versions, but still no good to render complex layouts Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Neither of these site scales very well... and try them with javascript disabled. Christian Montoya wrote: Yes, I heard about these. Now if only someone would tell them to center their layouts! On 9/25/05, *Jorge Colon* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how long ago they made their switch. Looks like companies are starting to see how important it is to have a web site that uses web standards. http://www.cingular.com - View Source http://www.verizonwireless.com http://www.verizonwireless.com - View Source ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
CA? I just wish they'd make a mag where the print is easy to read. I could go blind trying to read one of their tutorias! Maybe the Print industry needs some new standards themselves ByteDreams http://www.bytedreams.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:27 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review Hello list, I picked up last months edition of computer arts, theres an article about creating liquid css layouts. dissapointing really, didnt got into detail. Also there was a review of Dreamweaver 8. CSS tools beefed up with a new css previewer. Looks good anybody used it yet? -kvnmcwebn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:;bytedreams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FN:bytedreams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20050718T045116Z END:VCARD
Re: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review
Considering none of the top designers use Dreamweaver, I could care less about a new version. If I was to buy an editor I'd probably go with Topstyle or something. For now, I have my trusty Notepad. On 9/25/05, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:kvnmcwebn wrote: Also there was a review of Dreamweaver 8. CSS tools beefed up with a new css previewer. Looks good anybody used it yet?I think it is much better than previous versions, but still no good torender complex layoutsThierry | www.TJKDesign.com**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Jorge Colon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how long ago they made their switch. Looks like companies are starting to see how important it is to have a web site that uses web standards. Yes, I heard about these. Now if only someone would tell them to center their layouts! Why? -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
Hi Nick [quote]The big advantage of em over % for font size is you can use em to control width of other sections of the web site like line length and container divs.[/quote] Oke, i get that. Use em's to determine the width of a div and the div will resize if the user sets his font size to let's say extra large. But this still doesn't tell me what the advantage is of using em's to determine font-size. Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm trying to understand it :) Wybe ncowie wrote: The big advantage of em over % for font size is you can use em to control width of other sections of the web site like line length and container divs. An em is equal to the width of an uppercase M in that font face and point size, except on the web it is 16 pixels or the if the font size has been declare = to the font height. I would suggest that it is to do with the width of an uppercase M in Times New Roman in the default size as the default font for a PC browser. I did a little experimenting a couple of days ago with ems on my blog http://nickcowie.com/2005/about-em Nick This email is from the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection and any information or attachments to it may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply mail to the sender informing them of the error and delete all copies from your computer system, including attachments and your reply email. As the information is confidential you must not disclose, copy or use it in any manner. ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
But i'm not suggesting to use pixel sizing as an alternative for using em's. I'm suggesting to use percentages instead of em's. Actually i'm asking: what is the difference between using percentages or em's? (when it comes to font-size). Some of you have been trying to answer that question for me, but as you understand: i still don't get it.. Wybe Gene Falck wrote: Hi, You wrote: Oke, i get that. Use em's to determine the width of a div and the div will resize if the user sets his font size to let's say extra large. But this still doesn't tell me what the advantage is of using em's to determine font-size. First, the real big one is to go along with what the user has set as his/her normal type size, it's good to use 100% (or 100.01% which is needed for other reasons). That's important because a user with impaired eyesight or a very high resolution on a relatively small screen may have the size cranked up to compensate. If you insist on pixel sizing, the viewing options are fewer. Second, some layouts have been known to break at some screen size / type size combinations when resized type tries to fit in where the designer put it. Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm trying to understand it Understood--when you have a question the only way to get the answer you need, sometimes, is to hang on like a bulldog. Regards, Gene Falck [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 ** ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
wybe wrote: what is the difference between using percentages or em's? (when it comes to font-size). None. All other things being equal, 1em = 100%, 0.75em = 75%, 0.5em = 50% and so on. IE has a problem if the topmost size you define is ems, but beyond that it's all exactly the same. As others have already mentioned, you can't use % to define other things in relation to text size (borders, padding, etc), but just speaking of font sizes, it makes no difference. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
