Re: R: [WSG] is display:none inheritance

2008-05-12 Thread Michael Persson


Trying to HACK your CSS for different browser can be a disaster for 
future browser

versions so its is suggested to never hack the CSS and follow the standards.

It will also make life easier for a front end developer...

tee wrote:


On May 11, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Darren Lovelock wrote:


See here for more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~peterned/csshover.html


Curious, what kind of trick to feed different style sheet for 
different browser - Not saying IE.


http://wwwl.lotusseedsdesign.com/xs4all.png

The one shows up in Safari, is totally unreadable, for a second I 
thought the Safari messes up the style sheet.


tee


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




--
Michael Persson
front-end developer  seo


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



Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

2008-05-12 Thread Michael Persson

Dear Scott,

I think helping your client to install a proper web browser would also 
eliminate

other website problems also.

IE5 have terrible CSS support and you will need to make table design 
again to

make a website look ok in IE5... dont even go there.!!!

using a IE5 is really ancient nad was maybe standard 1999, its really 
bad to see
these clients but we should educate them and teach them the difference 
in order

to keep updating these softwares...

Michael


Scott Elcomb wrote:

On 5/8/08, chris | chrisbuttery.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Hi All,
I'm relatively new to this group  this is my first post. So here goes.



Same here.  (Hi all!)

  

The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser (
IE5...which i don't have )
that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through
a series of screen shots
supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing
things.



I agree with the other posters... I wouldn't support IE 5.x if it
could be helped.

  

My question to you guys is how do you develop  test your websites to ensure
they are interpreted correctly
by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test
them with?



I haven't actually tried this, but came across it as a sponsored link
in my gmail.  A quick look around the site and I find myself somewhat
impressed.  I'm intending to try this out over the next couple of
weeks.

http://www.crossbrowsertesting.com/

Essentially, it's a VNC-like setup to Virtual Machines running various
OS's and Browsers.  Some of the VM's described do have IE 5 installed.

Some caveats:
  - IIRC, your site will need to be available online
  - I can't vouch for their security policies.
  - If you don't want to pay for time slots, you're limited to 5
minute sessions.  Depending on server load, you can jump right back in
after a session expires.

Best of luck!
  



--
Michael Persson
front-end developer  seo


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



Re: [WSG] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

2008-05-12 Thread Korny Sietsma
Hmm - we're currently debating what to do about dynamic css on our
project (Ruby on Rails based)
There seem to be a few options:
- No dynamic css at all
- Simple templated stuff, where the code is basically css + inline ruby:
#whatever { background-color : %= background_colour %; }
- Something that builds css from a difference css-like language like
Sass: http://haml.hamptoncatlin.com/docs/rdoc/classes/Sass.html
- Or something else...

I'd be interested in the thoughts of folks here.  A simple template
would have the advantage of (possibly) working well in css editors and
tools; but there also seems to be some buzz around tools like Sass
that take some more repetition out of the CSS.

Or is there something else we should look at?  Really, mostly we are
just looking for ways to avoid too much repetition - it'd be good to
avoid endlessly repeating colour codes and font sizes all over the
place, when we have a server-side language available that could build
our css for us.

- Korny

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Adam Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 We use a very similar approach - php to deliver the css.
 This allows us to do some very cool things, such as target browsers with
 simple comments

 For example:

 /* IE
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 or we can even target browser versions

 /* IE6
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 or even browsers and operating systems

 /* Opera 9.10 Win
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 We also store basic css configuration into a config.ini file that can be
 read by the php script, for example:

 #-#
 # LAYOUT DEFINITION
 #   style1 centered content, header and footer are fullscreen width
 #   style2 fullscreen
 #   style3 centered
 #   style4 header fullscreen, everything else centered
 #   style5 footer fullscreen, everything else centered
 #-#

 layout.style= style3;
 layout.width= 758;
 left.width  = 185;
 right.width = 0;
 header.display  = true;
 footer.display  = true;
 body.bg = #FFF;
 header.bg   = #FFF;
 left.bg = #dae2f0;
 right.bg= #78746E;
 main.bg = #FFF;
 footer.bg   = #FFF;

 this sets up our basic layout for us, very quickly and easily. The true
 power is in using some logic to produce the cs is that is needed. We can
 then compress it all nicely, add a future expiry date, cache and we are good
 to go.

