Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
I have tried this option and it works on ONE image only, having more
than one PNG
does not give transparency, so its not a good solution either...
I will just go back to gifs and make a background of the image behind to
cut the out line
with expand 1px, that always work and save struggling time with
incompetent web browsers..
When will we ever have some standards and make websites for todays users!!!
Thanks all anyways
Michael
Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd wrote:
Even that site resource advise's to use the htc approach. I use this on a
number of website and it works really well. I attach it to a style sheet for
IE6 or below that way my CSS still passes validation.
http://bjorkoy.com/past/2007/4/8/the_easiest_way_to_png/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jens-Uwe Korff
Sent: 17 June 2008 00:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this
transparency crap to make work ?
I know it's a rather old thread but I just came across a nice solution
which does not even need an iepngfix.htc Javascript.
One template I work on required a semitransparent background. I have it
working nicely cross-browser (FF, IE6, IE7) with the following:
CSS:
.className {background:transparent url('img/707070_90pc.png') repeat 0
0} /* The 'pc' indicates the opacity, 90% here */
* html .className
{background:none;filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoad
er(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale,
src='css/skin-travel/img/707070_90pc.png')}
The first line if for standards-compliant browsers, the second one for
IE6 only.
Image:
You'll also need the PNG image. Here's the magic: Usually a PNG image
used with the proprietary filter overlays any links and renders them
unclickable. But I found a website [1] which offers a fix: You have to
use a certain image size, then IE6 allows clickable links.
So I made the PNG just 10x2 pixels (wXh).
That's it. The site's not live yet, so I cannot offer a link.
Cheers,
Jens
[1] http://www.daltonlp.com/view/217
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]
***
[WSG] Multiple Language Domains
Many thanks for the feedback guys. We wont be using a splash page but I have taken the other points on board and will look into them. The quirks mode issue, should not be there, we think the system is putting that in place for us!! Paul *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:38:21 +0300, Michael Persson wrote: I have tried this option and it works on ONE image only, having more than one PNG does not give transparency, so its not a good solution either... I will just go back to gifs and make a background of the image behind to cut the out line with expand 1px, that always work and save struggling time with incompetent web browsers.. Not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve here Michael. But if you are happy using the limited 8-bit palette of GIFs, you might consider 8-bit PNGs instead. They are a lot more versatile, as this Sitepoint article explains: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/03/20/making-ie6-friendly-png8-images/ Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] HTML special characters coding
Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? Thank you kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
I have always used the for ampersand. The only time I use the code is when there isn't an actual character on the keyboard. I.e copyright sign. I don't think it matter on which one to use. ~Calvin Calvin Chan www.calvinchan.net On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM, kevin_erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? Thank you kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Hi Kevin, I use the amp;? Code purely because not all browser's can read on it's own as this tells the browser to expect a special character, which in turn leads to a more user friendly experience. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kevin_erickson Sent: 17 June 2008 21:55 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] HTML special characters coding Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? Thank you kevin *** 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: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date: 16/06/2008 07:20 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
On 17/06/2008, kevin_erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? For the ampersand I always use amp; because that was how I was taught (I even use it in URLs) and I use nbsp; lt; gt; -- -- but I do not use the HTML character entity (ampersand+text+simicolon) for typing other characters, e.g. I would never use zeta;omega;eta; -- I'd just type ζωη -- not only is it easier to read the markup, it takes a /lot/ less space. -- T. R. Valentine Your friends will argue with you. Your enemies don't care. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
kevin_erickson wrote: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? You're always supposed to encode as amp; (even in hrefs) and that's what standards compliance requires. (I use XHTML and I also want to be parseable as XML so aside from XMLs inbuilt entities of lt; gt; amp; quot; and apos; I tend to use NCRs...). -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Matthew Holloway wrote: (I use XHTML and I also want to be parseable as XML so aside from XMLs inbuilt entities of lt; gt; amp; quot; and apos; I tend to use NCRs...). Beyond the inbuilt entities I tend to just use the characters directly in the markup and specify UTF-8 encoding. Has been working reasonably well in all modern browsers. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
