Re: [WSG] Validating Flash

2008-03-27 Thread Andrew Freedman

Tim MacKay provided the following information on 27/03/2008 4:37 PM:


Hi List,

 

My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain 
elements -- not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors 
from HTML Tidy and the validator about the object and embed tags, 
which wrecks my validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way 
to embed Flash elements so that my site validates and stops throwing 
errors?


 


Thanks,

Tim




Hi Tim,

I always use the following code and my pages always validate. 


Is it standards compliant? Someone can answer that for me perhaps...

Andrew


script type=text/javascript
AC_FL_RunContent( 
'codebase','http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','180','height','185','title','Wonderful','src','swf/my_wonderful','quality','high','pluginspage','http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','movie','swf/index_testimonial'
 ); //end AC code
/script

noscript
object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=swf/my_wonderful.swf width=100 
height=100
 param name=movie value=swf/my_wonderful.swf /
 param name=quality value=high /
/object
/noscript






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

Re: [WSG] Validating Flash

2008-03-27 Thread Marian M.Bida
Use swfobject, check my web site http://www.pureflash.net, see how I embed
my swfs and make it that way, it will work.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Freedman 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Tim MacKay provided the following information on 27/03/2008 4:37 PM:

  Hi List,



 My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements
 – not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy
 and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated
 markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that
 my site validates and stops throwing errors?



 Thanks,

 Tim



 Hi Tim,

 I always use the following code and my pages always validate.

 Is it standards compliant? Someone can answer that for me perhaps...

 Andrew

 script type=text/javascript
 AC_FL_RunContent( 
 'codebase','http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','180','height','185','title','Wonderful','src','swf/my_wonderful','quality','high','pluginspage','http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','movie','swf/index_testimonial
  
 http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0%27,%27width%27,%27180%27,%27height%27,%27185%27,%27title%27,%27Wonderful%27,%27src%27,%27swf/my_wonderful%27,%27quality%27,%27high%27,%27pluginspage%27,%27http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer%27,%27movie%27,%27swf/index_testimonial'
  ); //end AC code
 /script

 noscript
 object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=swf/my_wonderful.swf 
 width=100 height=100
   param name=movie value=swf/my_wonderful.swf /
   param name=quality value=high /
 /object
 /noscript






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




-- 
http://www.pureflash.net
web designer and interactive media developer

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

Re: [WSG] Validating Flash

2008-03-27 Thread Mahendran Venkatesan
Hi Tim,

Already we had some discussion related to this. Please refer the mails with
heading *The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage*.
Here, you can find some information.

Thanks!
Venkatesan M

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Tim MacKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Hi List,



 My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements
 – not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy
 and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated
 markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that
 my site validates and stops throwing errors?



 Thanks,

 Tim

 ***
 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] Validating Flash

2008-03-27 Thread Kane Tapping
Hi Tim,

For XHTML 1.0 Strict I use:

object type=application/x-shockwave-flash 
data=swf/flash-file-name.swf width=xxx height=xxx
param name=movie value=swf/flash-file-name.swf /
param name=play value=true /
param name=quality value=best /

pAlternative content for users if plug-in fails to load./p

/object








Kind Regards,

Kane Tapping
Web Standards Developer
Web and Content Management Services
Griffith University. 4111. Australia.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630





Tim MacKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27/03/2008 03:37 PM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org


To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc

Subject
[WSG] Validating Flash






Hi List,
 
My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements 
– not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy 
and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my 
validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash 
elements so that my site validates and stops throwing errors?
 
Thanks,
Tim

***
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] floats and ie7

2008-03-27 Thread dwain
thanks for the heads up on ie6.  i added the width to the rule.  thanks for
the article as well.  i read it and still don't know any more than i did
before i read it.  maybe because i'm tired.  i bookmarked it for later
perusal.

makes me wonder when ms will get it right in their browsers.  maybe they
just like messing with designers and developers.  kind of makes ballmer's
remarks of his love for web developers sound hollow.

anyway, thanks for the tip.  i went back into the netscape css and got rid
of some stuff after a few more chapters in zeldman's book.