 Sorry, this seemed to get completely off topic, but I am sure it will spark
 some conversations :)
 Cheers
 Adam



 On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:46:34 +1000, David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:19:24 +0530, Amrinder wrote:

 I was reading this article on Smashing Magazine which shows how to
 increase code
 readability,

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-
 styleguides/

 but I have listened to Andy Clarke over Lynda.com saying that one should
 save the white
 space as it increases the file size.



 Ted Drake replied:

 Reduce the number of css files used
 Link to them in the top of the page, no inline styles
 Gzip and reduce the whitespace when going to production.

 ~~~

 A job for a server-side script. See:

  http://www.coolphptools.com/dynamic_css
 Cordially,
 David
 --




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




 --
 Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


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





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com


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



Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

2008-05-12 Thread Matt Fellows
As much as I agree to what your are saying regarding IE5, it is still
ignoring the fact that people are using it, albeit a small proportion.
If your client absolutely _needs_ it, then you will have to code for
it.

I think this has already been mentioned but perhaps if you could get a
hold of some server logs/analytics, you might be able to see that only
.07% (~500 of about 700,000 on our site) actually use MSIE 5.0. Then
you can make the argument that it is not worth it.

Cheers,

Matt

--
Matt Fellows
http://www.onegeek.com.au


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



[WSG] Web Standards and Design Patterns in Web Applications

2008-05-12 Thread Anthony Green
Does anyone have any guides to developing standards based/accessible web
applications like Basecamp ?

For example a common pattern for website navigation is the tab list of links

ul
lia href ...Cats/li
lia href ...Dogs/li
lia href ...Mice/li
/ul

However web applications often copy the navigation pattern from desktop apps
of having the tab to the resource your viewing not a link

# .dogs.htm

ul
lia href ...Cats/li
liemDogs/em/li
lia href ...Mice/li
/ul

Is the second pattern acceptable ?

Other questions on building web standards applications might be : how do you
direct assistive device users to errors in forms or how do you handle ajax
updates to items on the page.

Any thoughts/blog posts/podcasts on the subject welcome.

Tony




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



Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

2008-05-12 Thread Krystian - Sunlust
In a way it's like designing websites for disabled people, it's
probably 0.01% of the visitors, but we should provide ways for them to
move around the website and make it more accessible, so it 0.5% uses
IE5 then we should provide a website that is at least working properly
(I wouldn't be concerned about it looks for IE5), difference is that
IE5 and 6 users often can switch, disabled people can't just upgrade
their bodies or sences, they're stuck with them for life.

-- 
Krystian - Sunlust
Freelance on the side: Sunlust Designs - http://sunlust.net
Full time Website Designer at SME System Solutions Ltd


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



Re: [WSG] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

2008-05-12 Thread Mark Harris

Korny Sietsma wrote:

I'd be interested in the thoughts of folks here.  A simple template
would have the advantage of (possibly) working well in css editors and
tools; but there also seems to be some buzz around tools like Sass
that take some more repetition out of the CSS.


Is SASS a standard? Nope. Will it work without HAML? Nope.

Then my thought would be that it's going to have issues  somewhere (I'm 
not familiar with it beyond a quick skim of the link you provided plus a 
glance at Wikipedia so I can't say where exactly)




Or is there something else we should look at?  Really, mostly we are
just looking for ways to avoid too much repetition - it'd be good to
avoid endlessly repeating colour codes and font sizes all over the
place, when we have a server-side language available that could build
our css for us.



U, I don't think you've fully grasped the nature of CSS, which is 
designed specifically NOT to have you endlessly repeating colour codes 
and font sizes all over the place by declaring the styles as classes 
and using IDs to determine where to apply those classes.


Anything that's generated server-side is going to  send unnecessary 
overhead down to the browser. Letting the browser do the parsing and 
rendering (which is what it has a rendering engine for) seems much more 
sensible.


Additionally, if you're not supplying properly formatted CSS, but 
something preformatted at the server, how is the browser going to 
understand it? How are assistive technologies going to understand it?


I may be missing something here but SASS has the feeling of a solution 
looking for a problem, or a programmer wanting to get his credit for 
adding something to RoR (which is the tech du jour). That's probably 
unfair, but I've been doing accessibility testing all day and I'm kinda 
grouchy


mark





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



Re: [WSG] Web Standards and Design Patterns in Web Applications

2008-05-12 Thread Steven Workman
Hi Anthony,

I've always found through usability testing, that people use the highest
level of navigation to get back to the start of a task (generally the tabs).
Using the first pattern plus a body ID and CSS to highlight the current tab
(and remove the a:hover cursor) will give the same effect as removing the
