Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
On 13 May 2008, at 01:36, Nikita The Spider The Spider wrote: 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. ... and IE7 and IE8. Adding support for XHTML hasn't been a priority for Microsoft (presumably because more people are going to benefit from better CSS support than from XHTML support). -- 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] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
If you do content negotiation to send html/text and XHTML 1.0 to IE and application/xhtml+xml XHTML to anyone else then you're effectivly using XHTML 1.0 html/text as you'd never be able to make use of the modular XML nature of XHTML 1.1. - Original Message - From: Nikita The Spider The Spider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now? 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] *** *** 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?
You can still do that with XHTML 1.0 sent as html/text. I've done that several times when I've made desktop gadgets to extract data from my site. The parsers doesn't care if the page is sent as html/text instead of xml/text. I don't see any point of using XHTML 1.1 unless you use it's modular nature. - Original Message - From: Vlad Alexander (XStandard) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now? 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] *** *** 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%
Hi Laert,
Try this
div id=flashcontent
strongYou need to upgrade your Flash Player/strong
This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash
plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you
to leave out codenoscript/code
tags. Include a link to a
href=fullpage.html?detectflash=falsebypass the detection/a if you wish.
/div
script type=text/javascript
// ![CDATA[
var so = new SWFObject(main.swf, main, 100%, 100%,
8, #ff);
so.addVariable(flashVarText, this is passed in via
FlashVars for example only);
so.addParam(scale, scale);
so.addParam(quality, high);
so.addParam(wmode, transparent);
so.write(flashcontent);
// ]]
/script
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Laert Jansen
Sent: 13 May 2008 02:58
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%
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]
***
Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%
nonsense!
You needn't use JS for this as it can be done without JS.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/
Joe
On May 13, 2008, at 08:55, Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd wrote:
Hi Laert,
Try this
div id=flashcontent
strongYou need to upgrade your Flash Player/strong
This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without
the Flash plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here
allows you to leave out codenoscript/code
tags. Include a link to a href=fullpage.html?
detectflash=falsebypass the detection/a if you wish.
/div
script type=text/javascript
// ![CDATA[
var so = new SWFObject(main.swf, main, 100%,
100%, 8, #ff);
so.addVariable(flashVarText, this is passed in via
FlashVars for example only);
so.addParam(scale, scale);
so.addParam(quality, high);
so.addParam(wmode, transparent);
so.write(flashcontent);
// ]]
/script
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laert Jansen
Sent: 13 May 2008 02:58
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%
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
Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%
From: Laert Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:58:03 -0300 Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100% 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. If you make the height:100% then it is 100% of the parent - since your flash file does not stretch to the that height the background shows which you have declared as white: var so = new SWFObject(main.swf, main, 100%, 100%, 8, #ff); -- You need to either make the background black or set the height of #flashcontent to the height of the flash content. j *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] a list apart expired
Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired: http://www.alistapart.com/ Cheers, Francisco. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] help with menu positioning
My brain isn't working. I thought I have the answer but it's not
working :-(
http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html
start from the second menu, the hover goes off , but actually the
position for the hover state is correct. I do not understand why the
link's position-x got it wrong starts from #m2 - I have my math
carefully calculated.
Here is the code:
#menu {width:920px;}
#menu ul {margin: 0;padding: 0;}
#menu ul li {float:left;margin-top: 8px;text-align: left;margin-left:
0;}
#menu li a:hover {background-position: left 39px;}
#m1, #m2, #m3, #m4, #m5, #m6, #m7, #m8 { height: 31px;background-
repeat: no-repeat;display:block;border-right: 1px solid #fff;
text-indent: -3000px;}
#m1 {width: 65px; background: url(../images/menu/m1.png);}
#m2 {width: 73px; background: url(../images/menu/m2.png) 65px 0;}
#m3 {width: 163px; background: url(../images/menu/m3.png) 138px 0;}
#m4 {width: 113px; background: url(../images/menu/m4.png) 301px 0;}
#m5 {width: 119px; background: url(../images/menu/m5.png) 414px 0;}
#m6 {width: 109px; background: url(../images/menu/m6.png) 533px 0;}
#m7 {width: 144px; background: url(../images/menu/m7.png) 642px 0;}
#m8 {width: 78px; background: url(../images/menu/m8.png) 786px 0;}
Any pointer is greatly appreciated.
