Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Marco van Hylckama Vlieg

I'm one of these site owners :)

I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these buttons were 
actually compliant when they were launched / created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when 
stuff is added / removed / modified. It has nothing
to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and everything with having 
more inportant things on my mind than making
sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'. I'm getting to the 
point where I feel minor validation errors that don't
cause any of the major browsers to break the layout aren't really that 
important to spend so much attention on.


In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will probably 
comply again. After that the same thing will
probably happen again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with 
incompetence or lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing really.


Just my five cents!

Marco

Nic wrote:

I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.  And as far as
WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A
level is mind boggling.  Then, there are those sites who actually
technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact
unusable...

This upsets me on several levels.  It can only impact negatively on those of
us who actually do make sites that comply.  If non-compliant sites claim
compliance, it dilutes the effect of claiming compliance for those who do
comply.  But it also reflects on our competence.  If so many people who
claim compliance have apparently not a clue of what they are doing, how can
a potential client be sure that the next guy (you, me) claiming they know
what they are doing actually does?

Perhaps this is a pointless rant, but it's seriously getting under my skin
this week.

Thanks for any feedback on this :)

Nic

**
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] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs

2006-01-05 Thread MountainAsh
The below code is quite simple but displays very differently on Firefox 1.5 and
Safari 2.0.2 (both on OSX-Tiger.) This issue would probably appear different in
IE too. Which browser is rendering it wrong? (My opinion: Firefox)

A simple fix for Safari is to move the .buttons div inside the fieldset - but I
don't think this is semantically correct (more so on large/complex forms with
many fieldset). I don't think buttons belong in the fieldset - it's for entry
fields. Also when the div is move an other possible FF bug is shown; the
buttons div does not clear and floats to the right of the text fields. Does
anyone have any suggestions on laying this out in a normal-ish way using CSS?

CSS:

dt {
float: left;
clear: left;
width: 9.5em;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: right;
}
dd {
float: left;
clear: right;
}
.buttons {
clear: both;
}

HTML:

form action=/ method=post

fieldset
legendLogin Details/legend

dl

dtlabel for=userUsername/label/dt
ddinput type=text name=user id=user //dd

dtlabel for=passPassword/label/dt
ddinput type=password name=pass id=pass //dd

/dl

/fieldset

div class=buttons

input type=submit value=Login /

/div

/form

Thanks in advance for your insight,

--

Rowan
http://www.rmwpublishing.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] Images as DIV Background with and without link (w3c friendly)

2006-01-05 Thread Martin Heiden
Paul,

on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 at 17:35 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:

 You can't use the :hover pseudo class on any element other than an
 anchor in IE unfortunately. I don't have time to look too far, but
 with a brief search I found this link that mentions it:
 http://4umi.com/web/css/hover.htm

Yes, you're right! You have to use a behavior, expression or some
other javascript solution to make :hover work on other elements than a
in ie  7, but if you take a closer look at the css I sent, you'll see
that you don't need a :hover on the span to change the background. The
:hover is set on the a(!):

   a#header:hover span {
 background: url(another url) no-repeat (or shift);
   }

(it could be that you have to change the background of the a tag too,
but if I recall it right, it sometimes solves the :focus, which
doesn't work well at all).

I use this quite often and it works.

regards

  Martin

 



**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:

...


In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will 
probably comply again. After that the same thing will probably happen

 again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with incompetence or
 lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing really.



Just my five cents!


I'll add to your five cents, and don't think I'll have any problems with
your site either as long as it is working well :-)

One question though: are those buttons important enough at any stage?

I personally see standards as 'the best tools available' - not as 'rules
of law'. I use standardized tools for all they are worth, to achieve
what I want as many visitors as possible to experience. I rarely ever
claim perfect adherence to standards since such a claim won't help any
visitor in itself - even if it is true.