I get that! thnx -- http://www.sceneone.nl Patrick H. Lauke wrote: wybe wrote: what is the difference between using percentages or em's? (when it comes to font-size). None. All other things being equal, 1em = 100%, 0.75em = 75%, 0.5em = 50% and so on. IE has a problem if the topmost size you define is ems, but beyond that it's all exactly the same. As others have already mentioned, you can't use % to define other things in relation to text size (borders, padding, etc), but just speaking of font sizes, it makes no difference. ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
ncowie wrote: An em is equal to the width of an uppercase M in that font face and That would be a print media em. For the web, we have a standard definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#em-width point size, except on the web it is 16 pixels or the if the font size has been declare = to the font height. No, it's not 16px. It's whatever size the user's browser default is set to. In most modern browsers, it just happens to start at 16px in most cases, but that is partly by accident, and is subject to user adjustment in multiple ways. Technically, the most common browser default is 12pt (IE Win), as it was in Netscape 4 and below. At the 96 DPI doze default, 12pt translates to 16px. No matter how a user adjusts his doze system font size, the default (medium) is always 12pt. If he selects large fonts, the DPI is changed to 120, with the result that 12pt in standards mode becomes 20px. Other easy to select system font size settings are 150% and 200%, making 12pt 24px and 32px respectively. Note that on high resolution (1400 or more wide) laptops, the manufacturers commonly change from the default to large fonts on the assembly line. Note too that laptops have overtaken desktop systems in sales, so large fonts by default aren't particularly uncommon any more. I would suggest that it is to do with the width of an uppercase M in Times New Roman in the default size as the default font for a PC browser. It's as the W3C defines it above. Different font families render at differing apparent sizes for any given nominal font size. Times New Roman is much smaller than Georgia and Verdana. I did a little experimenting a couple of days ago with ems on my blog http://nickcowie.com/2005/about-em Actually, the Times New Roman on that page isn't necessarily Times New Roman, since you failed to quote it in your style rule. On this system, all profiles in all browsers have the default set to 20px. On my Linux server, all profiles in all browsers have the default set to 28px, or an equivalent pt size. On my other systems, some are set to 16px, but most are set higher, typically to 22px (1400 wide) or 26px (1600 wide). 16px can be awfully small compared to the default (unlike the assertion on your page): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/points-168d-1792w.png http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/PointsDemo.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/nickcowie1.png Since your your blog link above ATM isn't valid XHTML http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnickcowie.com%2F2005%2Fabout-em, I've taken the liberty of reducing it to the testcase and description, with some minor adjustments at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/about-em.html in order to provide an alternate look, with a 1280 wide resolution OS/2 screenshot at http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/nickcowie2.png showing Times New Roman doesn't necessarily fit your description. -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
Christian, Do you think we should care about what top designers use? ;) I'm sure we care what they do. I was just making the point that the magazine sounds stupid. Hey Christian, Do you use a pencil and a sheet of A4 first, then transcribe that to notepad? That's clearly what a emrealem designer would do. . . Yes, I design on paper with pencil, and then work in Notepad or Wordpad.
RE: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review
-Original Message- From: Christian Montoya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 26 September 2005 3:33 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review Considering none of the top designers use Dreamweaver, I could care less about a new version. Dreamweaver is not for design. It's for the step afterwards when you take the work from the designer and make a website out of it. I hope our designer will always use Photoshop, not Notepad. But of course that's a personal preference. Our top programmers all use Dreamweaver, though. And the new Dreamweaver 8 does look interesting (mostly so the feature to expand the code). But as mentioned previously, it does not render all the css correctly yet, so I am not sure if it is worth the money upgrading. ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
Howdy I'm new to the list but have been lurking for a while. Some great stuff here. I posted this semi-review of Dreamweaver to the Apple web dev list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and here it is... Incidentally, is there some sort of 'real' designer certificate I can get?! ;) I've been test-driving the new version of Dreamweaver - I'd pretty much sworn off it and have been using BBEdit almost exclusively for the last year or so. This have been great for developing my own skills - nothing like a plain text editor to really teach you what is going on - especially as BBEdit is such a great tool. Having said all that, I must say that Dreamweaver 8 has been quite a surprise. The rendering of CSS layouts is considerably improved - it just has a few minor quirks but most of my layouts aren't complex. The interface for editing CSS is less cumbersome and I find many of the new coding tools very handy (being able to hide a block of code is more useful than I initially thought). I must admit that I am still developing the templates in BBEdit then bringing them into DW to build the site