[WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

2008-03-11 Thread kev . erickson
Hello,

I have a few HTTPS pages on a separate URL that display dynamic information, 
(names, titles and telephone numbers, etc.), from a database. 99% of my pages 
are static HTTP pages. I want the URL for all my pages to be same as much as 
possible. I would like to proxy the HTTPS pages to my HTTP URL to have all 
pages fall under the same HTTP URL? 
I am trying to find out if this is misleading in any way to my web site 
visitors or wrong?

Thank you,

Kevin


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

2008-03-11 Thread Matijs
Hello Kevin,

What exactly do you mean by proxying in this sense?

I'll just assume some stuff :)

If what your visitors are viewing is sent to them via a HTTP
connection only, you're not misleading them (unless you tell them it's
a safe connection), but you're also not using HTTPS. I assume that the
webserver serving out the page does talk to another webserver over
HTTPS but your visitors don't. So if this is the case, misleading no,
but wrong, very likely.

On the other hand, if what your visitors are viewing what's sent to
them both via HTTP and HTTPS (for instance images and other static
content via HTTP and the rest via HTTPS) then you're not misleading
them but browsers might start to complain about some parts of the page
not being sent over a secure connection. If this is the case, also not
misleading or wrong, but not too sure if it's the nicest way of doing
this.

On a sidenote. I've only been following WSG for a few days now and I'm
not entirely sure if this is on-topic. Feel free to contact me if
you'd like to discuss this off the list.

Matijs

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:01 PM,  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,

  I have a few HTTPS pages on a separate URL that display dynamic information, 
 (names, titles and telephone numbers, etc.), from a database. 99% of my pages 
 are static HTTP pages. I want the URL for all my pages to be same as much as 
 possible. I would like to proxy the HTTPS pages to my HTTP URL to have all 
 pages fall under the same HTTP URL?
  I am trying to find out if this is misleading in any way to my web site 
 visitors or wrong?

  Thank you,

  Kevin


  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

2008-03-11 Thread kevin_erickson
What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to go to the 
HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not misleading the users by any 
means.

I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be.

Thank you for your thoughts.

kevin


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the 
WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a 
link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221.


Cheers.
Mike Cherim



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

2008-03-11 Thread Martin Heiden
Kevin,

  well, I think it ist completely off topic, but anyway:

  You mean that http://my.server.com/folder/file.html shows the same
  HTML document as https://my.server.com/folder/file.html ?

  Make sure you use only relative links in the .html so that the
  secure connection is used for all linked files/pictures/css...

  Configure your server to use the same document root for the https
  and http virtual hosts.

  http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#parallel
  http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/

  If you have more questions, feel free to contact me off list!

regards,

  Martin

Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 6:11:57 PM, you wrote:

kcn What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to
kcn go to the HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not
kcn misleading the users by any means.

kcn I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be.

kcn Thank you for your thoughts.

kcn kevin





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread dwain
nice job!  has the feel of web 2.0.
dwain

On 3/11/08, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the
 WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a
 link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221.

 Cheers.
 Mike Cherim



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




-- 
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Matt Fellows
Nice work Mike, I quite like the way you've used hr/ to separate the
content for non-css and used display:none in the other case, it chunks
the content quite well.

I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a
similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as
well.

Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all?

Cheers,

Matt

On 3/12/08, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 nice job!  has the feel of web 2.0.
 dwain


Web 2.0? Am I looking at the wrong site (http://lflegal.com/)?


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Webb, KerryA
Matt wrote:
 
 I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
 link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a
 similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as
 well.
 
 Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all?
 

I'm not Mike, but I'll observe that access keys are not universally
admired.

Kerry 
  
---
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all 
copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should 
not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other 
person.
---


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Rick Lecoat

On 11 Mar 2008, at 22:38, Matt Fellows wrote:


I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content
link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a
similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as
well.

Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all?


Matt;

I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more  
hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for  
specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular  
browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are  
likely to wish to utilise.


I don't know whether that is the general consensus or not, nor can I  
say whether that was Mike's reason for not using acesskey, but it  
makes sense to me.


--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Chris Knowles

Rick Lecoat wrote:

I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more 
hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for 
specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular 
browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely 
to wish to utilise.




thats my understanding too. Firstly, you have to communicate to the user 
what the access keys are for which there are no clear guidelines I know 
of, and secondly, whats to say your choice of keys doesn't conflict with 
existing ones the user has set?


The only way i see access keys becoming useful is if user agent vendors 
agree on and implement some kind of name-spacing scheme for author 
defined keys to prevent conflicts



--
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

2008-03-11 Thread kevin_erickson
Thank you and my apologies if was indeed off-subject. My thinking was that this 
is indeed a standards right-or-wrong issue when looking out for the users. - 
kevin

--- Original Message ---
From:Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Tue 3/11/08  3:28 pm
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subj:Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP

Kevin,

  well, I think it ist completely off topic, but anyway:

  You mean that http://my.server.com/folder/file.html shows the same
  HTML document as https://my.server.com/folder/file.html ?

  Make sure you use only relative links in the .html so that the
  secure connection is used for all linked files/pictures/css...

  Configure your server to use the same document root for the https
  and http virtual hosts.

  http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#parallel
  http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/

  If you have more questions, feel free to contact me off list!

regards,

  Martin

Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 6:11:57 PM, you wrote:

kcn What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to
kcn go to the HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not
kcn misleading the users by any means.

kcn I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be.

kcn Thank you for your thoughts.

kcn kevin





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Matt Fellows
 Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
 
   I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more
   hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for
   specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular
   browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are
   likely to wish to utilise.
 
 I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is
 the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser
 vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point
 9.5 in  http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence
 when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not
 using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three
 links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time
 anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many
 circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile
 access etc.

User defined Access Keys may be a solution:
http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site

2008-03-11 Thread Matt Fellows
Interesting. Thanks Thierry!

On 3/12/08, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Matt Fellows
   Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM
   To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
   Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
  
 I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more
 hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for
 specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular
 browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are
 likely to wish to utilise.
  

  I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is
   the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser
   vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point
   9.5 in  http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence
   when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not
   using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three
   links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time
   anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many
   circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile
   access etc.


 User defined Access Keys may be a solution:
  http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp



  --
  Regards,
  Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com







  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***