That's my last five cents - I'm broke now :-)

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs

2006-01-05 Thread Justin Carter
I have noticed Firefox behaving a little differently to IE when using
floated elements inside a fieldset. I think you may need a clearing
div (or other element if you wish) *inside* the fieldset below the
definition list, rather than trying to put the clearing on the
'buttons' div which is outside the fieldset.

On 1/5/06, MountainAsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Does anyone have any suggestions on laying this out in a normal-ish way
 using CSS?
**
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] Images as DIV Background with and without link (w3c friendly)

2006-01-05 Thread Paul Collins



Martin,

That works on every site I need to test on, can't 
believe the solution is that easy!!

Tested on PC:
IE6, IE5.5, IE5.0, Opera 7, Netscape 
6.

Tested on Mac:
IE5.2, Safari, Firefox

Can't thank you enough for that solution, really 
appreciate it.

Now I have to go and overhaul all my rollover 
graphics!

Paul


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Martin 
  Heiden 
  To: Paul Collins 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:07 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] Images as DIV 
  Background with and without link (w3c friendly)
  Paul,on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 at 15:48 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  wrote: I thought the Gilder/Levin/Shea Enhancement Method was 
  best, but you can't have a hover state on a graphic link using 
  this. Example HTML would be:  a id="header" 
  title="Revised Image Replacement" 
  href=""span/spanRevised Image 
  Replacement/aWhy?a#header:hover span { 
  background: url(another url) no-repeat (or shift);}should 
  work.regards 
  Martin**The 
  discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See 
  http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor 
  some hints on posting to the list  getting 
  help**


RE: [WSG] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs

2006-01-05 Thread Nick
Rowan,

I recently discovered this same problem and it is indeed a bug within the
new Firefox. Unfortunately, no one's currently working on it which means
that we're stuck using ugly solutions to fix it. I found that wraping an
extra clearing container around the original within a fieldset works. It's
definitely ugly but seems necessary at this point. So instead of

div class=clear/div

to clear two floating items within a fieldset, its

div class=cleardiv class=clear/div/div

or however you're clearing your elements. Adding that wrapper container
seems to do the trick. I did manage to find a bug report of this on the
Mozilla site here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309550

Hopefully this is fixed very soon.

Nick


===
Nicholas Rougeux
C82.NET - http://www.c82.net
Art, the Web, and everything in between
===

  

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MountainAsh
 Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:10 AM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs
 
 The below code is quite simple but displays very differently 
 on Firefox 1.5 and Safari 2.0.2 (both on OSX-Tiger.) This 
 issue would probably appear different in IE too. Which 
 browser is rendering it wrong? (My opinion: Firefox)
 
 A simple fix for Safari is to move the .buttons div inside 
 the fieldset - but I don't think this is semantically correct 
 (more so on large/complex forms with many fieldset). I don't 
 think buttons belong in the fieldset - it's for entry fields. 
 Also when the div is move an other possible FF bug is shown; 
 the buttons div does not clear and floats to the right of the 
 text fields. Does anyone have any suggestions on laying this 
 out in a normal-ish way using CSS?
 
 CSS:
 
 dt {
 float: left;
 clear: left;
 width: 9.5em;
 font-weight: bold;
 text-align: right;
 }
 dd {
 float: left;
 clear: right;
 }
 .buttons {
 clear: both;
 }
 
 HTML:
 
 form action=/ method=post
 
 fieldset
 legendLogin Details/legend
 
 dl
 
 dtlabel for=userUsername/label/dt ddinput 
 type=text name=user id=user //dd
 
 dtlabel for=passPassword/label/dt ddinput 
 type=password name=pass id=pass //dd
 
 /dl
 
 /fieldset
 
 div class=buttons
 
 input type=submit value=Login /
 
 /div
 
 /form
 
 Thanks in advance for your insight,
 
 --
 
 Rowan
 http://www.rmwpublishing.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
 **
 
 
 


**
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] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs

2006-01-05 Thread Martin Heiden
Rowan,

Did you try the easy clearing method?

on Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 10:09 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:


CSS:

dt {
float: left;
clear: left;
width: 9.5em;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: right;
}
dd {
margin-left: 9.5em;
}
dd.last:after {
 visibility: hidden;
 clear: left;
 font-size: 0;
 height: 0;
 display: block;
 content: .;
}

HTML:
form action=/ method=post
  fieldset
legendLogin Details/legend
dl
  dtlabel for=userUsername/label/dt
  ddinput type=text name=user id=user //dd
  dtlabel for=passPassword/label/dt

  dd class=lastinput type=password name=pass id=pass //dd

/dl
  /fieldset
  div class=buttons
input type=submit value=Login /
  /div
/form

I did not test this but I'm pretty sure that it'll work.

regards

  Martin

 



**
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] Fieldset inclusions and possible Firefox bugs

2006-01-05 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh


On 5 Jan 2006, at 8:30 pm, Nick wrote:

I recently discovered this same problem and it is indeed a bug  
within the
new Firefox. Unfortunately, no one's currently working on it which  
means
that we're stuck using ugly solutions to fix it. I found that  
wraping an
extra clearing container around the original within a fieldset  
works. It's

definitely ugly but seems necessary at this point. So instead of

div class=clear/div

to clear two floating items within a fieldset, its

div class=cleardiv class=clear/div/div

or however you're clearing your elements. Adding that wrapper  
container
seems to do the trick. I did manage to find a bug report of this on  
the

Mozilla site here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309550


Given that the OP use a definition list, there is a simple/clean way  
to fix the problem caused by that bug.

Set the dl to {display:table}
http://dev.l-c-n.com/Gecko/fieldset-clear-309550.php

You may need to set a width on the dl to avoid shrink-wrapping.

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.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] @media 2006 , London, 15th-16th June

2006-01-05 Thread Jan Brasna

The @media conference returns in 2006


So, who's going, guys? ;)

--
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.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] @media 2006 , London, 15th-16th June

2006-01-05 Thread Piero Fissore
  The @media conference returns in 2006

 So, who's going, guys? ;)

I'd really like to be there!!! I'm italian, so I have to decide yet.
I'm also not a professionist: i love web standards but I'm a
geometrician and I work as it.

Jeffrey, Joe, why aren't you there this year too?!? Crying. :D :D :D
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Steve Ferguson

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
 Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm one of these site owners :)

I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these 
buttons were actually compliant when they were launched / 
created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly 
deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. It 
has nothing
to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and 
everything with having more inportant things on my mind 
than making

sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'.

...


Just my five cents!

Marco



And a great five cents it is.

You almost always have make trade offs between 
risk/quality and time. It seems most web developers choose 
to accept risk for the sake of time.


The sad truth is that it is quite difficult and time 
consuming to maintain a compliant site with the tools that 
most people use today.


There's my five cents for the kitty.

Steve - WebLight Developer http://illumit.com/weblight
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Christian Montoya
 On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
   Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'm one of these site owners :)
 
  I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
 buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
 created.
  However in the real world this sometimes slightly
 deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. It
 has nothing
  to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and
 everything with having more inportant things on my mind
 than making
  sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'.

Maybe, but if a site that is XHTML served as text/html were actually
served correctly as application-type/xhtml+xml, any validation errors
would cause the site to STOP working entirely. So this kind of can't
win them all attitude is okay when we are talking about html 4, but
with xhtml, it's not acceptable. When I see an html 4 site with
validation errors, I don't mind at all, but when I see an xhtml (or
wannabe xhtml) site with validation errors, I think that's a problem.
I know it sounds elitist, but in the xhtml world, validation is the
law.

This is why on my latest project, a wordpress template for a friend of
mine, I am designing the template to be html 4. Even all those
wordpress-generated img / tags are valid in html 4, and I don't have
to lose sleep over my friend's mistakes when she uses html in her
posts, because I know the site will still work.