and work on the content. More complex pages I still tend to edit in BBEdit. The speed is better - my archaic 450MHz G4 (count those hertz!) has no problems - it used to choke and crash with MX 2004. There are several interface improvements too, I especially like the tabbed window feature and the modal FTP window. Initially I thought it was suffering from feature bloat but it has been the opposite. I think that it has matured as a fine piece of software. Ideally, I think it would be great to edit the content directly into BBEdit preview window and assign classes and ids via a contextual menu. If I could I probably wouldn't use DW as much - probably just for the FTP syncing and template features. Fireworks on the other hand is almost identical to MX '04, though the speed improvements is nice on older machines - it used to take ages to load. I much prefer it to Photoshop for web graphics (but use PS for bitmaps). I hope FW survives... ImageReady is too Photoshoppy for me. FW looks to be tied in more with Flash, so maybe SWF developers would appreciate v.8 more than I. and no... I don't work for Macromedia... or is that Adobe?! ... or anyone; I'm self-employed! Just a couple of pennies... 8-) Duncan - Sprocket Web Design www.sprocket.co.nz - On 26/09/2005, at 3:27 AM, kvnmcwebn wrote: Hello list, I picked up last months edition of computer arts, theres an article about creating liquid css layouts. dissapointing really, didnt got into detail. Also there was a review of Dreamweaver 8. CSS tools beefed up with a new css previewer. Looks good anybody used it yet? -kvnmcwebn ** 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] Using CSS for Flash backgrounds
Hello all, I read recently that it wasn't possible to have flash backgrounds so I thought I'd give it a go. Turns out it is possible but it won't work in Opera and I'm curious as to why it won't. http://www.jomni.com/sandbox/flash_bg/ Any ideas? Thanks, Jon
RE: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review
-Original Message- From: Duncan Heal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 26 September 2005 9:50 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review Howdy I've been test-driving the new version of Dreamweaver - I'd pretty much sworn off it and have been using BBEdit almost exclusively for the last year or so. This have been great for developing my own skills - nothing like a plain text editor to really teach you what is going on - especially as BBEdit is such a great tool. Hi Duncan, Thanks for the summary of your experiences with Dreamweaver. It's interesting to hear it from the point of view of somebody using a fairly similar product (BBEdit). I would be interested to hear what you feel is the advantage of BBEdit over Dreamweaver? I used BBEdit a long time ago and at that time the coding window was actually very similar to Homesite. From my personal perspective, Dreamweaver has a fantastic coding view similar to Homesite, with the additional features of FTP, CSS and Site Management. So is there something BBEdit can offer that Dreamweaver doesn't do? Why would you start programming in BBEdit and then go over to Dreamweaver to finish it off? 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] computer arts mag article/review
Dreamweaver is not for design. It's for the step afterwards when you take the work from the designer and make a website out of it. I hope our designer will always use Photoshop, not Notepad. But of course that's a personal preference. Do most wsg members - who do both the design and mark up - actually go to code when the design is done without looking back? I try but alway end up going back and forth to make improvments. It eats time. This is probably the biggest benefit of the whole web standards process for me, i mean the time it saves when i decide to change something after im 30 pages into a site. I guess part of my question is when do you know the design is there from a wsg point of view? Is it when you know the client will go wow that looks nice? maybe this is o.t. and too subjective a topic - up late -kvnmcwebn ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
On 26 Sep 2005, at 9:50 AM, Duncan Heal wrote: Incidentally, is there some sort of 'real' designer certificate I can get?! ;) Yup, it's called a cheque from a satisfied client. 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] Using CSS for Flash backgrounds
They probally meant setting it in CSS. Of course it's possible putting it over the top.Have you tried simple things such as z-index?Do you have a screenshot of what happens for those of us who have yet to install Opera.On 26 Sep 2005, at 00:57, Jon Dawson wrote:Hello all, I read recently that it wasn't possible to have flash backgrounds so I thought I'd give it a go. Turns out it is possible but it won't work in Opera and I'm curious as to why it won't. http://www.jomni.com/sandbox/flash_bg/ Any ideas? Thanks, Jon
Re: [WSG] Using CSS for Flash backgrounds
I thought it was not possible, since flash is suppose to be rendered outside the browser and place on top by the OS at least for windows anyway. I use flash some times and am not dead against it, I viewed you example in disbelief not expecting it to work I did in IE. I think it would in FF, but I have flash blocker install (I don't like flash always) It also did in Opera too Having said that its a really Bad idea to progress and use it in a site. I expect your going to get alarmed responses to this post Buzy backgrounds make text hard to read. simple fact. Movement is buzy. The question this post also raises in when is it time to tell the client that they are asking for something that is detremental to the site overall. heres a list of people I consider when making a site 1. The User 2. Site Owner 3. Site Maintainer anyway it was interesting, off the wall aswell, atb - S Jon Dawson wrote: Hello all, I read recently that it wasn't possible to have flash backgrounds so I thought I'd give it a go. Turns out it is possible but it won't work in Opera and I'm curious as to why it won't. http://www.jomni.com/sandbox/flash_bg/ Any ideas? Thanks, Jon ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