kevin_erickson provided the following information on 18/06/2008 6:55 AM: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? I prefer to use the character entity reference. A great reference can be found here: http://www.digitalmediaminute.com/reference/entity/index.php Using over amp; will get picked on when checking your Mark up validation. http://validator.w3.org/ (Although I'm not sure if this is the case with every doctype (I should check this one day)) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Use amp; nbsp; lt; and gt; All other characters should be actual characters. Use a character encoding that contains all the characters you require. Use of NCRs and other entities should be rare occurances for language challenged environments. Andrew kevin_erickson wrote: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? Thank you kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Beyond the inbuilt entities I tend to just use the characters directly in the markup and specify UTF-8 encoding. Has been working reasonably well in all modern browsers. LOL, i enjoyed the wording. Considering the document character set of HTML4 is Unicode, if it can't be displayed in UTF-8 in a browser, then it can't be displayed using entitiies or NCRs either ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Andrew Cunningham wrote: LOL, i enjoyed the wording. Considering the document character set of HTML4 is Unicode, if it can't be displayed in UTF-8 in a browser, then it can't be displayed using entitiies or NCRs either ;) Generally I agree, although one good thing about entities (including NCRs of course) is that it'll typically come up as a ? when it's unknown rather than mangled as ’. So it'll break more gracefully. Also there can be other things involved other than the browser when writing HTML, such as bad proxies. I can't remember the name of the software but a few years ago an adblocker proxy that I installed on my parents machine would break UTF-8 horribly... of course that's the proxy's fault but entites would work around their bug. (I don't really have strong opinions either way though) -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
up as a ? when it's unknown rather than mangled as ’ has caused me truma in the past. now I use UTF-8 aiming to entifyand quotes aswell as £ and such dealing with large amounts of content thats been created in a wyswyg editor can be quite an issue erronus classes nbsp; also some handle special chars better than others 2008/6/18 Matthew Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andrew Cunningham wrote: LOL, i enjoyed the wording. Considering the document character set of HTML4 is Unicode, if it can't be displayed in UTF-8 in a browser, then it can't be displayed using entitiies or NCRs either ;) Generally I agree, although one good thing about entities (including NCRs of course) is that it'll typically come up as a ? when it's unknown rather than mangled as ’. So it'll break more gracefully. Also there can be other things involved other than the browser when writing HTML, such as bad proxies. I can't remember the name of the software but a few years ago an adblocker proxy that I installed on my parents machine would break UTF-8 horribly... of course that's the proxy's fault but entites would work around their bug. (I don't really have strong opinions either way though) -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** 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] HTML special characters coding
thank you for the good responses. Very helpful. Kevin --- Original Message --- From:Matthew Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Tue 6/17/08 7:36 pm To:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subj:Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding Andrew Cunningham wrote: LOL, i enjoyed the wording. Considering the document character set of HTML4 is Unicode, if it can't be displayed in UTF-8 in a browser, then it can't be displayed using entitiies or NCRs either ;) Generally I agree, although one good thing about entities (including NCRs of course) is that it'll typically come up as a ? when it's unknown rather than mangled as â??. So it'll break more gracefully. Also there can be other things involved other than the browser when writing HTML, such as bad proxies. I can't remember the name of the software but a few years ago an adblocker proxy that I installed on my parents machine would break UTF-8 horribly... of course that's the proxy's fault but entites would work around their bug. (I don't really have strong opinions either way though) -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** 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] HTML special characters coding