i am trying to do the same thing with my art site, but i'm hitting a brick
wall with font sizes in nn4.  i was looking at the redesign of the index
page in nn4 and the font seems to get larger as i scroll down the page.
i've put it away for now, but i may give another try at a later date.  btw,
does nn4 like ems, percentages or pixels for font sizes?

cheers,
dwain

On 3/27/08, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  thanks thierry for your response.  there was no width set on the nav div
 and that was the culprit.
  after my bout with the nn4 style sheet i guess i was brain dead.  let me
 know when you will be in alabama

 Hi Dwain,

 It does not need a width, it needs hasLayout [1].
 If it works with a width it is because width is one of the properties
 that triggers hasLayout in IE.
 zoom does this, but also position:absolute, display:inline-block, height,
 float and a few others.

 In any case, keep width if you see that it works the way you want.

 As a side note, if you want to fix the display issue in IE 6 (your images
 ), you'll need to insert the following:

 #adgpix {width: 242px;}

 imho, it is a good habit to always set a width on floats. I believe it
 used to be in the specs and I guess old browsers know that ;)


 [1] http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html


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






 ***
 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] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread Joe Ortenzi

Please clarify dwain.

have you got two examples, one shrink-wrapping (??) the other not?

Do you mean one div will only be as large as the content within it  
and the other will retain a fixed size regardless of content?


Joe

On Mar 27 2008, at 05:07, dwain wrote:

after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will  
shrink wrap their contents while others don't.  any takers?


dwain

--
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]
***


Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.joiz.com




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

Re: [WSG] Web Standards in India

2008-03-27 Thread Jonathan D'mello
I completely agree with you'll when you say that most designers in
India are still unaware of web standards, accessibility, interaction
and usability.

If you guys are in Mumbai on the 29th of March, and interested in Web
standards and accessibility  you'll can check out BarCamp Mumbai at
IIT Powai. Check it out at: http://www.barcampmumbai.org/

See you'll there.

Regards,
Jonathan D'mello

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Gounder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi everyone,

 thought I'll butt in here.

 I from Amchi Mumbai.

 I accidentally stumbled on Web standards as I was learning White Hat SEO,
 I've been on the list for a little less than a year and have picked quite a
 few useful tips.

 Though I still am bad with using webstandards and still use tables, as I'm
 still struggling to find a place where and more importantly time when, I
 could learn some nice HTML layouting using Divs.

 Its only lately that I have seen so many Indians replying to posts out here.
 So I thought I too will contribute and have added a new section for Web
 Standards ( here http://www.website-designers-india.com/viewforum.php?f=6 )
 on our Indian Website Designers Forum. Would like it if you guys could come
 and contribute, with your queries and more importantly resolutions to
 someone else's queries. I know that the forum is not as convenient as a
 mailing list but then again the resolutions would be there for others to
 see.

 Last but not the least Amrinder, you've got a great looking site, keep it
 up.

 Thanks
 Alexander Gounder
 www.ecreeds.com
 www.gounder.co.in
  www.orlem.in



 On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Amrinder Sandhu
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  Hello Friends
 
  I am a web standard designer from India where there is very less awareness
 about terms like Web Standards, Usability, Accessibility  and User
 experience. I want  your help and advice as to make Web Standards known to
 people here in India. Also, I would like to know any Indians who are member
 of WSG so that we can get in touch and help India to know and follow Web
 Standards.
 
  Hope for great support from you all. I will appreciate the suggestions and
 advices from all my WSG friends.
 
  Thanks and Regards,
  Amrinder
  Freelance Web Designer.
  www.awayback.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Blessed is he who expects nothing,
 
  for he shall never be disappointed.
 
  live !!!
 
 
  ***
  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]
 ***


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



[WSG] Best password strength indicator?

2008-03-27 Thread Sigurd Magnusson
Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field  
with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character.


I've seen plenty around, and off the top of my head I quite like  
Google's* (although I'd say it should show small amount of red graph  
to begin with, portraying instantly that the line is a strength  
indicator).

* https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount

Can anyone let me know if there's one they feel is significantly  
better than that? I'm keen for one that is compact. Some are over the  
top and make the user have to think an unnecessarily extra amount.