If you're that worried about qualifications. There are university courses etc. I've found a lot of firms look first at qualifcations before portfolio. Silly but it happens. On 26 Sep 2005, at 01:13, Nick Gleitzman wrote: On 26 Sep 2005, at 9:50 AM, Duncan Heal wrote: Incidentally, is there some sort of 'real' designer certificate I can get?! ;) Yup, it's called a cheque from a satisfied client. 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 ** ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
On 26 Sep 2005, at 10:11 AM, kvnmcwebn wrote: Do most wsg members - who do both the design and mark up - actually go to code when the design is done without looking back? I try but alway end up going back and forth to make improvments. It eats time. This is probably the biggest benefit of the whole web standards process for me, i mean the time it saves when i decide to change something after im 30 pages into a site. I guess part of my question is when do you know the design is there from a wsg point of view? Is it when you know the client will go wow that looks nice? maybe this is o.t. and too subjective a topic No, I don't think it's OT. To qualify my tongue-in-cheek comment about a cheque - design is not a static process. It's a continuum. And with this medium in particular, unlike print where sooner or later a commitment has to be made, the design process carries right into production. Many clients will continue to request changes as they 'live with' the designs we supply, and coding to Standards, as you say, makes incorporating those changes much, much easier - regardless of what stage of development a site is at. That's not to say we shouldn't charge for those changes, of course. Careful control of 'scope creep' and a clear agreement about what constitutes author's corrections should always be in place... 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] computer arts mag article/review
-Original Message- From: kvnmcwebn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 26 September 2005 10:11 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review Dreamweaver is not for design. It's for the step afterwards when you take the work from the designer and make a website out of it. I hope our designer will always use Photoshop, not Notepad. But of course that's a personal preference. Do most wsg members - who do both the design and mark up - actually go to code when the design is done without looking back? I try but alway end up going back and forth to make improvments. It eats time. The way we do it is to hand a draft design to the client that was made in Photoshop. Once the client is happy with the design, it then goes to the developers to do the markup. In some cases the designers will come back in again for refinement and to solve problems if the limitations of Web Standards are too big, but this only happens in small cases and hardly changes the design. And our designers will always make the changes on Photoshop while the markup is being done by the programmers. It's probably a bigger problem if one person does both - design and markup - as you will get new ideas while you do the coding. As you mentioned, kvnmcwebn, that eats time. That's why we try to stick to the design the client has approved. Otherwise you just go on making improvements forever. ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Considering none of the top designers use Dreamweaver, I could care less about a new version. Who are the top designers? Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] Slashdot HTML 4.01 and CSS
Yeah, it's been nice, that was one of the things I alwasy hated about slashdot. It got particularly funny and flamish whenever they posted articles that had to do with web standards. It's great to see more big sites moving towards web standards, hopefully Google will get around to it some day. Nick Lo wrote: Slashdot HTML 4.01 and CSS After 8 years of my nasty, crufty, hodge podged together HTML, last night we finally switched over to clean HTML 4.01 with a full complement of CSS. While there are a handful of bugs and some lesser used functionality isn't quite done yet, the transition has gone very smoothly. You can use our sourceforge project page to submit bugs and we'd really appreciate the feedback. Thanks to Tim Vroom for putting the HTML in place, Wes Moran for writing the HTML in the first place, and Pudge for writing the code to convert 900k users, 60k stories, and 13 million comments to comply. And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot: some sort of official contest to re-design Slashdot is coming soon, so you can get a head start now. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/22/1324207from=rss ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: It's probably a bigger problem if one person does both - design and markup - as you will get new ideas while you do the coding. Good point! ;) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] computer arts mag article/review
Thanks but I think my BA in Design Studies and 8 years media experience just might be enough:) Interesting the whole qualifications vrs. portfolio thing. Personally, as a small business owner, qualifications wouldn't mean a hell of a lot - I'd put more emphasis on what work they can do. Being in a provincial New Zealand town does change things though - not too many IT qualifications around here! I just wish I had more of those cheques. And, yeah, who *are* the top designers?! On 26/09/2005, at 12:24 PM, Zach Inglis wrote: If you're that worried about qualifications. There are university courses etc. I've found a lot of firms look first at qualifcations before portfolio. Silly but it happens. On 26 Sep 2005, at 01:13, Nick Gleitzman wrote: On 26 Sep 2005, at 9:50 AM, Duncan Heal wrote: Incidentally, is there some sort of 'real' designer certificate I can get?! ;) Yup, it's called a cheque from a satisfied client. 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 ** ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
