Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML 1.1 it should allways be sent as XML. ... That is true, but Internet Explorer does not support XHTML. HTML 4.01/5 ftw :) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Designer
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML 1.1 it should allways be sent as XML. Though, I have seen people sniffing out browsers and using server side scripting to change the doctype. XHTML 1.1 to browsers than supports it, and XHTML

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass
I commonly use HTML 4.01 and my syntax is just as strict as XHTML 1.1. HTML 4.01 doesn't -force- you to use stricter syntax, but you can all the same. Designer wrote: Thomas Thomassen wrote: Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML 1.1 it should allways be

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
Designer wrote: Maybe, but coding in xhtml1.1 makes you MUCH more fussy about syntax etc. and it shows up any 'well formed' errors as soon as you browse. So, whilst the user will know nothing about all this, it makes you as a designer get lots of practice in using the stricter syntax, ready for

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Thomas Thomassen
There's no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1 only advantage is that it's modulized and can only be sent as XML so it can be extended. If you're not extending it then you're better off with XHTML 1.0. - Original Message - From: Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:

[WSG] Web Publishing Guidelines

2008-01-31 Thread Faul, Mark
Hi everyone, I'm currently working on a new set of web publishing standards or guidelines. The New Zealand Government Web Standards and Recommendations [ http://webstandards.govt.nz/index.php/Home_page ] are a great inspiration, as well as the W3C standards of course. Just wondering if

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web
Thomas Thomassen skrev: Yes, that is an issue. But saving webpages to disc has always been unreliable. Espesially now with the extensive use of AJAX and other embedded and streamed content. Not to mention IE:s habit of botching up the markup badly. Valid and well-formed XHTML will often be

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev: One question that I have yet to see anyone ask is: How good will IE8 actually be? If it is perfect, then there is no need to worry about future versions... No browser is, and never will be perfect. (Look at Acid 3. http://acid3.acidtests.org/ And when most browsers

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web
Thomas Thomassen skrev: There's no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1 only advantage is that it's modulized Not entirely true. XHTML 1.1 includes ruby. and can only be sent as XML so it can be extended. If you're not extending it then you're better off with XHTML

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Thomas Thomassen
Now that's new to me. Will have to read up on that. But then I see no point in XHTML 1.1, because wasn't it mean to be modulized and extendible by XML? - Original Message - From: Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:52 PM

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
... FWIW - and I do not wish to reopen the considered harmful debate - appendix C allows for sending XHTML 1.1 as well as XHTML 1.0 as text/html. (That's a recent change in the specs that few seem to know about.) Can you elaborate what appendix C are you talking about?

RE: [WSG] Web Publishing Guidelines

2008-01-31 Thread Koen Willems
I can recomment the Dutch Guidelines: http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/ Regards, Koen Willems -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Faul, Mark Verzonden: donderdag 31 januari 2008 16:04 Aan: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Onderwerp: [WSG] Web

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web
Rimantas Liubertas skrev: Can you elaborate what appendix C are you talking about? http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html#summary (latest version, supposedly) does not confirm this. The 2nd edition opens things up a bit:

[WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
Hello all, quick question; we signed up for scanalert.com and been given some HTML code to place a icon on our search engine www.clickfind.com.au I placed the code on the pages without really paying attention to it, after a while I discovered the image was linked as

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Chris Williams
This is probably off topic, if you want to discuss off line, I'm happy to help. I do this daily, on three different Macs. FWIW, I used to be an executive at Microsoft, but use Macs in my daily life. I retreat to Windows only as needed. I use Parallels, although others report good success with

[WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Tim MacKay
Hi List, If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list if you feel it's more appropriate. I've recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track as soon as possible, it was a Mac

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass
When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just like IE5 did. James Leslie wrote: It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy everything that has been created in

Re: [WSG] PLease remove me

2008-01-31 Thread veine
Hello; In every email you get there is an unsubscribe link at the bottom ;) http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm On 30 Jan 2008 at 11:25, Datatank wrote: Please remove me from this list. thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WSG] PLease remove me [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-01-31 Thread dean . turner
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me document:

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread James Ellis
Hi It's a bit difficult to work out what is going one given the image itself seems to be a 1x1 transparent gif. You may find that your browser is blocking these as they most likely represent web bugs, causing the issue you see. the HTML spec redirects URI info to RFC2396. In section 3. URI

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Anders Nawroth
James Ellis skrev: Relative URI references are distinguished from absolute URI in that they do not begin with a scheme name. Instead, the scheme is inherited from the base URI, as described in Section 5.2. // in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path. I have no idea of

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Brian Cummiskey
Anders Nawroth wrote: // in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path. I have no idea of how the browser support for this is, or how they choose to interpret it. scanalert/hackersafe publishes their badges with the img src=//path/image.gif / method. I've yet to see a problem

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Paul Menard
On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Anders Nawroth wrote: // in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path. I have no idea of how the browser support for this is, or how they choose to interpret it. A single / in the beginning says this URI is relative to the domain of the document.

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
Well, thats the question here. It seems to work without in some browsers (if I'm not mistaken). _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kate Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 8:31 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread kate
Hi, Should'nt that beimg src='http whatever? Late *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
In the other discussion it was more around how to deal with http and https CSS images references when the image was remote. The accepted solution goven by all was to use two different CSS files. My friend Ryan Joy noted (http://www.atxryan.com/2008/01/22/breaking-with-protocol/ ) that using this

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Ben Buchanan
I placed the code on the pages without really paying attention to it, after a while I discovered the image was linked as src=//images.scanalert.com/meter/www.clickfind.com.au/12gif I never seen this before, but it worked! I changed it to src=

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass
Check out this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html Tim MacKay wrote: Hi List, If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list if you feel it’s more appropriate. I’ve recently had my

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
Do you check your logs for 404s? Like I said, when I published the code as they presented it, I got some 404 errors from browsers looking for the image on our domain. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Cummiskey Sent: Friday, 1

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
On a different note: Just been speaking with ScanAlert, I tried to get them to understand that their code does not validate since they used oncontextmenu, and border=0 - I got a response saying that W3C standards is not widely accepted! Microsoft is not using it, Google is not using it and all

Re: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Adam Martin
Can we please keep the discussions on topic, lately there have been a number of threads having nothing to do with standards Cheers Adam On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Taco Fleur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you check your logs for 404s? Like I said, when I published the code as they presented it, I

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
ooh sorry, I thought it had to do with standards... My apologies. Thread closed. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Martin Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 11:17 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] linking to images with // Can we please

RE: [WSG] linking to images with //

2008-01-31 Thread Taco Fleur
This is interesting! Are saying it should be src=://images.scanalert.com. Instead of src=//images.scanalert.com ? I have not tested it in any other browser than i.e6 and firefox 2 The only reason I found out about the way it was coded was because I got a report of 404 errors, so I'm

RE: [WSG] Web Publishing Guidelines

2008-01-31 Thread Kane Tapping
The Griffith University Web Style Guide http://www.griffith.edu.au/web-publishing/web-style-guide/ It covers range of Corporate branding, Information architecture, writing for the web, and web standards issues. I think its good, but I may be biased :-) Kind Regards, Kane Tapping Web Standards

RE: [WSG] Web Publishing Guidelines [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-01-31 Thread Grace, Gordon
The Australian Government Web Publishing Guidelines: http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au The Griffith University Web Style Guide http://www.griffith.edu.au/web-publishing/web-style-guide/ I can recomment the Dutch Guidelines: http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Chris Broadfoot
Tim MacKay wrote: Hi List, snip I have a few questions about the Windows environment on the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass
On an Intel-based processor, you should be able to actually install Windows onto a Mac machine. I've never personally tested this, but it makes sense to me. If that is the case, then it will function just like Windows on any other PC build, so you can run anything that you would normally run.

Re: [WSG] PLease remove me

2008-01-31 Thread Stijn Audooren
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me document :