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] a list apart expired
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Francisco Antunes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired: http://www.alistapart.com/ He's asleep at the moment. :) Do Happy Cog 'run' Magnolia as well? That lapsed too, I seem to remember. -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a list apart expired
Matthew Pennell wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Francisco Antunes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired: http://www.alistapart.com/ He's asleep at the moment. :) Do Happy Cog 'run' Magnolia as well? That lapsed too, I seem to remember. We should have seen this coming. After the IE8 fiasco, itobvious that the big Z is hanging up his standardista boots and running off to be a pig farmer (That was a joke, for the humour-impaired) mark wonders if he *dares* to back-order Zeldman's domain... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a list apart expired
Not from here it hasn't whois results: Domain Name: ALISTAPART.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM Name Server: NS2.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM Status: clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 13-may-2008 Creation Date: 07-may-1998 Expiration Date: 06-may-2009 On May 13, 2008, at 11:55, Francisco Antunes wrote: Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired: http://www.alistapart.com/ Cheers, Francisco. *** 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] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else? 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/ My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml. The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done correctly. It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml). But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're getting it right most of the time. There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly) on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the standards than me. You might find it interesting reading. Cheers -- 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] a list apart expired
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not from here it hasn't whois results: Domain Name: ALISTAPART.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM Karma... one word, just... karma. Cheers, Andrew -- --- Andrew Boyd http://onblogging.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] help with menu positioning
tee wrote:
My brain isn't working. I thought I have the answer but it's not
working :-(
http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html
Missing base-position...
#menu li a {background-position: left top;}
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
On 5 May 2008, at 19:04, Thierry Koblentz wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:26 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option. My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the established structure: dl dt client's quote /dt dd client's name /dd dd client's company /dd /dl I think you're missing an important element: blockquote but then it won't be allowed in a DT Hi, just returning to this issue. Thierry, I had actually com to the same blockquote conclusion, and my solution last week to a list of testimonials was this: div#testimonials ul li blockquote p p.clientName p.clientCompany /blockquote /li li blockquote p p.clientName p.clientCompany /blockquote /li /ul /div (that's simplified, obviously). I'm going back over my markup to see if I can streamline it, and I'm wondering if the ul/li structure is needed. On the one hand it *is* semantically a list -- it's a list of testimonials after all. On the other hand a series of blockquotes wrapped in a div is much neater and less busy. My question to the panel is: do you think that the unordered list markup is required semantically? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** 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%
the problem isn´t the color of that areais that that area shouldn´t exist..I left it white on purpose just to show the area apart from the rest... On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] *** -- 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] Definition lists for testimonials
how about using the blockquote cite attribute? http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/ They mention using cite for a url (or email link) and title for the details. seems to be compliant to me... On May 13, 2008, at 16:31, Rick Lecoat wrote: On 5 May 2008, at 19:04, Thierry Koblentz wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:26 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option. My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the established structure: dl dt client's quote /dt dd client's name /dd dd client's company /dd /dl I think you're missing an important element: blockquote but then it won't be allowed in a DT Hi, just returning to this issue. Thierry, I had actually com to the same blockquote conclusion, and my solution last week to a list of testimonials was this: div#testimonials ul li blockquote p p.clientName p.clientCompany /blockquote /li li blockquote p p.clientName p.clientCompany /blockquote /li /ul /div (that's simplified, obviously). I'm going back over my markup to see if I can streamline it, and I'm wondering if the ul/li structure is needed. On the one hand it *is* semantically a list -- it's a list of testimonials after all. On the other hand a series of blockquotes wrapped in a div is much neater and less busy. My question to the panel is: do you think that the unordered list markup is required semantically? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** 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] Definition lists for testimonials