Hi Duncan, Thanks for the summary of your experiences with Dreamweaver. nice to know someone read it I would be interested to hear what you feel is the advantage of BBEdit over Dreamweaver? I would have to say it's largely the nice mix of features and simplicity. The interface is as complicated as you want - or just a singular window. Too many programs these days have a billion features and then have a million buttons, panels, dialog boxes etc. I know what I am doing (or at least, like to think so). I don't need a wizard to set my page background to fuchsia. So is there something BBEdit can offer that Dreamweaver doesn't do? BBedit is more than just a web IDE. It can edit any text document and has great support for a shed load of languages - Perl, Phython, C++, Java, XML, Rez, Fortran etc lots of things I'll never use. It can run Shell scripts from within the app has a command line tool too (though I haven't toyed with these much). The FTP support is good but a little cumbersome. It's grep support is great (tho I've never mastered it). It just feels like a really solid program. Everything is well thought out. It offers a myriad of *useful* features but in a very svelte little app. Dreamweaver is too helpful (read: bloated). I find it does end up just getting in the way - much like that bloody paper clip in office! (I see you're making a web site...) Why would you start programming in BBEdit and then go over to Dreamweaver to finish it off? Mainly the speed. I don't think it's much to do with my old machine as I am quite patient. I type fast so I don't need little pop up menus and auto complete things (I know you can turn it off in DW). I like the way you can have a separate preview window - so you can have the the code and preview side by side (not above and below). I like the pop-up function menu too (it works for CSS selectors, HTML tags and PHP functions). I guess I am just used to BBEdit but I do like having DW as an option. Once you have the template down it's great to create the specific pages in DW using the template tools. Then drop in the content - edit it in situ. Even some of the image functions are useful (crop, resize etc.). Oh, and the speel check, though BB has that now. DW's also useful when you inherit sites. I like the FTP synchronizing feature in DW. It's easy to hit the key combo to upload a single page. In BB you have to either be editing the remote file (a handy feature but it means you don't have a local copy) or use the 'save to FTP server'. The synchronizing of a whole site is a necessity. I don't think BB does it quite like DW - I think it has a compare thing. I've actually been using Transmit quite a bit. The dock upload thing is nifty - you set up the site and you can just drag local docs to the icon and it uploads them to the appropriate directory. Clever. Umm... sorry about the rant. I don't normally hold my own opinion so highly. Duncan ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
That comment was a little short... I think I meant that Dreamweaver isn't a design tool... or something. Nevermind it. On 9/25/05, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Considering none of the top designers use Dreamweaver, I could carelessabout a new version.Who are the top designers?Al Sparber PVIIhttp://www.projectseven.comDesigning with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumblingmountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Then we agree to disagree :DFor you I could understand, but I think centered layouts are better for 1024 px viewers seeing a 800 px wide page. Regardless, If that whole space is something other than white space, I don't mind as much. But when I surf, I like websites to be directly in front of me... not off to the side. On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if only someone would tell them to center their layouts! Why? Because on wide/large screen (I live at 1280 pixels), left side layouts are a pain. Considering it takes about two lines of CSS to center a layout, it should be expected. If these layouts did something with the white space, I think I could live with it.I live above 1280px, and I'd much rather have one space on either sidethan smaller straddling spaces: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/rvlit1.png--Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you.Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata***http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/**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] validation error - blockquote
Hi can someone help me to understand this: Is blockquote not allow here? error message read: You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to appear. Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it in a container element (such as a paragraph/p) or forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as % and / are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes). html: h3.../h3 p.../p p.../p blockquote class=right.../blockquote p.../p p.../p thanks! tee ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: From my personal perspective, Dreamweaver has a fantastic coding view similar to Homesite, with the additional features of FTP, CSS and Site Management. Uhm... It *is* HomeSite, which Macromedia bought to add to their Dreamweaver Suite (they also bought ColdFusion, which shipped with HomeSite as the editing environment, eons ago). You can still purchase Homesite as a stand-alone app, and this old dog still swears by it; I use it daily. JF ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