As much as I like seeing a decent adoption of xhtml by so many
websites, I still think many of them should roll back to html 4, if
they aren't going to bother to fix their errors.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Leslie Riggs
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would 
be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as 
application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done 
has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served 
as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and text/html. Does that mean those sites are 
'violating the validation law'?


What's a person to do?  When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs and 
when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs?  I guess I'm 
looking for a bit of a summarization  clarification of this concept.

Leslie Riggs


Maybe, but if a site that is XHTML served as text/html were actually
served correctly as application-type/xhtml+xml, any validation errors
would cause the site to STOP working entirely. So this kind of can't
win them all attitude is okay when we are talking about html 4, but
with xhtml, it's not acceptable. When I see an html 4 site with
validation errors, I don't mind at all, but when I see an xhtml (or
wannabe xhtml) site with validation errors, I think that's a problem.
I know it sounds elitist, but in the xhtml world, validation is the
law.

This is why on my latest project, a wordpress template for a friend of
mine, I am designing the template to be html 4. Even all those
wordpress-generated img / tags are valid in html 4, and I don't have
to lose sleep over my friend's mistakes when she uses html in her
posts, because I know the site will still work.

As much as I like seeing a decent adoption of xhtml by so many
websites, I still think many of them should roll back to html 4, if
they aren't going to bother to fix their errors.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Paul Novitski

At 10:24 PM 1/4/2006, Nic wrote:

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.

...

This upsets me on several levels.

...


Nic,

If you run into developers who are clearly flaunting W3C tags to 
attract naive clients but who have no intention of following through, 
what can you do?  Start a blog pointing out the worst 
offenders?  Pass them along to Vincent Flanders of 
http://webpagesthatsuck.com/?  Will the subsequent traffic to their 
sites help or hinder them?  You'll need to decide if they're really 
worth your time, when you could be out there creating elegant 
websites that work.


My suggestion is, don't get mad, get helpful.  If a website bugs you, 
write to its developer pointing out its flaws.  Most web developers 
in my experience are open to criticism because we're all always 
trying to improve our craft.  Don't be too quick to judge -- many of 
us are so over-extended that we don't have time to do everything on 
our to-do lists.  (I don't know about you, but I'm so busy working on 
my clients' sites that my own suffers from inattention.)  If there's 
anything about an erroneous site that you LIKE, I'd point that out as 
well so your comments will more likely be seen as friendly.


Regards,
Paul  


**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Leslie Riggs wrote:

I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional;


 and what about those XHTML Transitional

DTDs?


Not going to start the debate on whether one should use HTML 4 strict or 
XHTML 1.0 strict / 1.1, but as far as transitional doctypes go, i'd say 
that they should only be used when you're indeed transitioning, 
retrofitting old pages (which may, depending on author or user 
contributed content, not be 100% yet) but have a firm plan to move to 
strict. I.e. they're not an end in itself. Any new developments should 
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO.


--
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Christian Montoya
On 1/5/06, Leslie Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
 be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
 application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
 has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served
 as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and text/html. Does that mean those sites are
 'violating the validation law'?

 What's a person to do?  When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs 
 and when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs?  I 
 guess I'm looking for a bit of a summarization  clarification of this 
 concept.


Well, if you have a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transisitional served as
text/html, and you like the way it looks, it works great, serves it
purpose, etc, then what you really have is an HTML 4 site, because
that's how the browsers are processing it and that's how the css is
handling it. The validator is the only one that thinks the page is
XHTML. So you can just as well change the doctype to HTML 4 and you'll
see that visually, nothing changes. Trust me, I've done it.

It isn't to say that it's wrong to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html, and I
still do that, sometimes, but what I do think is wrong is having an
XHTML 1.0 page, served as text/html, that has validation errors. That
is, it's wrong in principal, obviously the page still works.

So as to spare everyone a lengthy discussion of this, there's a lot of
information in the archives on the subject of XHTML as text/html. Back
to the main discussion...