For instance, this MSN one contains intuitive elements but is  
cluttered with too much instruction.

https://accountservices.passport.net/reg.srf?roid=2sl=1vv=400lc=1033


Sigurd Magnusson,
SilverStripe






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



Re: [WSG] Best password strength indicator?

2008-03-27 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

tried moo tools or JQuery?

Joe

On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:37, Sigurd Magnusson wrote:

Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field  
with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character.


I've seen plenty around, and off the top of my head I quite like  
Google's* (although I'd say it should show small amount of red graph  
to begin with, portraying instantly that the line is a strength  
indicator).

* https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount

Can anyone let me know if there's one they feel is significantly  
better than that? I'm keen for one that is compact. Some are over  
the top and make the user have to think an unnecessarily extra amount.


For instance, this MSN one contains intuitive elements but is  
cluttered with too much instruction.
https://accountservices.passport.net/reg.srf? 
roid=2sl=1vv=400lc=1033



Sigurd Magnusson,
SilverStripe






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



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




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



Re: [WSG] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread IceKat
I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a 
link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for 
forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key. 
Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry 
there is no alternative as there is with b and i.


Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy 
codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps 
they could bring those two back.


IceKat


Joseph Ortenzi wrote:

Very good points

b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic.
u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text 
can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention.


I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click 
underlined text so keep it out please...


I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a 
link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but 
good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention.


Joe


On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote:


Hi,

Usability.
Users expect link-text to be underlined.  Many user studies found that
when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite
annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined
text several times before they gave up).

Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided
this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start
styling their link colours as they thought fit.  Even though this 
styling
often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined 
text to
mean links.  This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it 
was

u.

b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you 
want to
style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that 
em and

strong confer.


On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote:

Hi,

I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been
deprecated
while b and i are still allowed.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904



***
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]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




***
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]
***



[WSG] :: dropdown menus ::

2008-03-27 Thread Amrinder
Hi

I am stuck with dropdown menus. They are working fine in IE-7, and firefox and 
the evil IE6 doesn't render it.
Should I use javascript or CSS for this.

Here is my code:

**  XHTML code ** 
div id=main_nav
  ul id=menu
  li id=nav_home class=menu_active aHome/a/li
   lia href=about.htmlAbout Us/a/li
   lia href=products.htmlRetail Products/a
ul
 lia href=#Milk Powders/a/li
 lia href=#UHT Milk/a/li
 lia href=#Butter/a/li
 lia href=#Cheese/a/li
 lia href=#Liquid Products/a/li
 lia href=#Juices/a/li
/ul
   /li
   lia href=ingredients.htmlDairy Ingredients/a
   ul
lia href=#Milk Powder/a/li
 lia href=#Whey Powder/a/li
 lia href=#Milk Proteins/a/li
 lia href=#Butter Fat Products/a/li
 lia href=#Cheese/a/li
/ul
   /li
   lia href=importexport.htmlExports/Imports/a/li
   li id=nav_contacta href=contact.htmlContact Us/a/li
  /ul

  div class=clear/div
 /div
 !--End main_nav--


** CSS Code **

#main_nav {
 clear: both;
 position: relative;
 margin-top: 3px;
 border: 1px solid red;
}

#menu li {
 float: left;
 position: relative;
}
#menu li ul {
 position: absolute;
 left: 0px;
 top: 31px;
 display: none;
 background-color: #309DCF;
}

#menu a {
  background: #309DCF url(../images/menubck_18.gif) scroll repeat-x left top;
  }
  
li ul li {
 background: url(../images/menubck_18.gif) repeat-x left top;
 border:1px solid #fff;
 }
ul li a {
 display: block;
 text-decoration: none;
 padding: 6px 40px;
 border-left-width: 1px;
 border-left-style: solid;
 border-left-color: #FFF;
}
li li a {
 padding:4px 5px 4px 37px;
 width:120px;
 border-left:none;
 }
ul  #nav_home  a {
 width: 30px;
 border-left: none;
}

* html li a {
 width:auto;
 }

/*  Fix IE. Hide from IE Mac \*/
* html ul li { float: left;}
* html ul li a {height:1%;}
/* End */