Felix Miata wrote: No, it's not 16px. It's whatever size the user's browser default is set to. In most modern browsers, it just happens to start at 16px in most cases, but that is partly by accident, and is subject to user adjustment in multiple ways. The W3C has specified 16px/96ppi as a standard default text size, and most modern browsers on the Macintosh and Windows platforms have honored that specification since 2000*. (Alas, that rules out Netscape 4.x - grin) None-the-less, today's Standards compliant browser generally renders a default EM as 16 pixels. (See the W3C CSS1 Specifications at www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111#length-units plus the Errata Notice correcting the original CSS1 spec. www.w3.org/Style/css1-updates/REC-CSS1-19990111-errata.html) JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** 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] validation error - blockquote
tee wrote: Hi can someone help me to understand this: Is blockquote not allow here? html: h3.../h3 p.../p p.../p blockquote class=right.../blockquote p.../p p.../p You need to have a block level container inside your blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance: blockquote phere's the quote/p /blockquote -- Patrick H. Lauke __ 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
As a one-man show, I disagree with that statement as I find it advantageous for me to do it all as even in the early design stages I'm thinking about how this design can be used in a page most effectively and most easily coded up. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com Thierry Koblentz wrote: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: It's probably a bigger problem if one person does both - design and markup - as you will get new ideas while you do the coding. Good point! ;) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Using CSS for Flash backgrounds
It worked in IE, Firefox and Netscape but in Opera it just displays the swf and leaves no trace of the text. And I agree Sam, having movement like that behind text is one of the worst things you can do. It was more a Hey this is possible after all thing. For instance you could create a much larger swf with a subtle misty cloud effect whose movements are barely visible Then you could have your site content over the top of it. Might look nice :)
Re: [WSG] validation error - blockquote
Hi Patrick, thanks a lot. This totally makes sense. tee You need to have a block level container inside your blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance: blockquote phere's the quote/p /blockquote -- ** 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] 'em' versus '%'
Wybe wrote: Actually i'm asking: what is the difference between using percentages or em's? (when it comes to font-size). No difference for just font-size. The advantage comes in using ems for both font-size and layout dimensions. Your layout can be proportional to your font size. Read Patrick Griffith's Elastic Layout http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic/ Nick This email is from the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection and any information or attachments to it may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply mail to the sender informing them of the error and delete all copies from your computer system, including attachments and your reply email. As the information is confidential you must not disclose, copy or use it in any manner. ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
So what of the view that CSS-based design inhibits creativity? We can of course see many exceptions to this, but some years ago (think BlueRobot) CSS designs were significantly more blocky than table layouts of the same era. I'm not sure if I subscribe to this thinking or not -- but, playing the devil's advocate, there is evidence to suggest that _more_ designers are capable of coming up with something creative and aesthetically pleasing when working in design view without regard for code. I'm not suggesting CSS designers aren't capable of this (though that is a thought aired by others in the past), just that design without regard for feasibility in a particular framework is inherently more prone to yielding creative solutions. And yes, this is _web_ design, so we should bear the medium's limitations (and advantages) in mind when designing, but perhaps starting with establishing boundaries in the form of what is most easily coded up is more constraining than building your layout, then going back and altering [the design] if things just aren't possible in the medium. Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 21:52 -0400, Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: As a one-man show, I disagree with that statement as I find it advantageous for me to do it all as even in the early design stages I'm thinking about how this design can be used in a page most effectively and most easily coded up. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com Thierry Koblentz wrote: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: It's probably a bigger problem if one person does both - design and markup - as you will get new ideas while you do the coding. Good point! ;) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] computer arts mag article/review
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Considering none of the top designers use Dreamweaver From: Al Sparber Who are the top designers? Some bloke called Sparber at Project Seven is one of them I think. -- Peter Williams ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