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread kvnmcwebn
Patrick wrote:
Any new developments should 
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO.

How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and 
crossing your i's?

-best
kvnmwebn





**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Ben . Winter-Giles

Hi Nic,

good rant.

valid points.

if someone wants to put their unholy neck on the line and say I'm
compliant then good for them. They need then to be braced for the
subsequent onslaught of did you know comments from actual professionals
who work in that space.

Its like any compliance statement.

Look at motorcycle helmets, the SNELL standards are uniform in testing
procedure across the world. Subsequently the stamp can only be put on
through the product having gone through actual testing, otherwise they can
actually be prosecuted.

The CE stamp that you see on everything from PC's to kids toys, does
actually mean something too, but in actual fact, there is a difference
between actual compliance (as tested by the authority) and self proclaimed
compliance or compatability. Additionally the standards for CE are not
exactly clear nor concise, and not necessarily relevant to many products.
But slapping the CE stamp on the product helps stem consumer fear of a
products quality.

Similarly, the WAI etc... stamps that are slapped upon many sites, I
believe are put there largely as a gimmick of pride, or marketting, or just
plain ignorance of the actual standards.

In many cases I would genuinely believe (wanting to think that I'm not a
cynical as I actually am) that most people who put that on their site
either:
1. were actually compliant at one stage of the sites life, but through poor
management practices, has since degraded or,
2. are ill informed about the standards, through poor resourcing /
education / training and or resources to effectively complete the job. (see
most american and australian government websites) This is of course not to
say that they don't strive to fix the problems, but in many cases the
supporting structures are not that supportinve towards actually achieving
what is needed to get qualified compliance with the standards.

so what do we do?

wear bike helmets if they are snell certified, don't buy kids toys, and if
you need compliance in order to wake up in the morning, don't go on the
internet.

or,

edumacate as many people in the field as possible about the realities of
it, and keep posting stuff to this community.

This is a cool thread Nic, keen to see where it goes.


Ben Winter-Giles
Design  Technology Team




|-+-
| |   Nic |
| |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
| |   Sent by:  |
| |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |   dsgroup.org   |
| | |
| | |
| |   05/01/2006 05:24  |
| |   PM|
| |   Please respond to |
| |   wsg   |
| | |
|-+-
  
-|
  | 
|
  |   To:   wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
|
  |   cc:   
|
  |   Subject:  [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually 
comply  |
  |Classification:  |---|   
|
  | | ( ) In-Confidence |   
|
  | | ( ) Unclassified  |   
|
  | |---|   
|
  | 
|
  
-|




I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.  And as far as
WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A
level is mind boggling.  Then, there are those sites who actually
technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact
unusable...

This upsets me on several levels.  It can only impact negatively on those
of
us who actually do make sites that comply.  If non-compliant sites 

Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

kvnmcwebn wrote:


How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and 
crossing your i's?


HTML 4 strict is really just dotting and crossing. for XHTML 1.0 
transitional to XHTML 1.0 strict you should really know what you're 
doing in terms of separating content from presentation, as many 
presentational attributes that transitional still lets you get away with 
are now removed from the DTD. and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to 
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few more 
things to look out for (e.g. more attributes removed, having to ensure 
that form widgets are also enclosed in a block level element and not 
just in a form, not being allowed any character entities apart from 
the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and apo; - so things like copy; for 
instance will not be valid).


P
--
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
**



[WSG] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode. (the dotting of t's)

2006-01-05 Thread Jes Bigum












Hi, 



I´m trying build this site, in strict mode, bu i´m having
trouble removing the border of the image inserted in the list.

(the image, is supposed to shift line to the appropriate
line on navigation), can anybody help me with this problem.?



http://www.forandre.dk/html/ansatte.html
(css not separated yet).





Thank you in advance, 





Jes. 








Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

kvnmcwebn wrote:

How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?