#menu li:hover ul, #menu li.over ul {
 display:block; 
}

#menu a:hover {
 background-attachment: scroll;
 background-image: url(../images/menuhoverbck_18.gif);
 background-repeat: repeat-x;
 background-position: left top;
 background-color: #de5a03;
 }

** javascript code **

startList = function() {
 if (document.alldocument.getElementById) {
  navRoot = document.getElementById(nav);
  for (i=0; inavRoot.childNodes.length; i++) {
   node = navRoot.childNodes[i];
   if (node.nodeName==LI) {
node.onmouseover=function() {
 this.className+= over;
 }
node.onmouseout=function() {
this.className=this.className.replace( over, );
}
   }
  }
 }
}
window.onload=startList;

Please Help! 
Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Amrinder 
Freelance Web Designer
www.awayback.com 


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


Re: [WSG] Best password strength indicator?

2008-03-27 Thread Gregorio Espadas
I Like the following:
http://www.passwordmeter.com/

Show the strength as you type, with a detailed explanation of that strength.
You can download the script:
http://www.passwordmeter.com/pwd_meter.zip

Have fun!

Gregorio Espadas

gespadas [at] gmail [dot] com


On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Sigurd Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field
 with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character.



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

Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

is it on this page?

http://www.alforddesigngroup.com/


On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:47, dwain wrote:

with my haslayout problem, the div around the pictures shrink  
wrapped while the nav div, containing a ul, and along with the ul  
sized to 100% of the wrapper.

dwain

On 3/27/08, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please clarify dwain.

have you got two examples, one shrink-wrapping (??) the other not?

Do you mean one div will only be as large as the content within it  
and the other will retain a fixed size regardless of content?


Joe
On Mar 27 2008, at 05:07, dwain wrote:
after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will  
shrink wrap their contents while others don't.  any takers?


dwain

--
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]
***


Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.joiz.com



***
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]
***


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




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

Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread Matthew Pennell
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:07 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink wrap
 their contents while others don't.  any takers?


Block level elements such as DIV will be 100% of the width of their parent
container, unless they are floated - in which case they can either have an
explicit width set via CSS, or they will shrinkwrap their contents.

-- 

- Matthew


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

[WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Michael Horowitz

I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.
http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Andrew Maben


On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote:


I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.


No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users  
altogether.


(IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...)

Andrew







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

Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Diego La Monica
Because it's against accessibility of a webpage.

On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml

 Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
 javascript.

 http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

 --
 Michael Horowitz
 Your Computer Consultant
 http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
 561-394-9079



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




-- 
--
Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG)
Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0
W3C Protocols and Format Working Group member for IWA/HWG
Web Skill Profiles WG Member (http://skillprofiles.eu )

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Skype: diego.la.monica
mobile +393337235382 - Web: http://diegolamonica.info - http://jastegg.it [
Le uova si sono schiuse! ]


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


Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Nancy Gill
I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  How can 
javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility 
will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to have this removed .. I 
open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release 
Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html

2008-03-27 Thread Rob Kirton
Michael

I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional
DTD

-- 
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml

 Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
 javascript.

 http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

 --
 Michael Horowitz
 Your Computer Consultant
 http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
 561-394-9079



 ***
 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Rochester oliveira
For acessibility and usabilitty issues i think we shouldn't use this.

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam77-0.htm

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html

[]'s

2008/3/27, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml

  Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.
  
 http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

  --
  Michael Horowitz
  Your Computer Consultant
  http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
  561-394-9079



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




-- 
[]'s

-
Rochester Oliveira
http://webbemfeita.com/
Viva a Web-Bem-Feita
Web Designer
Curitiba - PR - Brasil


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html

2008-03-27 Thread Rob Kirton
Andrew

of course you are right there, however if the brief says so

-- 
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton

On 27/03/2008, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote:

 I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.


 No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users
 altogether.

 (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...)

 Andrew






 ***
 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] a target=” blank” not part of x html

2008-03-27 Thread Michael Horowitz

Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml.

Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new 
browser or tab?


Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



Rob Kirton wrote:

Michael

I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML 
transitional DTD


--
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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


***
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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Hassan Schroeder

Michael Horowitz wrote:

I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml


It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional -- it's part of
XHTML 1.0 Frameset. Choose the doctype you want to validate to. Or
use the JavaScript approach.

Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choices :-)

FWIW,
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Thomas Thomassen
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it 
very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a 
link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new 
window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to 
close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows 
I often just leave it.


I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people 
have very different habbits.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  How 
can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with 
accessibility will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to have 
this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links 
that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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] a target= blank not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Ant Tears
Hi Michael,
If I recall / understood correctly, the opening of a new browser window
was seen by the W3C as functionality and therefore consigned to
scripting.

As for web standards prohibiting opening of new windows, this AA
requirement is a little ambiguous for my taste:
10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not
cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current
window without informing the user.

The WCAG Samuari Errata states:

Do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the
current window without informing the user.

* Plain text is the strongly preferred method of informing the user.
Use of any other method must be reserved for cases where plain text is
unreasonably difficult or impossible.
* The title attribute on a hyperlink a element can suffice in the
unique case of legacy pages that are unreasonably difficult to update.
It is not sufficient in newly-created pages or other circumstances.

This shows more clearly shows that opening new windows is not deemed
illegal. However, it gives little indication as to when it is acceptable
to open a new window.
Jackob Neilsen rates it in his top 10 design mistakes
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

This one talks about opening non html docs in a new window:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/open_new_windows.html

Ant








-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz
Sent: 27 March 2008 16:36
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml

Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml.

Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new 
browser or tab?

Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



Rob Kirton wrote:
 Michael

 I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML 
 transitional DTD

 -- 
 Regards

 - Rob

 Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
 Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


 On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml

 Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
 javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-1
0-strict-conversion/

 --
 Michael Horowitz
 Your Computer Consultant
 http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
 561-394-9079




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

***


 ***
 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]
***



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



[WSG] Re: WSG Digest (Out of office until Tuesday 1 April)

2008-03-27 Thread Mark Wooldridge
Hi,

I am currently away from the office and will return on Tuesday as a married 
man.  I will attend to you email at that time.

If the matter is urgent, please contact Elise Fitzgerald on 9268 2962 or [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

I am contactable on my mobile if my urgent attention is required, 0414 259 
797...  Note, I will not answer my phone during the ceremony, 4-5pm on 
Saturday. 

Regards,
Mark.

_
This message (including any attachments) is intended solely for the addressee 
named and may contain confidential and or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views 
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not 
necessarily the views of the Ministry of Transport (MoT). Whole or parts of 
this e-mail may be subject to copyright of the Ministry or third parties. You 
should only re-transmit, distribute or use the material for commercial purposes 
if you are authorised to do so.

Please visit us http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500.info


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Nancy Gill
I see your point, Thom.  The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. 
the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the 
same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good 
practice, IMO.  Most people would just close the reader thinking they would 
be back on the page they left .. and they're not.  I have seen many 
questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted 
to be.


In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things 
.. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that.  Not 
everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find 
it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate 
a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a 
new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra 
to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open 
windows I often just leave it.


I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people 
have very different habbits.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  How 
can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with 
accessibility will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to have 
this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links 
that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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]
***



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release 
Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







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



Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread dwain
On 3/27/08, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 is it on this page?
 http://www.alforddesigngroup.com/

  yes
-- 
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] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread dwain
On 3/27/08, Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:07 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink
  wrap their contents while others don't.  any takers?
 

 Block level elements such as DIV will be 100% of the width of their parent
 container, unless they are floated - in which case they can either have an
 explicit width set via CSS, or they will shrinkwrap their contents.


i had no width set on the nav ul or the nav div and they both went to 100%.
the div didn't shrink wrap the div and ul.
dwain
-- 
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] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread David Dorward


On 27 Mar 2008, at 12:32, IceKat wrote:
I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't  
a link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys  
for forms because u was used to show which letter was the access  
key. Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm  
really sorry there is no alternative as there is with b and i.


Access keys have other problems, and while an underline might be a  
convention to indicate such things on some systems, it is hardly  
universal (or useful to blind users).



Does anyone know an alternative to xmp?


CDATA markers in XHTML documents (served with the right content type).

I know you can use entitiy codes but this one saved the trouble and  
is now depreciated.