link whilst allowing users to click on the tab if required (which they
almost certainly will do).

If you use the second pattern, be sure there's a link to the top-level of
navigation inside that page, or a user will have to visit a different
section in order to get back to the top level of the section they're in.

Steve

On 12/05/2008, Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Does anyone have any guides to developing standards based/accessible web
 applications like Basecamp ?

 For example a common pattern for website navigation is the tab list of
 links

 ul
 lia href ...Cats/li
 lia href ...Dogs/li
 lia href ...Mice/li
 /ul

 However web applications often copy the navigation pattern from desktop
 apps
 of having the tab to the resource your viewing not a link

 # .dogs.htm

 ul
 lia href ...Cats/li
 liemDogs/em/li
 lia href ...Mice/li
 /ul

 Is the second pattern acceptable ?

 Other questions on building web standards applications might be : how do
 you
 direct assistive device users to errors in forms or how do you handle ajax
 updates to items on the page.

 Any thoughts/blog posts/podcasts on the subject welcome.

 Tony




 ***
 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] Web Standards and Design Patterns in Web Applications

2008-05-12 Thread Schalk Neethling

Hi there Tony,

There is some really useful articles at http://css.dzone.com/. You might 
especially find  Presentation Layer Accessibility and  AJAX and Screen 
Readers - Content Access Issues very useful.


Regards,
Schalk

Steven Workman wrote:

Hi Anthony,

I've always found through usability testing, that people use the highest 
level of navigation to get back to the start of a task (generally the 
tabs). Using the first pattern plus a body ID and CSS to highlight the 
current tab (and remove the a:hover cursor) will give the same effect as 
removing the link whilst allowing users to click on the tab if required 
(which they almost certainly will do).


If you use the second pattern, be sure there's a link to the top-level 
of navigation inside that page, or a user will have to visit a different 
section in order to get back to the top level of the section they're in.


Steve


On 12/05/2008, *Anthony Green* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Does anyone have any guides to developing standards based/accessible web
applications like Basecamp ?

For example a common pattern for website navigation is the tab list
of links

ul
lia href ...Cats/li
lia href ...Dogs/li
lia href ...Mice/li
/ul

However web applications often copy the navigation pattern from
desktop apps
of having the tab to the resource your viewing not a link

# .dogs.htm

ul
lia href ...Cats/li
liemDogs/em/li
lia href ...Mice/li
/ul

Is the second pattern acceptable ?

Other questions on building web standards applications might be :
how do you
direct assistive device users to errors in forms or how do you
handle ajax
updates to items on the page.

Any thoughts/blog posts/podcasts on the subject welcome.

Tony




***
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]
***




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 2008/05/11 01:08 PM



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



Re: [WSG] alt text and titles for linked images

2008-05-12 Thread Matijs
I would do it this way:

ul class=bodyList
lia href=# class=body1 title=your title hereBody1/a/li
lia href=# class=body2 title=your title hereBody2/a/li
lia href=# class=body3 title=your title hereBody3/a/li
lia href=# class=body4 title=your title hereBody4/a/li
lia href=# class=body5 title=your title hereBody5/a/li
/ul

ul.bodyList {
list-style: none;
}

ul.bodyList li {
float: left;
}

ul.bodyList a {
display: block;
text-indent: -px; /* only if you don't want Body1 etc.. to show of
course */
text-decoration: none;
line-height: 50px /* your image's height */
}

a.body1 {
background: url(../to/image.gif) no-repeat;
width: 100px; /* your image's width */
}

a.body2 {
/* background, width, etc... */
}

Just a thought, but then again, I'm pretty keen on lists :)

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On 9 May 2008, at 23:00, Krystian - Sunlust wrote:

  Hi Rick,
 
  I would give title to the link as the name of the organisation, since
  the link leads there, and then the alt of the image as this company is
  a member of the organization, because that's the reason that you show
  this image and that's it's meaning.
 

 Thanks Krystian, that makes sense.

 --
 Rick Lecoat




 ***
 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] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

2008-05-12 Thread Adam Martin
this is exactly why we use serverside scripts along with a config file 
to define some base  declarations such as colors.

then we can change the color in one place only, using the below example

#results .fn { font-size: 0.86em; color #739EA8; }
#results .tel { font-size: 0.86em; color #33; }
#results .adr { font-size: 0.73em; color #739EA8; }


would become something like

#results .fn { font-size: 0.86em; color: ?php echo $styles-color-color1; ?; 
}
#results .tel { font-size: 0.86em; color: ?php echo $styles-color-color2; 
?; }
#results .adr { font-size: 0.73em; color: ?php echo $styles-color-color1; 
?; }

in our config file, we have

color.color1 = #739EA8;
color.color2 = #33;


allows easy update of almost everything, much easier to maintain as well.

Adam




Korny Sietsma wrote:

I tend to agree about SASS, however I'm not sure you can really avoid
repetition in css.  (ok, endlessly is an overstatement!)

Sure, where possible we'll reuse classes, but there are several places
where this would be hard, or would make our css messier.

For example, if I have a name field coloured #739EA8 and font size
0.86em, and a phonenumber field coloured #33 but also font size
0.86em, and a address coloured #739EA8 but 0.73em; I could try to
define some base class with font-color #739EA8, and a second one with