Not difficult at all in most cases - unless you need to 'target' links.
- Take a Transitional document and put a Strict DTD on top. HTML4 or
XHTML 1.0.
- Send it through the validator.
- Remove any non-strict presentational markup, restyle those parts in
CSS, and validate as Strict again.
That's usually it :-)


XHTML1.0 _is_ a different ballgame in itself, because in order to be
called XHTML at all it should work when served as
'application/xhtml+xml'. The fact that we can serve XHTML1.0 as
'text/html' in order to reach the masses (through IE/win amongst
others), doesn't really change that.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode. (the dotting of t's)

2006-01-05 Thread Ben Wong
To remove the border on the image you can use css...

img
{
 border: 0;
}

On 1/6/06, Jes Bigum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







 Hi,



 I´m trying build this site, in strict mode, bu i´m having trouble removing
 the border of the image inserted in the list.

 (the image, is supposed to shift line to the appropriate line on
 navigation), can anybody help me with this problem.?



 http://www.forandre.dk/html/ansatte.html   (css not
 separated yet).





 Thank you in advance,





 Jes.


--
Ben Wong
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://blog.onehero.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] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode. (the dotting of t's)

2006-01-05 Thread Terrence Wood
Jes Bigum said:
 [remove] the border of the image inserted in the list.

li img {border: none}

if the image is just to indicate the current page then you can add the
image through css:

li a#current {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px */
}



kind regards
Terrence Wood.


**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Nic
 Thanks for the great responses so far :)

Marco wrote:
 Most sites that bear these buttons were actually compliant when they were
launched / created.
 However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when stuff
is added / removed 
 / modified. 

That's a fair enough comment.  Thing do change and keeping track of changes
can complicate one's life.  

To me, though, those tags should be used on a per page basis, not
sitewide.  And one would think that if you make a change to a page on a
site, you'll either carry-on your work with ensuring the pages complies, or
you'll be able to take the time to remove/modify the button?  Dunno.
Perhaps I don't live in the real world... :)

 It has nothing to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' 
 and everything with having more inportant things on my mind 
 than making sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'. 

Yes, there surely is a difference between your attitude and that of people
who actually don't have a clue.  I'm sure there are many who think they
know, but don't know.  Heck, we're all humans and can always learn more.  :)

As to complying to the letter of the law...  Well.  To me, either you
comply, or you don't.  Either you're pregnant, or you're not :)  Of course,
there's always room for interpretation on some standards...  Many of the
level 3 requirements of WCAG are such.  Provide information so that users
may receive documents according to their preferences.  Where do you stop?
How many different language do you need your text translated into, sign
language as well?  Etc...  But still...

 I'm getting to the point where I feel minor validation errors that 
 don't cause any of the major browsers to break the layout aren't 
 really that important to spend so much attention on.

I'd agree with that.  In the end, full compliance and validation are not the
be all and end all of designing and maintaining a site.  That said, if a
site doesn't comply, then it shouldn't claim compliance. 

Georg asks:
 One question though: are those buttons important enough at any stage?

Probably not all that important.  It is a matter of pride, I think, in many
cases.  Perhaps because these standards are not as widely used/supported as
they should (and no, I'm NOT wanting to launch the debate about MSIE not
rendering to standards...).  But for those who do follow them, there should
be a certain amount of pride.  Displaying that on a page (your own or a
client's) is also a way to show the potential client that you know what
you're doing, and are (in theory) keeping abreast of the changes in
technology that mean a client's site is likely to be (more) future-proof.  

Paul said:
 My suggestion is, don't get mad, get helpful.  
 If a website bugs you, write to its developer pointing out its flaws. 

Yes, I do that on a semi-regular basis.  Sometimes it's well received,
sometimes I get a virtual kick in the teeth.  Most often, I get no response
at all...  shrug

 Don't be too quick to judge 

Oh aye.  I tend to live and let live.  Sometimes, I must admit, the
frustration of working on a site and make sure it complies, only to be faced
by sites slapping compliance labels on themselves that don't meet
criteria.  Not trully a big deal, but frustrating nonetheless.