Set up a macro in your text editor to do it.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Hassan Schroeder

Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. 


Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as
a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best
possible decisions. :-)

Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people
build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged
frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one).

As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your
browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if
the help screen takes over your entire application window space,
or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an
acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*.

Horses for courses...
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


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



Re: [WSG] :: dropdown menus ::

2008-03-27 Thread David Dorward


On 27 Mar 2008, at 12:44, Amrinder wrote:

I am stuck with dropdown menus.


Uh Oh. http://www.message.uk.com/index.php?page=81

They are working fine in IE-7, and firefox and the evil IE6 doesn't  
render it.

Should I use javascript or CSS for this.


JavaScript. You can't minimise accessibility problems (such as those  
involved with tracking the mouse down a narrow column while suffering  
from arthritis) with CSS alone.


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread David Dorward


On 27 Mar 2008, at 15:44, Michael Horowitz wrote:

I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml


You read wrong. It is not part of Strict (HTML or XHTML), it is part  
of Transitional.



Why not.


Opening new windows is behaviour and thus out of scope for a markup  
language that describes document structure and semantics.



  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.
http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank- 
xhtml-10-strict-conversion/


Not really - that makes it harder to filter out target=_blank with  
a proxy.


Sticking to a single window is usually a better idea. http:// 
diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




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



Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]

2008-03-27 Thread Matthew Pennell
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 i had no width set on the nav ul or the nav div and they both went to
 100%.  the div didn't shrink wrap the div and ul.


That would be correct behaviour, unless you are saying that they were
floated.

-- 

- Matthew


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

Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread David Dorward


On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:31, Hassan Schroeder wrote:

Michael Horowitz wrote:

I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml


It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional


It is part of Transitional.


-- it's part of XHTML 1.0 Frameset.


Frameset is for frameSET documents, i.e. those with a frameset  
instead of a body. They aren't suitable for most pages on the web.  
They include the target attribute because the alternative content  
section lets you use anything in Transitional.


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread David Dorward


On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:09, Rob Kirton wrote:
I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML  
transitional DTD


Don't do that. _new is not (X)HTML.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.16

Paraphrasing: Except for the reserved names (_blank, _self, _parent,  
_top), frame target names must begin with an alphabetic character


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Thomas Thomassen
Sure, there are cases where you would wish to open a new window. But I 
wouldn't compare a website and a web application, or desktop application.
For websites I don't see the need to pop up windows left and right because 
the links lead off-site. This is something that's often done with the intent 
of keeping the user on the site. However, that won't help if the user is 
really done at that site, just  creates extra steps for the user to do so.


Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based applications. 
I'll agree to that. I've used it when making some HTA applications myself. 
But as I said, it's a different fish from websites.


-Thom

- Original Message - 
From: Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



Thomas Thomassen wrote:

Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour.


Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as
a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best
possible decisions. :-)

Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people
build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged
frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one).

As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your
browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if
the help screen takes over your entire application window space,
or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an
acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*.

Horses for courses...
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


***
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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Hassan Schroeder

Thomas Thomassen wrote:

Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based 
applications. I'll agree to that. 


Which is exactly my point -- why remove (or even deprecate) a useful
capability because it's been abused by some?

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Andrew Maben


On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Rob Kirton wrote:


of course you are right there, however if the brief says so


I know, I know... sigh / I'm in the middle of half a dozen  
conversations in which which I'm being commanded to make hideous  
assaults on usability - but I do feel duty-bound in every case to  
point out that it is a usability issue, and the possible repercussions.


But, heck, what do any of us know, right?

Andrew







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

Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Thomas Thomassen
As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal 
preferance.


But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen 
many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window as 
they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When they 
want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back button 
suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way back.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I see your point, Thom.  The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. 
the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the 
same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good 
practice, IMO.  Most people would just close the reader thinking they would 
be back on the page they left .. and they're not.  I have seen many 
questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they 
wanted to be.


In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those 
things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. 
Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find 
it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to 
navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open 
up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me 
click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly 
pops open windows I often just leave it.


I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as 
people have very different habbits.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  How 
can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with 
accessibility will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to have 
this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links 
that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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]
***



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread Rochester oliveira
em and strong are NOT for screen readers. they are for the semantic markup.

screen readers do not render em and strong, they read it as plain text.

