On 12 Dec 2005, at 12:35 AM, Anthony Ettinger wrote:
you can include the much utilized Skip to content link at the top of
the page.
This *still* doesn't solve the problem of how to move up and down the
first level menu items. The standard keys (tab, for most of us) go
through the entire
Hi list.I'm trying to implement Eric Myers css code for pop-up text on hover, but are having difficulties making it work in IE (I have been successful before so I don't get this). On hover all the span tags that contain a seperator in the form of | to the right of the link are being moved a few
Can you possibly ditch the un-semantic pipe separators (|) and just
use border-right:1px solid #000; on the li elements? That would
probably help...
Josh
On 12/12/05, morten fjellman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list.
I'm trying to implement Eric Myers css code for pop-up text on hover, but
Hi again,
With regard to pixel values in the line height. I just found this
(http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/07/18/clickable.html)
article, and it is used there. I persoanlly can't see a problem with
it, but if you can tell me why you would not use, it, it would be much
appreciated.
On
Joshua Street wrote:
Can you possibly ditch the un-semantic pipe separators (|) and just
use border-right:1px solid #000; on the li elements? That would
probably help...
Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long history of being
used in navigation menus, and definitely
On 12/11/05, Nathan Wheatley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi again,
With regard to pixel values in the line height. I just found this
(http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/07/18/clickable.html)
article, and it is used there. I persoanlly can't see a problem with
it, but if you can tell me why
Geoff Pack wrote:
Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long history of being
used in navigation menus, and definitely have meaning.
Asterisks have a long history of being used to denote required form
fields...but that doesn't make them semantic either. Just like the pipe
On 12/11/05, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Street wrote:
Can you possibly ditch the un-semantic pipe separators (|) and just
use border-right:1px solid #000; on the li elements? That would
probably help...
Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long
Thanks for your help Christian.
I may still require a little help tomorrow if I am unable to get the
positioning done correctly, but I will post all changes I make to that
live site, so you can all see the progress.
First off, I will change it to from pixels measurements to em. I will
see how
Christian Montoya wrote:
If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you
wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long
history doesn't make them machine-readable.
Well, I have heard what they sound like when Opera reads them out, which is no
biggie.
Why are you using pipes in the first place? Why is a li with
border-right : 1px solid black; styled on it and spaced out with margins
and padding not sufficient? This smacks of using nbsp; for layout.
Samuel
Geoff Pack wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
If you heard what pipe separators
On 12/11/05, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people.
What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an
unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an
useable if
We're arguing about the semantics of the word semantics. New record for WSG. ;-)
On 12/12/05, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you
wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long
Samuel Richardson wrote:
Why are you using pipes in the first place? Why is a li with
border-right : 1px solid black; styled on it and spaced out
with margins
and padding not sufficient? This smacks of using nbsp; for layout.
Why? because it's more concise, uses less bandwidth, and
I thought this was a mailing list about web standards and semantics.
pitem 1 | item 2 | item 3/p
Doesn't mean anything semantically, it's telling me that their is a
paragraph with a bunch items in it and something called a pipe between
them, I don't know what a pipe is because I'm a blind
Christian Montoya wrote:
...
- I don't care how a page looks with CSS off, as long as a list really
looks like a list
And what does a list really look like? Which of the following is more correct:
My favourite fruits are watermelon, apples and bananas.
My favourite fruits are:
*
okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least.
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone
point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml?
and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is
deprecated.
many
I will be out of the office starting Mon 12/12/2005 and will not return
until Mon 01/16/2006.
I will respond to your message when I return.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Geoff Pack wrote:
As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most
people. What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You
could use an unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in
many cases, and not an useable if you want the list to be inline
when
On 12/11/05, Donna Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least.
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone
point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml?
and, second part of that, why does the
G'day
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone
point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml?
XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML4.01, in which i is not
deprecated. However, when talking about font style elements,
the spec says:
okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least.
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone
point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml?
and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is
deprecated.
A good
Donna Jones wrote:
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone
point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml?
Use the HTML 4.01 specification as guide...
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/
...as the same elements are allowed/deprecated in xhtml 1.0.
Thanks for that, Russ. I hadn't come across that neat chart before. Handy
reference.
But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as
optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
G'day
Paul Noone wrote:
But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as
optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional?
Good question, especially when the same document says:
Every HTML document must have a TITLE element in the HEAD
section. Can TITLE be placed
On 12/12/05, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for that, Russ. I hadn't come across that neat chart before. Handy
reference.
But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as
optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional?
Yep. Few people know this. try it
So how does one go about separating hidden head content and body content?
I mean, what happens to meta tags, page title, scripting functions etc.?
This seems to directly go against the purpose of our push, which I thought
was to keep these elements distinct and apart.
No doubt I've missed
On 12/12/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, so (to go along with the Google debate), we can save more
bandwidth by omitting html, head and body? Interesting.
Indeed, and Rimantas did just that in his version:
http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google.html
I'm slightly wary of doing
just want to say *thanks* you guys came through and fast!
my situation is working for an agency that wants/needs to italicize
everything and their sister. i have been using the i. i've also been
writing in html4.01 and actually plan on staying there. But, for a
drill i made a xhtml1.0
Donna Jones wrote:
is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml?
No. Also, deprecated elements appear in Transitional DTDs, but not in
Strict DTDs. This applies to both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. It does not
apply to XHTML 1.1, which contains mostly the same elements and
attributes as XHTML 1.0 but
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Geoff Pack wrote:
As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly
clear to most
people. What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You
could use an unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in
many cases, and not an useable
On 12/11/05 11:34 PM Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
I'm not denying a pipe-separated menu is a list of links. What I'm saying is
that there are cases where it is not desirable to mark up a list as an html
list. Marking up menus as pipe separated lists is an old web convention that
Paul Noone wrote:
So how does one go about separating hidden head content and body
content?
I mean, what happens to meta tags, page title, scripting functions
etc.?
Nothing much - just business as usual. Elements that matters are implied
in HTML browsers. That's why they are listed as
I've seen a lot of diverse opinion on this thus far in my Googlebombing,
so I may as well ask it here..
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
Lawrence
--
Lawrence Meckan
Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
34 matches
Mail list logo