 (I don't know about you, but I'm so busy working on my clients' sites that
my own suffers from inattention.)

grin  My own site's so suffering from innatention that it's not even up
yet!  Thank the gods for word of mouth ;)

Cheers, and thanks again for the great exchanges so far.

Nic

**
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] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode. (the dotting of t's)

2006-01-05 Thread kvnmcwebn

hello, 
try 
li img{border:0px;}
-best
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] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode is solved

2006-01-05 Thread Jes Bigum
Thank you all Terrence, Nic and Kvnmcwebn

I got it working. With

li img{border:0px;}

(I´m completly self-trained and have pretty nice gaps in my knowledge.)

I liked -

li a#current {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px */ }
 
- very much but it seems that it chooses the top line of the list as current
all the time?  I´ll fiddel around with it. 

THANKS very much. Going strict...

Jes. 



**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Rowan - RMW Web Publishing

Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a trade off or
sheer laziness) should be honest with themselves and stop trying to kid their
viewers. Not only are you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the 
button for

everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that would do more harm
than good - it's not worth it).

On a personal note: I removed my [XHML] [CSS] links from my Blogger hosted
blog. Now these were never the W3C buttons (just text links), but I linked to
the validator, which was showing invalid due to the invalid code that
Blogger was inserting into my otherwise valid template

--
Rowan

**
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] : Problem with attribute BORDER in movint to strict mode is solved

2006-01-05 Thread Terrence Wood
Jes Bigum said:
 li a#current {
 background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
 padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px */ }

I thought your question was about indicating the current item. If you are
after a hover effect try:

li a {
padding-left: img-width;
}

li a:hover {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
}

kind regards
Terrence Wood.


**
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] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Kenny Graham
Patrick said:

 and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
 1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
 more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
 entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
 apo; - so things like copy; for instance will not be valid).

Are you sure? The XHTML 1.1 DTD (1) includes (and requires) the
Modular Framework Module (2).  This module includes the XHTML
Character Entities Module (3), which includes three entity files:
XML-compatible ISO Latin 1 (4), ISO Math Greek and Symbolic (5), and
XML-compatible ISO Special (6).  These entity files contain everything
from aacute; to zwnj;, including copy;. Of course it's very
possible that I'm completely missing something.

1) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11_dtd.html
2) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-framework-1.mod
3) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-charent-1.mod
4) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent
5) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-symbol.ent
6) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-special.ent
**
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] Firefox 1.0.x rogue PNG background line

2006-01-05 Thread Kenny Graham
Looks fine for me on FF 1.5/win.  Not sure about 1.0.x.  Could it be
the beloved gap below images because of default vertical-align being
baseline problem?  Probably not since it works in 1.5, but worth a
shot if you havent tried it.  Try setting the image's vertical-align
to bottom.
**
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] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Kenny Graham
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml

I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
**
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] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Kenny Graham wrote:

Patrick said:


and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
apo; - so things like copy; for instance will not be valid).


Are you sure? 


Sorry, just realised that I'm talking out of my derriere. I was half 
remembering that, when sending application/xhtml+xml, *browser support* 
for named entities can be flaky, and that some browsers then revert to 
just understanding the basic 5 entities (oh, and also made a typo...it's 
apos; and not apo;). as XHTML 1.1 should be sent as 
application/xhtml+xml, i got myself mixed up.


Apologies for the confusion...it's obviously time for me to get to bed ;)

--
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
**



[WSG] IE scrolling down automatically on page load

2006-01-05 Thread Jason Foss
Hi all,

I've found something that has got me totally stumped.

In IE/Win, this site
(http://gracemeresaleyards.com.au/saleyards/history/) scrolls down an
inch or so on page load. I've got some Browsercam shots here:
http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=218152

Anyone come across this before?

Thanks!
--
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] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh


On 6 Jan 2006, at 10:50 am, Kenny Graham wrote:


List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml

I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.