2008/3/27, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a
  link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for
  forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key.
  Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry
  there is no alternative as there is with b and i.

  Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy
  codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps
  they could bring those two back.


  IceKat



  Joseph Ortenzi wrote:
   Very good points
  
   b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic.
   u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text
   can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention.
  
   I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click
   underlined text so keep it out please...
  
   I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a
   link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but
   good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention.
  
   Joe
  
  
   On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
  
   Hi,
  
   Usability.
   Users expect link-text to be underlined.  Many user studies found that
   when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite
   annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined
   text several times before they gave up).
  
   Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided
   this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start
   styling their link colours as they thought fit.  Even though this
   styling
   often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined
   text to
   mean links.  This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it
   was
   u.
  
   b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you
   want to
   style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that
   em and
   strong confer.
  
  
   On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote:
   Hi,
  
   I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been
   deprecated
   while b and i are still allowed.
  
   Thanks in advance.
  
   Best regards,
   Kepler Gelotte
   Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
   156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
   www.neighborwebmaster.com
   phone/fax: (732) 302-0904
  
  
  
   ***
   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]
   ***
  
  
   ==
   Joe Ortenzi
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  
   ***
   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]
  ***




-- 
[]'s

-
Rochester Oliveira
http://webbemfeita.com/
Viva a Web-Bem-Feita
Web Designer
Curitiba - PR - Brasil


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Nancy Gill
I have seen that too Thom .. and you have a good point.  I have also had 
clients specifically request that while they want to link to other sites, 
they don't want the user to be off their site either.  And even I don't do 
frames.   ;)


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal 
preferance.


But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen 
many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window 
as they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When 
they want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back 
button suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way 
back.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I see your point, Thom.  The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. 
the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in 
the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good 
practice, IMO.  Most people would just close the reader thinking they 
would be back on the page they left .. and they're not.  I have seen many 
questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they 
wanted to be.


In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those 
things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. 
Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one 
find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to 
navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to 
open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes 
me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site 
constantly pops open windows I often just leave it.


I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as 
people have very different habbits.


-Thom


- Original Message - 
From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml


I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  How 
can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with 
accessibility will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to have 
this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links 
that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/

--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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]
***



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







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






RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Darren Lovelock
I agree, where possible, you shouldnt make decisions for your visitors.
Users will return to a website using the back button if they want to. 
 
Darren Lovelock
Munky Online Web Design
 http://www.munkyonline.co.uk/ http://www.munkyonline.co.uk
T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew Maben
Sent: 27 March 2008 16:01
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml



On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote:


I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript.


No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether.

(IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...)

Andrew






***
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] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread Stuart Foulstone

But semantic mark-up such as em and strong is there for user-agents
such as screen-readers to use.  That they do not currently render them as
different from normal text does not mean that it is not the intention.

We create Web standards that user-agents can work towards implementing (if
they wish) not the other way round.


On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:17 pm, Rochester oliveira wrote:
 em and strong are NOT for screen readers. they are for the semantic
 markup.

 screen readers do not render em and strong, they read it as plain
 text.

 2008/3/27, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a
  link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for
  forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key.
  Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really
 sorry
  there is no alternative as there is with b and i.

  Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy
  codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps
  they could bring those two back.


  IceKat



  Joseph Ortenzi wrote:
   Very good points
  
   b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic.
   u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text
   can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention.
  
   I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click
   underlined text so keep it out please...
  
   I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a
   link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but
   good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention.
  
   Joe
  
  
   On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
  
   Hi,
  
   Usability.
   Users expect link-text to be underlined.  Many user studies found
 that
   when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite
   annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the
 underlined
   text several times before they gave up).
  
   Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have
 avoided
   this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to
 start
   styling their link colours as they thought fit.  Even though this
   styling
   often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined
   text to
   mean links.  This led to the confusion, so something had to give -
 it
   was
   u.
  
   b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you
   want to
   style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that
   em and
   strong confer.
  
  
   On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote:
   Hi,
  
   I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been
   deprecated
   while b and i are still allowed.
  