Matthew Holloway wrote: Andrew Cunningham wrote: LOL, i enjoyed the wording. Considering the document character set of HTML4 is Unicode, if it can't be displayed in UTF-8 in a browser, then it can't be displayed using entitiies or NCRs either ;) Generally I agree, although one good thing about entities (including NCRs of course) is that it'll typically come up as a ? when it's unknown rather than mangled as ’. So it'll break more gracefully. a slight correction: NCRs by definition are always know. the question mark could inticate a number of different problems, not limited to, but including lack of appropriate fonts available (although thats more likely to be a missing/.notdef glyph rather than a question mark) or the character has been mangled by a script or module on a web site's back end, etc. while seeing something like ’ instead is a completely different story, i.e. either the http header or the meta element in the web page are indicating the wrong encoding, or in some cases no encoding is declared. NCRs are defined in terms of the Document Character Set for HTML, and are thus independant of the character encoding used to display individual pages. But using the most appropraite character encoding for the document is the best approach. Each is an example of very different problems or issues with a web page, and shouldn't be lumped in together. But as I indicated in a previous email: Use of NCRs and other entities should be rare occurances for language challenged environments The reality is that some tools are very poor at handling Unicode, and NCRs are at times a necessary evil. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
Andrew Cunningham wrote: a slight correction: NCRs by definition are always know. Ah, we seem to actually agree but we're talking about what's known to different things. Unknown when I used it was in terms of the ability to render it sucessfully (known to the browser as a whole) not just in terms of expressing characters accurately (which seems to be what yours is known to). And as said NCRs for my use are for HTML *and* XML, not just HTML. Regarding missing glyph characters like boxes or boxes with codepages/codepoints or ? ...different platforms and browsers display different fallbacks. Or as Wikipedia says, Systems that do not offer a fallback font typically display black or white rectangles, question marks, or nothing at all in place of missing characters. Symbols in a fallback font can contain annotations such as the relevant Unicode block and the script system used. Entity errors vs encoding errors like ’ errors are completely different errors, that was the point -- to contrast two completely different ways of encoding characters and the errors that result (’ vs ? vs missing glyph boxes). I have a slight preference for entities because they don't tend to get mangled by stupid non-unicode-aware tools but that's about it. Cheers :) -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding
I don't think this is right. It depends what language and character set you have specified the document to be in. If the character is included in the character set, there is no need to use the special code... provided the browser can read that character set... Jason On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Matthew Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: kevin_erickson wrote: Hello, I am looking for advice on if the best way to code for special characters is to use the actual character or the attribute value or the alt code? i.e. for the ampersand should one use or amp;? Does it matter? I know that Dreamweaver automates some of this but what is the best practice? You're always supposed to encode as amp; (even in hrefs) and that's what standards compliance requires. (I use XHTML and I also want to be parseable as XML so aside from XMLs inbuilt entities of lt; gt; amp; quot; and apos; I tend to use NCRs...). -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** 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] IE6/7 not rendering an H1 correctly
www.americanmotorcycles.com.au Have been making some changes at client's request and things have gone wrong. Firefox is fine and renders as intended. The issue is #content h1. IE is not rendering it as per the css. It seems to be ignoring it. When I validated the page, there was 1 error: #content : # Line 56, Column 1: unclosed end-tag requires SHORTTAG YES. div id=content ? The construct /foobar is valid in HTML (it is an example of the rather obscure Shorttags feature) but its use is not recommended. In most cases, this is a typo that you will want to fix. If you really want to use shorttags, be aware that they are not well implemented by browsers. # Error Line 56, Column 1: XML Parsing Error: expected ''. I've been staring at if for ages and I don't understand this at all and was wondering if this was the reason IE won't render it as intended. Thanks. Lyn Western Web Design Affordable web design - Perth *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] IE6/7 not rendering an H1 correctly
Lynette Smith wrote: I've been staring at if for ages and I don't understand this at all and was wondering if this was the reason IE won't render it as intended. Just above the div id=content there's a broken /div tag. -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] IE6/7 not rendering an H1 correctly
I can't believe I didn't spot that! Thank you! I've been staring at if for ages and I don't understand this at all and was wondering if this was the reason IE won't render it as intended. Just above the div id=content there's a broken /div tag. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: Multiple Language Domains
Paul McCann wrote: . The quirks mode issue, should not be there, we think the system is putting that in place for us!! eh? Quirks mode is a function of browsers : see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode and http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html jay *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