If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm  
afraid, you'll have to go back...


Screen shot from the page linked above (Safari 2.02 - latest Webkit  
nightly builds are identical):

http://emps.l-c-n.com/bm/Safari-entities.png

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.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] absolute positioned a not where it should be

2006-01-05 Thread Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox



Is anyone able to 
tell me why in Internet Explorer the "read more..." link is not positioned where 
it should be?

The li 
itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned 
absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the 
li item not outside the ol item, in FireFox it looks good but 
not in IE.

Link: 
testing.pacificfox.com/price/
CSS: 
testing.pacificfox.com/_resource/css/default.css 

Any help much 
appreciated.

PS. it 
validates..

Kind 
regards,

Taco Fleur - Chief Executive OfficerPacific 
Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an 
industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 

  
  Web Design and 
  Development 
  
  SMS Solutions, including developer 
  API
  
  Domain Registration, .COM for as 
  low as fifteendollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollarstwo 
  years!
  
  BlackBerryBusiness 
  Solutions www.OzBlackBerry.com 
  
  
  We endorse PayPal, accept 
  payments online now!
  
  Seamless Merchant 
  integration



RE: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Jason Turnbull
 Kenny Graham wrote:
 I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
 sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.


 Philippe wrote: 
 If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
 afraid, you'll have to go back...

If these entities are not allowed when served as application/xhtml+xml
shouldn't the W3C validator pick this up? Or has Safari got it wrong?

Thanks
Jason


**
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] css rollover - with current page highlight?

2006-01-05 Thread lucas
hi  following the recent discussion of css image rollovers for a menu/nav  list (see  http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=6BB21CD6-F78A-DE8B-495CD895C0B6A6AB)  i wonder if anyone has a suggestion for how one could add "highlight  current page" functionality to this nav? my example is here:  http://squatspace.com/lucaphp/nuca/index2.htmhope this makes sense  cheers  lucas  ...basic email netiquette:http://www.georgedillon.com/web/netiquette.shtml
		 
 
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! 


RE: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Jason Turnbull
 Patrick wrote: 
 *browser support* for named entities can be flaky

Sorry I missed post

I'm still surprised that Safari has limited support

Thanks
Jason


**
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] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)

2006-01-05 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh


On 6 Jan 2006, at 1:42 pm, Jason Turnbull wrote:


Kenny Graham wrote:
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.




Philippe wrote:
If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
afraid, you'll have to go back...


If these entities are not allowed when served as application/xhtml+xml
shouldn't the W3C validator pick this up? Or has Safari got it wrong?


Not really wrong. Firefox and recent Opera versions rely on the  
Doctype to parse the document as xml in addition to the mime-type  
[1], while Safari bases its parsing only on the mime-type.


[1] this gives them additional knowledge about those entities.

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.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] css rollover - with current page highlight?

2006-01-05 Thread Hopkins Programming
Yeah!

The best way to do this is to assign an ID tag to the body.

== Example =
Page1:
body id=page1
 a href="" class=link_Page1
 a href="" class=link_Page2
/body

Page2:
body id=page2

 a href="" class=link_Page1

 a href="" class=link_Page2

/body

CSS:
body#page1 a.link_Page1{font-weight:bold;}
body#page2 a.link_Page2{font-weight:bold;}

You can see a live example of this on my website at http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/.

Hope this helps!

--Zachary Hopkins

On 1/5/06, lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi  following the recent discussion of css image rollovers for a menu/nav  list (see  
http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=6BB21CD6-F78A-DE8B-495CD895C0B6A6AB)
i wonder if anyone has a suggestion for how one could add highlight
current page functionality to this nav? my example is here:  http://squatspace.com/lucaphp/nuca/index2.htm
hope this makes sense  cheers  lucas  ...basic email netiquette:
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/netiquette.shtml
		 
 
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! 

-- ==The best way to predict the future is to invent it.  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net