   Thanks in advance.
  
   Best regards,
   Kepler Gelotte
   Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
   156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
   www.neighborwebmaster.com
   phone/fax: (732) 302-0904
  
  
  
   ***
   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]
   ***
  
  
   ==
   Joe Ortenzi
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  
   ***
   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]
  ***




 --
 []'s

 -
 Rochester Oliveira
 http://webbemfeita.com/
 Viva a Web-Bem-Feita
 Web Designer
 Curitiba - PR - Brasil


 ***
 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] restricting width in the body tag

2008-03-27 Thread Andrew Boyd
Chris,

it is all design.

This list is (in my observation) more about standards-compliant design than it 
is about the standards themselves. Some of it is tag-level accessibility, some 
of it about wider user experience issues. But it is all design.

Cheers, Andrew

Andrew Boyd
Consultant
SMS Management  Technology

M 0413 048 542
T +61 2 6279 7100
F +61 2 6279 7101
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
About SMS: Ground Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit, CANBERRA AIRPORT  ACT  2609  
www.smsmt.com
SMS Management  Technology (SMS) [ASX:SMX] is Australia's largest, publicly 
listed Management Services company. We solve complex problems and transform 
business through Consulting, People and Technology

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Broadfoot [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2008 1:16 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] restricting width in the body tag

William Donovan wrote:
 Hi all,

 I wanted to ask a question of better practice and current standards view.

 Is it better to have a header and footer stretch across the width of the 
 browser window or be restricted to the width of the defined. left aligned 
 content area. Leaving lots of vacant white space for people with wider screen 
 resolution.

 (the question arises as people are becoming concerned about laptop users with 
 1600 pixel wide computer screens)


 and if it is to be restricted in width, should the styling restriction be 
 applied to the body tag?

 Thank
 William


This, to me, sounds like a design decision and doesn't seem related to
web standards at all.

Review your targeted viewers, and assess your design and usability in
whatever environments your viewers will be using

Chris


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

NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in 
reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management 
 Technology on 9696 0911 immediately.  Any views expressed in this 
Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management  Technology.  
Except as required by law, SMS Management  Technology does not represent, 
warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been 
maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception 
or interference.


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



RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Michael Horowitz
 Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:45 AM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
 
 I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml
 
 Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
javascript.
 http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-
 strict-conversion/

If you really need to open a new window, this JS solution may help as it
does not require extra markup:
http://tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.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] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread Christian Snodgrass
I think that b and i are equivalent to u and that they probably 
should be deprecated. They probably will be in HTML5 (though I haven't 
looked). In my opinion, those are purely style, not semantic, and should 
be done with CSS.


Joseph Ortenzi wrote:

Very good points

b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic.
u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text 
can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention.


I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click 
underlined text so keep it out please...


I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a 
link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but 
good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention.


Joe


On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote:


Hi,

Usability.
Users expect link-text to be underlined.  Many user studies found that
when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite
annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined
text several times before they gave up).

Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided
this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start
styling their link colours as they thought fit.  Even though this 
styling
often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined 
text to
mean links.  This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it 
was

u.

b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you 
want to
style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that 
em and

strong confer.


On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote:

Hi,

I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been
deprecated
while b and i are still allowed.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904



***
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]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




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





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



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



RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Jens-Uwe Korff
 Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour.

I second that. Originally I had the target solution, then (to make it
XHTML-compliant) an inline JS solution. With the next redesign I will
throw it out altogether and just indicate external links through CSS,
but leave it to the user to decide on new windows.

Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


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



Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

2008-03-27 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
Yes but you choose to do so rather than being forced to do so. Usability 
tests still show that opening a new window confuses people. They can't 
work out whey they can't go back and don't seem to be aware of the task 
bar. I'm not sure how users react to tabbed browsers but in my own 
limited experience its very much the same, they seem totally unaware of 
the tab bar.


Nancy Gill wrote:
I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere.  
How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with 
accessibility will probably turn it off anyway?  Makes no sense to 
have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. 
for links that go offsite, etc.


Nancy

- Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml



I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml

Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with 
javascript.
http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ 



--
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - 
Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM







***
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]
***