I agree, both in regards to the web development process but also from a philosophic point of view. To me, the design and mark-up are so closely entwined that they are really the same thing, especially when you're aiming to create semantic code (where the code structure is a parallel of the page structure - meaning is expressed by form). Design is how something *works* not how something *looks* (read that again, slowly). The look of a web page is only another layer to the page (as an informational entity). A layer that can change depending on platform, device, user - screen, print, handheld, search engine, custom styles etc. The page has to work on several levels - usability, accessibility, appeal. An approach that only designs a web page for consumption by a web browser isn't really making the most of what the internet (not just the web) offers. Rather, a 'good' web page is one that can be consumed by the widest possible audience, independent of device. Or am I just being idealistic? I guess a 'good' web page simply meets its own specific goals. Having said that, a quality development process can create pages that can achieve specific goals without sacrificing its use to a wider audience. Surely that is one of the greatest features of the internet... convergence, lack of dependence on a particular device. We just have to remember that the message is more important than the medium. Sometimes hard to remember in the Xbox age. Yes, the coffee has just kicked in. Personally, I will code the page how I want it to be coded then work with that when it comes to the graphic design. I try not to have to alter my code to achieve what I want in regards to the look. Ahh, the beauty of CSS. But my own sites are relatively simple, I might have more freedom than the big boys. It seems to me, the further apart coders and designers are the less likely either are able to achieve their respective goals. Duncan As a one-man show, I disagree with that statement as I find it advantageous for me to do it all as even in the early design stages I'm thinking about how this design can be used in a page most effectively and most easily coded up. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com Thierry Koblentz wrote: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: It's probably a bigger problem if one person does both - design and markup - as you will get new ideas while you do the coding. Good point! ;) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 ** ** 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] validation error - blockquote
Hi Patrick, thanks a lot. This totally makes sense. tee You need to have a block level container inside your blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance: blockquote phere's the quote/p /blockquote A second thought. Can you point me to articles (non-w3c site) that explain the use of block quote. I wanted to make sure I fully understand it. Thanks! tee ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
On 9/25/2005 7:32 PM John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: Uhm... It *is* HomeSite, which Macromedia bought to add to their Dreamweaver Suite (they also bought ColdFusion, which shipped with HomeSite as the editing environment, eons ago). HomeSite+ 5.5 is the ColdFusion editor shipping with Studio 8. I use it a lot as well but it's very different from DW except in general layout. It's much better, for instance, for editing CF (or any other) code than DW, not as good (IMO) for editing mark-up. Just my USD0.02. -- Steve Clason Web Design and Development Boulder, Colorado, USA www.topdogstrategy.com (303)818-8590 ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
I'm not sure if I subscribe to this thinking or not -- but, playing thedevil's advocate, there is evidence to suggest that _more_ designers are capable of coming up with something creative and aesthetically pleasingwhen working in design view without regard for code. I'm not suggestingCSS designers aren't capable of this (though that is a thought aired by others in the past), just that design without regard for feasibility ina particular framework is inherently more prone to yielding creativesolutions.This may be true, but I have a lot more respect for creativity in the function of a website than creativity in the appearance. CSS is not just about visual appearance, it's about accessibility and use too. Plus, after media:screen, there's media:handheld and media:print, to name a couple areas where CSS is almost entirely about function, not appearance.
Re: [WSG] Using CSS for Flash backgrounds
You'd need to be careful with this obviously, but it's handy to know it can be done. I don't think that a Flash background is necessarily bad in itself - it all depends on *how* it's done. On 26/09/05, Jon Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It worked in IE, Firefox and Netscape but in Opera it just displays the swf and leaves no trace of the text. And I agree Sam, having movement like that behind text is one of the worst things you can do. It was more a Hey this is possible after all thing. For instance you could create a much larger swf with a subtle misty cloud effect whose movements are barely visible Then you could have your site content over the top of it. Might look nice :) -- Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.au http://www.waterfallweb.net Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
-Original Message- From: Duncan Heal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 26 September 2005 12:29 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review Design is how something *works* not how something *looks* (read that again, slowly). The look of a web page is only another layer to the page (as an informational entity). A layer that can change depending on platform, device, user - screen, print, handheld, search engine, custom styles etc. The page has to work on several levels - usability, accessibility, appeal. It seems to me, the further apart coders and designers are the less likely either are able to achieve their respective goals. Hmmm... You make some interesting points there. We might have to define a bit more what we are talking about: Let's say we have got an Interface Designer and a Graphic Designer. The Interface Designer does the job of planning functionality of a page and how it *works*. The Graphic Designer takes the ideas of the Interface Designer and makes them *look* nice. Then there's the Mockup Dude (for the lack of a better title). He grabs the stuff the Graphic Designer has created and puts it all together in HTML and CSS. I agree with you that all three probably need to have