On 13 May 2008, at 17:56, Joseph Ortenzi wrote: how about using the blockquote cite attribute? http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/ They mention using cite for a url (or email link) and title for the details. seems to be compliant to me... Hi Joseph; Thanks for your reply. Maybe I'm mis-reading your post but it sounds as if you are suggesting that I use cite and title to replace the p.clientName and p.clientCompany tags. The problem with that, as I see it, is that the cite attribute is supposed to point to an online source URL, and only one or two of these testimonials have a relevant URL to link to. Secondly, even if the title attribute is appropriate for the client's name and company, then by embedding that information in the title attribute it is effectively hidden apart from on mouse- over -- not much use to keyboard using visitors. I think that if I'm reading a testimonial I expect to see the originator's name and credentials clearly at the bottom, rather than hidden inside the code waiting for a mouse over. On the other hand, if I misinterpreted your post and you were suggesting using the attributes *in addition* to the structure that I already had, then I agree completely, with the caveat that some of the blockquotes would have to have (null) cite attributes. Bear in mind that the markup I jotted down was a highly simplified version of the actual code. Lastly, when you said seems to be compliant to me were you referring to the brainstormsandraves example you gave me, or where you referring to my markup? And if so, which version (ie. with the ul or without)? Thanks again; -- Rick Lecoat *** 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%
On 13 May 2008, at 11:39, jay wrote: If you make the height:100% then it is 100% of the parent - since your flash file does not stretch to the that height the background shows which you have declared as white: var so = new SWFObject(main.swf, main, 100%, 100%, 8, #ff); -- You need to either make the background black or set the height of #flashcontent to the height of the flash content. On 13 May 2008, at 17:49, Laert Jansen wrote: the problem isn´t the color of that areais that that area shouldn´t exist..I left it white on purpose just to show the area apart from the rest... Leart; What Jay was saying (I think) is that your SWFObject setup is coded to go full screen. Your flash file (778 x 560 px) will scale to fit but only with it's original height:width ratio. So unless your browser viewport is precisely the same ratio of heigh to width as the flash file, you will get 'dead space' either top and bottom or on each side. Like if you watch a widescreen film on a traditional-size (4:3) TV, you get black bands top and bottom. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
On 13 May 2008, at 19:48, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote: Don't forget the cite element too. If a source isn't online you wouldn't use the cite attribute, but the element will still help with proper attribution. Mike, you're bang on the money: I had indeed completely forgotten about the cite element, and it's just the tool for the job here. And thanks for confirming what I already suspected -- that the list was over-egging the pudding. Peculiarly, I immediately (in shame) went to O'Reilly's 'HTML XHTML - The Definitive Guide' to refresh my memory about the cite element and discovered that it appears to not be listed in the index at all. Attribute: yes, element: no. Weird. Thanks again, and to everyone else who responded. -- Rick Lecoat *** 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?
where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet? dwain On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] *** -- 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] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nikita, Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot: http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif Hi Vlad, OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works in HTML.) The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this list, that seems pretty significant. Cheers Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else? 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/ My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml. The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done correctly. It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml). But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're getting it right most of the time. There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly) on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the standards than me. You might find it interesting reading. Cheers -- 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?
On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote: where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet? dwain On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 ;) It's at: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_uri+with_options Under profile, select CSS 3 Don't know about Firefox. *** 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?
thanks for the info. cheers, dwain On 5/13/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote: where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet? dwain On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 ;) It's at: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_uri+with_options Under profile, select CSS 3 Don't know about Firefox. *** 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] ***
[WSG] Large Background Images
Hi, The use of large backgrounds has become more common given expanding bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of wisdom for using a full-page BG can the list cultivate? Chris *** 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?
From time to time over the past several years I have served web pages as XHTML 1.0 with content (MIME) type text/html to IE Browsers and with content (MIME) type application/xhtml+xml to Browsers that recognize that content type -- via Content Negotiation. My current Home Page -- http://jp29.org/ -- is served in this manner. I compose the great majority of my pages using HTML 4.01 Markup (a few using ISO-HTML) and they are naturally served as text/html. I actually started using Content Negotiation for XHTML documents as an experiment to see how the concept worked in practice. I currently also employ Content Negotiation for my XHTML+RDFa test page -- http://jp29.org/rdfaprimerx.php -- there is no Appendix C provision (ala XHTML 1.0) for XHTML+RDFa -- if such documents are served as text/html the W3C Validator adds the following generic note to the successful validation report (quote): Warning Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a registered media type for the XHTML + RDFa Document Type. The recommended media type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml . The W3C is currently serving some of their XHTML+RDFa documents as Content-Type text/html. James [ *** 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?