font-color #33, and a third base class with font size 0.86em, and
a fourth base class with font size 0.73em - and then mix those classes
together as needed - but it doesn't feel like semantic markup to me!

Instead, I have
#results .fn { font-size: 0.86em; color #739EA8; }
#results .tel { font-size: 0.86em; color #33; }
#results .adr { font-size: 0.73em; color #739EA8; }

... and when the designers say they want to change a font size, or a
colour, we have to change it all over the place.  It's not a vast
effort, but it would make the code more readable and more maintainable
if we could define the sizes and colours once.  Maybe it's just having
had the don't repeat yourself mantra hammered into our heads too
often :)

(Incidentally, as to your other points, most of these tools like SASS
will generate standard readable css files at deployment time - I agree
we don't want css to be generated at run-time!)

- Korny

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Korny Sietsma wrote:


I'd be interested in the thoughts of folks here.  A simple template
would have the advantage of (possibly) working well in css editors and
tools; but there also seems to be some buzz around tools like Sass
that take some more repetition out of the CSS.
  

Is SASS a standard? Nope. Will it work without HAML? Nope.

Then my thought would be that it's going to have issues  somewhere (I'm not
familiar with it beyond a quick skim of the link you provided plus a glance
at Wikipedia so I can't say where exactly)




Or is there something else we should look at?  Really, mostly we are
just looking for ways to avoid too much repetition - it'd be good to
avoid endlessly repeating colour codes and font sizes all over the
place, when we have a server-side language available that could build
our css for us.

  

U, I don't think you've fully grasped the nature of CSS, which is
designed specifically NOT to have you endlessly repeating colour codes and
font sizes all over the place by declaring the styles as classes and using
IDs to determine where to apply those classes.

Anything that's generated server-side is going to  send unnecessary overhead
down to the browser. Letting the browser do the parsing and rendering (which
is what it has a rendering engine for) seems much more sensible.

Additionally, if you're not supplying properly formatted CSS, but something
preformatted at the server, how is the browser going to understand it? How
are assistive technologies going to understand it?

I may be missing something here but SASS has the feeling of a solution
looking for a problem, or a programmer wanting to get his credit for adding
something to RoR (which is the tech du jour). That's probably unfair, but
I've been doing accessibility testing all day and I'm kinda grouchy

mark





***
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] Printing CSS background

2008-05-12 Thread Léo Siqueira
Yes, i know, i know, just check the option at page setup from your browser
to print background and images, but, what make when you client consumer does
understand this simple step ?

I have a new redesign from a website, all HTML strict and CSS validated,
beautiful, but don't print the background images from all website.
I already search and research a way to make this simple, but i found only a
solution that´s not the best choice:
http://www.web-graphics.com/mtarchive/001703.php

Someone have a suggestion to make CSS background printable ? Or other
technique like generate PDF ?
The website is based on JAVA development...

So, that it, wait for your comments !!!

Regards for all !!!
Thanks !

:D

[]´s

Léo Siqueira
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+551991112239


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


RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

2008-05-12 Thread Stuart Foulstone

This point originally concerned which character to use IF you use a
character to separate links. It did NOT say that this was the preferred
method.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 2:18 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
 Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
 character

 Really? Do you have any data supporting your claim? I'm happy to learn
 more since we cannot conduct user tests on our end. As was pointed out
 before, I thought a read of

 List. 5 items. Item one: . Item two:  etc.

 was good enough.

 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]
 ***






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



Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread Laert Jansen
Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/

Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the black
portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should not exist
that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?

thanks a lot

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.

 On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  Hi Laert,
 
  have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site wit ha
  full flash independent on the screen size...
 
  Michael
 
 
   Hello everyone.
  
   well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash file into
  the
   html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.
  
   Thanks a lot
  
   Laert
  
   --
   Laert Jansen
   www.laertjansen.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]
  ***
 
 

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




-- 
Laert Jansen
www.laertjansen.com


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


Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread James Jeffery
I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college so i
can't help until i get home

Nice site btw.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
 http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/

 Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the black
 portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should not exist
 that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?

 thanks a lot

 On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.
 
  On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
  
   Hi Laert,
  
   have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site wit
   ha
   full flash independent on the screen size...
  
   Michael
  
  
Hello everyone.
   
well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash file
   into the
html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.
   
Thanks a lot
   
Laert
   
--
Laert Jansen
www.laertjansen.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]
   ***
  
  
 
  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ***
 



 --
 Laert Jansen
 www.laertjansen.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]
***


Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread Laert Jansen
:) thanks

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college so
 i can't help until i get home

 Nice site btw.

 On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

  Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
  http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
 
  Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the
  black portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should not
  exist that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
 
  thanks a lot
 
  On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.
  
   On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   wrote:
  
   
Hi Laert,
   
have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site
wit ha
full flash independent on the screen size...
   
Michael
   
   
 Hello everyone.

 well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash file
into the
 html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.

 Thanks a lot

 Laert

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




-- 
Laert Jansen
www.laertjansen.com


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


Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread Michael Persson

Hi Laert,

I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in order to
eliminate the gap... im not a flash expert but I have published many sites
that are full size...

im using this, might make a difference

html, body {
height: 100%;
font-family:verdana;
}

michael


 :) thanks

 On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college
 so
 i can't help until i get home

 Nice site btw.

 On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

  Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
  http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
 
  Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the
  black portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should
 not
  exist that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
 
  thanks a lot
 
  On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.
  
   On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   wrote:
  
   
Hi Laert,
   
have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site
wit ha
full flash independent on the screen size...
   
Michael
   
   
 Hello everyone.

 well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash
 file
into the
 html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.

 Thanks a lot

 Laert

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




 --
 Laert Jansen
 www.laertjansen.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]
***



[WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread Simon
Hi,

Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support it
without a particular hack.

Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?

Secondly, I see a lot of sites that speak about CSS3 and using parts of that
now in the browsers that support it.

I get along fine with CSS 2 but haven't really adopted or tried any of the
newer more advanced CSS3 techniques. I haven't really had to. Is it also
worth learning this now or can I expect IE to hold back this standard for a
long time yet?

Thanks for your opinions

Simon



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



Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread David Storey


On 12 May 2008, at 22:42, Simon wrote:


Hi,

Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've  
read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support  
it

without a particular hack.

Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there  
any

point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


Not really.  There are only a couple of main differences between XHTML  
1 and 1.1.  The first is that it has been redefined in a modular  
fashion.  As a web developer you get no benefit from this.  The second  
difference is that there is a Ruby module (the only new  
functionality).  Ruby is a way of including ruby text relating to the  
regular text.  This is mostly used in Asian languages to explain how  
to pronounce words.  It is only supported by IE, even though XHTML  
isn't supported by IE.



Secondly, I see a lot of sites that speak about CSS3 and using parts  
of that

now in the browsers that support it.

I get along fine with CSS 2 but haven't really adopted or tried any  
of the
newer more advanced CSS3 techniques. I haven't really had to. Is it  
also
worth learning this now or can I expect IE to hold back this  
standard for a

long time yet?


Depends on what you want to do.  Media Queries are useful for  
optimising form mobile for example.  There are a lot of nice new CSS3  
selectors, supported by Opera and Safari (and to some extent Firefox),  
but they are not supported by IE.  text-shadow is something I use  
quite a bit as it degrades gracefully in browsers that don't support  