at least some kind of knowledge in Web Standards to consider the limitations at all times. But does the Graphic Designer have to be the same person as the Interface Designer and the Mockup Dude? In our organisation the Interface Designer and Mockup Dude are the same person, while the Graphic Designer is located far far away (down in Tasmania). As long as the Graphic Designer has got a certain amount of knowledge in regards to the limitations that Web Standards set, I don't see any reason why they should be the same person. As you mentioned: the look of a Web Page is only another layer. Let the Graphic Designer build one layer, the Mockup Dude the next, the Programmer creates another one, everything based on an Interface Design... it works fine! And everybody can specialise on what they are best at. ** 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] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if only someone would tell them to center their layouts! Why? Because on wide/large screen (I live at 1280 pixels), left side layouts are a pain. Considering it takes about two lines of CSS to center a layout, it should be expected. If these layouts did something with the white space, I think I could live with it. I live above 1280px, and I'd much rather have one space on either side than smaller straddling spaces: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/rvlit1.png Then we agree to disagree :D For you I could understand, but I think centered layouts are better for 1024 px viewers seeing a 800 px wide page. Why different for me than for them? With all the space on one side or the other, they, like I, have room without obscuring the page for some useful size window in a single whitespace that they don't have in two half size whitespaces, like a calculator, or a (gasp) popup window. Regardless, If that whole space is something other than white space, I don't mind as much. But when I surf, I like websites to be directly in front of me... not off to the side. I don't actually surf fullscreen, and my browser window is normally off center (to the right). A flush left page will be far closer to center screen for me than any centered page. -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] computer arts mag article/review
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] That comment was a little short... I think I meant that Dreamweaver isn't a design tool... or something. Nevermind it. No problem :-) ** 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] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
If you want to have two windows on the screen, shouldn't you resize your browser window? If it's resized, say 800 pixels wide, wouldn't a centered layout look the same as a left layout? Therefore, this is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Also, please try and imagine how centered and left layouts look for the majority of users, not you. 1024 pixels. Especially considering most users just surf. On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Christian Montoya wrote: On 9/25/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if only someone would tell them to center theirlayouts! Why? Because on wide/large screen (I live at 1280 pixels), left side layouts are a pain. Considering it takes about two linesof CSS to center a layout, it should be expected. If these layoutsdid something with the white space, I think I could live with it.I live above 1280px, and I'd much rather have one space oneither sidethan smaller straddling spaces: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/rvlit1.png Then we agree to disagree :D For you I could understand, but I think centered layouts are better for 1024 px viewers seeing a 800 px wide page. Why different for me than for them? With all the space on one side orthe other, they, like I, have room without obscuring the page for someuseful size window in a single whitespace that they don't have in two half size whitespaces, like a calculator, or a (gasp) popup window. Regardless, If that whole space is something other than white space, I don't mind as much. But when I surf, I like websites to be directly in front of me... not off to the side.I don't actually surf fullscreen, and my browser window is normally offcenter (to the right). A flush left page will be far closer to centerscreen for me than any centered page. --Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you.Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409Felix Miata*** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
[WSG] blockquote in screen viewer!
Hi, It seems that screen viewer doesn't show blockquote' content in italic. Is this supposed to be or I got the markup wrong. this is the page (in Chinese): http://www.whpsy.com/synth/view/04113002.htm The blockquotes are in light olive background within the p tags. /* Please ignore all validation errors. Italic looks awful in Chinese so it doesn't set to - Strictly speaking, there is no Italic this sort of thing in Chinese text, that means if you ever see site in Chinese that use Italic font, it's a borrowed from English. */ And an English page I was comparing. /* I am curious as to why it doesn't show italic in screen viewer */ http://www.gordonmac.com/testing/GMV20/ when view in lxyn screen viewer, the texts in the blockquote are not italic. http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php Thanks in advance for enlightenment. tee ** 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] Cingular and Verizon go Web Standard
Cingular: Nice job, but not valid - 59 errors in XHTML and an error in the CSS. Verizon Wireless: Again, nice job, but 49 errors in XHTML, an error in the CSS. They'll get there... Leslie Riggs I don't know how long ago they made their switch. Looks like companies are starting to see how important it is to have a web site that uses web standards. http://www.cingular.com - View Source http://www.verizonwireless.com - View Source ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