Nikita wrote: the example you provided isn't valid XHTML. I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot: http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif .. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page layout. So the result should be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional. Nikita wrote: the META tag would have to end in a / and then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nikita, Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot: http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif Hi Vlad, OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works in HTML.) The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this list, that seems pretty significant. Cheers Original Message From: Nikita The Spider The Spider Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else? 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/ My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml. The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done correctly. It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml). But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're getting it right most of the time. There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly) on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the standards than me. You might find it interesting reading. Cheers *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Large Background Images
Hi Chris, bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of wisdom for using a full-page BG can the list cultivate? Hard on those with a slow connection, but I cannot foresee another issue unless the background is a big animated GIF ;-) You can offer a removal tool for those users easily enough. I do that on my hosting company's site [1] because with the masthead and background images and all, it could be hard on dial-up and slower DSL users. Granted they still have to load the page initially (it's usable without backgrounds but I want them on page load for aesthetics), but it's helpful to them when they explore the site and on return visits. This is one way to handle the conundrum of being backwards compatible, so to speak. This particular changer uses PHP and a cookie to manage the option. It places the new styles in the head with a single property: background-image : none; applied to the various elements. The link to it is on the sidebar under Page Tools -- the link says Remove Backgrounds. [1] http://gbhxonline.com Respectfully, Mike Cherim *** 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?
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikita wrote:
the META tag would have to end in a / and then it
wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nikita,
Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template
written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
Hi Vlad,
OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and
then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
in HTML.)
The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.
Cheers
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you
talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
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/
My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate
that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers
the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
correctly.
It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
getting it right most of the time.
There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
Cheers
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
--
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] help with menu positioning
On May 13, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
tee wrote:
My brain isn't working. I thought I have the answer but it's not
working :-(
http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html
Missing base-position...
#menu li a {background-position: left top;}
Georg
Georg, thanks for the rescue again, as you have always do :-)
Tell me, what do you like for Christmas gift ?
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
The W3C has an example of the use of the cite and quote elements here: http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml2/spec-examples/mod-text/cite-ex01.xhtml Or you can read all about quotations here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2 You could avoid the blockquote and use a paragraph depending on the length of the quoted text. Only use the q element if it is an inline quote (i.e., a short quote). If you want a lengthy quote, use the blockquote. An inline quote example: code pcite cite=http://www.comany-url.com;Company XYZ says/cite q lang=us-enYou are the best!/q/p /code A block level quote example (as Mike indicated above): code blockquote pI have a lot of things to say about this guy. He's done a really great job! cite cite=http://www.company-url.com;--- Company XYZ/cite/p /blockquote /code You can also add an anchor around the company name if you want to link to their website. I don't believe the cite *attribute* (as opposed to *element*or 'tag') is compulsory if you're not referring to an online source, but I'm not entirely certain. Jason On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 May 2008, at 19:48, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote: Don't forget the cite element too. If a source isn't online you wouldn't use the cite attribute, but the element will still help with proper attribution. Mike, you're bang on the money: I had indeed completely forgotten about the cite element, and it's just the tool for the job here. And thanks for confirming what I already suspected -- that the list was over-egging the pudding. Peculiarly, I immediately (in shame) went to O'Reilly's 'HTML XHTML - The Definitive Guide' to refresh my memory about the cite element and discovered that it appears to not be listed in the index at all. Attribute: yes, element: no. Weird. Thanks again, and to everyone else who responded. -- 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] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
Nikita wrote:
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag / as
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally
created. But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious - it still
warns about the use of BOM which was a problem in the 90's.
Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 10:51 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikita wrote:
the META tag would have to end in a / and then it
wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nikita,
Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template
written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
Hi Vlad,
OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a / and
then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
in HTML.)
The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.
Cheers
Original Message
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
what do you mean then by serve it as any version of HTML? Are you
talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
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/
My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
preference indicators (q=...). It's valid for a client to indicate
that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers
the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
correctly.
It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
getting it right most of the time.
There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
Cheers
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] Large Background Images
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:11:29 -0400, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote: Hi Chris, bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of wisdom for using a full-page BG can the list cultivate? Hard on those with a slow connection, but I cannot foresee another issue unless the background is a big animated GIF ;-) You can offer a removal tool for those users easily enough. I do that on my hosting company's site [1] [...] This particular changer uses PHP and a cookie to manage the option. It places the new styles in the head with a single property: background-image : none; applied to the various elements. The link to it is on the sidebar under Page Tools -- the link says Remove Backgrounds. [1] http://gbhxonline.com ~ Nice solution, Mike. Now wouldn't the Web be a kinder, gentler place, if all web sites were designed so thoughtfully? I notice the BBC has two links at the top of each page: Low graphics and Accessibility help. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