it (IE and Firefox both don't), thus is unless you use a text colour  
the same as the background colour.  box-shadow and border-radius are  
other properties that fallback nicely when not supported.


Web fonts look interesting, but it may be hampered by needing to use  
free fonts that are allowed to be freely distributed.


Some CSS3 is already used quite often in websites, such as opacity  
(supported by all mainstream browsers except IE)  Some CSS3 are  
standardisation's of IE only propertis, such as overflow-x and  
overflow-y, which have widespread support now.



Thanks for your opinions

Simon



***
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] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread Nikita The Spider The Spider
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi,

  Does anyone use XHTML 1.1

Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.

http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes

 and does it provide any benefits?

Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
XHTML 1.0 Strict?

  Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
  point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?

One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?

Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
one's content.

Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
XHTML 1.1.

About XHTML and media types:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

HTH


-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


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



Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread Ben Buchanan
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
 point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


Very very generally, I've found it's less critical which standard you use
than whether your stuff validates in your chosen standard.

Secondly, I see a lot of sites that speak about CSS3 and using parts of that
 now in the browsers that support it.


Basically what you're getting into there is the progressive enhancement
methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement).
Personally I think it's the way to go - give good stuff to the good
browsers, so long as it doesn't mess up the bad ones. That way IE doesn't
hold everything up.

cheers,
Ben

-- 
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


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

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread Andrew McGrath
 One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
 application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
 that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
 text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
 application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
 generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
 refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?


Very appealing...unless they're ie7 obviously


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

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread Laert Jansen
I´ve already set the height to 100%. The flash file is 778 x 560 px
I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top.


On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Hi Laert,

 I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in order to
 eliminate the gap... im not a flash expert but I have published many sites
 that are full size...

 im using this, might make a difference

 html, body {
height: 100%;
font-family:verdana;
 }

 michael


  :) thanks
 
  On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college
  so
  i can't help until i get home
 
  Nice site btw.
 
  On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
   Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
   http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
  
   Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the
   black portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should
  not
   exist that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
  
   thanks a lot
  
   On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.
   
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
   

 Hi Laert,

 have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site
 wit ha
 full flash independent on the screen size...

 Michael


  Hello everyone.
 
  well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash
  file
 into the
  html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.
 
  Thanks a lot
 
  Laert
 
  --
  Laert Jansen
  www.laertjansen.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]

 ***


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




-- 
Laert Jansen
www.laertjansen.com


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


Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

2008-05-12 Thread Andrew Maben

On May 12, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Laert Jansen wrote:


I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top


Well, I'm pretty out of touch with Flash, but looking at your page  
source I was struck by:


var so = new SWFObject(main.swf, main, 100%, 100%, 8,  
#ff);


Could that #ff have anything to do with it?

Andrew

http://www.andrewmaben.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

In a well designed user interface, the user should not need  
instructions.





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


Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread XStandard
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one copy 
of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML as you 
like.

HTH wrote:
 Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
 get done correctly
At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

Simon wrote:
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits?
The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content in 
XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make modifications 
to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your content.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM
 On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi,

  Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
 
 Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
 just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
 not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
 
 http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes
 
 and does it provide any benefits?
 
 Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
 XHTML 1.0 Strict?
 
  Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
  point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
 
 One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
 application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
 that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
 text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
 application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
 generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
 refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?
 
 Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
 correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
 one's content.
 
 Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
 to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
 just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
 question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
 XHTML 1.1.
 
 About XHTML and media types:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary
 
 HTH
 
 




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



Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread dwain
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
dwain


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



Re: [WSG] Printing CSS background

2008-05-12 Thread Jason Ray
Hi Leo,

If you create a print.css and link your pages to it, you should be able to
control which elements are visible and which ones aren't in the print out.

However, you would normally want a clean text-only, but well styled print
option. This helps to create a nice paper publication while saving on ink by
focusing on content and eliminating images which are there purely for design
and getting rid of unwanted navigation menus which serve no purpose in the
paper publication.

It may be worthwhile mentioning to your client the reason behind having a
mostly text only print option. Images which relate to the article should be
kept, and if the company wants their logo to appear somewhere you can style
that in with the print.css, but make it invisible in the web version. There
isn't much reason to have all the images and navigation appear on the print
out, unless your client needs them for some particular reason.

Hopefully this answers your question!

Jason


On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Léo Siqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Yes, i know, i know, just check the option at page setup from your browser
 to print background and images, but, what make when you client consumer does
 understand this simple step ?

 I have a new redesign from a website, all HTML strict and CSS validated,
 beautiful, but don't print the background images from all website.
 I already search and research a way to make this simple, but i found only
 a solution that´s not the best choice:
 http://www.web-graphics.com/mtarchive/001703.php

 Someone have a suggestion to make CSS background printable ? Or other
 technique like generate PDF ?
 The website is based on JAVA development...

 So, that it, wait for your comments !!!

 Regards for all !!!
 Thanks !

 :D

 []´s

 Léo Siqueira
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +551991112239
 ***
 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] Older Browsers

2008-05-12 Thread David Hucklesby
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:04:44 +0300, Michael Persson wrote:
 Dear Scott,

 I think helping your client to install a proper web browser would also 
 eliminate other
 website problems also.

 IE5 have terrible CSS support and you will need to make table design again to 
 make a
 website look ok in IE5... dont even go there.!!!

 using a IE5 is really ancient nad was maybe standard 1999, its really bad to 
 see
 these clients but we should educate them and teach them the difference in 
 order to keep
 updating these softwares...

~~

Latest browser stats[1] for the U.S. suggests around 6% of surfers use 
IE 5.x. That's twice as many as Safari users.

Of the IE 5 users, only 41% are using the latest version (5.5).

Oddly, I find working around IE 5 bugs easier than for IE 6. But
that's likely because I learned CSS on IE 5.5.

[1] http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm

Cordially,
David
--



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



Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

2008-05-12 Thread Dean Matthews

On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:


and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.


Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)




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



Re: [WSG] Printing CSS background

2008-05-12 Thread Matthew Pennell
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Léo Siqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Someone have a suggestion to make CSS background printable ?


You could visit every single one of your site users and explain to them how
to turn on background printing on their printer settings. And buy them some
printer ink as well.

-- 

- Matthew


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