[WSG] Daniel Beckitt is out of the office.

2008-06-20 Thread daniel . b . beckitt

I will be out of the office starting  19/06/2008 and will not return until
23/06/2008.

I will respond to your message when I return.

For urgent enquiries, please contact Bret Bearham on 3032 3466.


***
WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended
to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way.  No one is 
allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print 
or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority.

If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not 
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland
Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations
utilising the same infrastructure.
***



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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joe Ortenzi
Ultimately, if the server is configured right, it shouldn't matter,  
but standardistas are sticklers for detail./


feel able to reveal the vendor name?

Curious Joe


On Jun 19 2008, at 18:08, Rob Enslin wrote:


Many thanks for all the input.

Now for the fun part... go back to the CMS vendor who made the  
claim and ask for some proof ;-)


Have a great day/night.

Rob

2008/6/19 Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Jonathan D'mello

To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common
excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they
say it will break W3C standards.

Sorry, I just re-read this and realised that I completely got the  
wrong conversation. I thought for some reason that this was in  
reply to the [WSG] Marking Up Poems discussion, and that it was  
in defense of not following standards. Crikey...


Profuse apologies! I obviously haven't had enough coffee this  
morning...disregard my passionate reply rant...


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/
__
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
__




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




--
Rob Enslin
Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.typingthevoid.com
www.joiz.com





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


Re: [WSG] User testing results to reinforce 'no popup' recommendation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-06-20 Thread Jason Ray
I would tend to argue the opposite (though not entirely). Links to external
sites opening in new windows are not a bad idea in certain circumstances
such as when external material might end up inside a frame, as might happen
inside a Learning Management System... it might be advisable at that point
to have the link appear in a new window (or tab) so as not to confuse the
user and make it clear that this is not your site's material.

Experienced browsers will know to use their shift or ctrl + click to force
external links into new windows or tabs, or they may have already have it
set up to do that in their browser options using a tab control extension,
but novice users or those who just don't do so well with computers likely
wouldn't know to do this and could get confused by external material showing
up inside a frame, or being taken away from the website they were viewing. I
personally prefer to have external links open in new tabs, sometimes even
internal links if I want to finish reading the page but also want to view
the contents of one or several links afterwards, and I frequently use ctrl +
click when clicking on links.

As an extra consideration, I just went to a copyright training seminar
yesterday where this (external links inside frames) was discussed in terms
of the danger of copyright infractions, and other nasties. I think forcing
external links to open in new windows is not an entirely bad idea (depending
on the circumstances and your users)...

Jason

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Brad Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  Thanks Nate for the links.

 I really want to focus on the usability impacts of pop-ups.

 I'd love to see the AGIMO research that was done - do you have the name of
 someone within the organisation that I could contact with regards to
 sourcing this?

 ~ brad

 Ward, Nathan wrote:

 Hi Brad,
 I don't have any test data that shows this, however, below are a two
 articles from Digital Web Magazine that mention the topic.
 I'm also fairly sure that AGIMO has some research on the topic but I
 couldn't find it this afternoon.
 You could also check out the Vision Australia website (
 http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/).


 http://www.digital-web.com/articles/accessible_by_design/
 Avoid using links that create a new browser window. If you do use them,
 warn users.  Users may not be aware of the shift in their system's focus.
 It may disorient or confuse them.  This is also a usability issue since
 users can't use the Back button to navigate back and revisit pages.  It's
 easy to accidentally close the wrong window and lose what you want to
 access.  Add a text warning message or place a small icon (with a warning in
 the ALT attribute) before links that will spawn a new window.

 Avoid pop-up windows, when possible.  This has problems similar to
 creating a new window, but also has JavaScript complications.  Access to the
 pop-up should be device independent.  More importantly, make the content
 in the pop-up accessible if JavaScript is turned off.


 http://www.digital-web.com/articles/designer_user_partnership/
 The other area designers overstep is in controlling the user environment.
 The Web behaves in ways that are predictable to users. For example, when a
 user clicks a link, the browser requests the page from the Web server, the
 Web server sends the page to the browser, and the Web browser renders the
 page. Sometimes designers get involved in this transaction by moving the
 cursor directly to the search input field or opening links in a new window.
 We, as designers, use these methods because we want to be helpful. We assume
 that most users will want to use the search feature on arrival; to make
 things easier, we put the cursor in the search input field. We assume that
 most users will want to keep in contact with our site while exploring other
 sites; to make things easier, we open external links in a new window.

 But sometimes these helpful interventions wind up causing usability
 problems because they violate expectations. People expect to begin listening
 to or tabbing through a Web page from its beginning and will be disoriented
 if the cursor focus is not at the top of the page. People expect to use the
 Back button to retrace their navigation path and will not be able to
 return to the originating site if it is not in the window history. While
 these actions may be helpful to some, they will create usability problems
 for others. Moving the cursor and opening a new window are functions of the
 user environment and should be performed by the user.
  Cheers, Nate


  --
 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 *On Behalf Of *Brad Pollard
 *Sent:* Wednesday, 18 June 2008 16:44
 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 *Subject:* [WSG] User testing results to reinforce 'no popup'
 recommendation

  A dear client is holding us over a barrel.

 Does anyone have some user test data/video (that they are willing 

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Martin Kliehm
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Rob Enslin wrote:
  
I recently started noticing that our CMS system generated .htm 
pages where
previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the 
support staff
and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file 
extensions (or

rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)
  
   Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to 
actually point out

   where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...

 I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a carryover
 from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
 extensions up to 3 characters in length.

 If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.

Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to keep 
future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)


http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about  
what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will  
agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,  
php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.


But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from www.domain.com/file 
 as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at  
the same level.


I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename  
convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?


PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing  
something?

Joe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:

   Rob Enslin wrote:
  
I recently started noticing that our CMS system  
generated .htm pages where
previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the  
support staff
and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file  
extensions (or

rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)
  
   Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to  
actually point out

   where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...

 I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a  
carryover

 from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
 extensions up to 3 characters in length.

 If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.

Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to  
keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)


http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



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



Re: [WSG] User testing results to reinforce 'no popup' recommendation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
Opening links in new windows is not an evil thought, no, but it is  
best avoided in most circumstances.
We should never use Experienced Users and shift+ctrl+alt as a  
benchmark as I would assume these are about 1% or less of most site  
traffic and thus a very tiny minority which shouldn't be leading the  
design. (See Krug's Don't make me think!).


External links are best sign-posted as such.

Joe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:57, Jason Ray wrote:

I would tend to argue the opposite (though not entirely). Links to  
external sites opening in new windows are not a bad idea in certain  
circumstances such as when external material might end up inside a  
frame, as might happen inside a Learning Management System... it  
might be advisable at that point to have the link appear in a new  
window (or tab) so as not to confuse the user and make it clear that  
this is not your site's material.


Experienced browsers will know to use their shift or ctrl + click to  
force external links into new windows or tabs, or they may have  
already have it set up to do that in their browser options using a  
tab control extension, but novice users or those who just don't do  
so well with computers likely wouldn't know to do this and could get  
confused by external material showing up inside a frame, or being  
taken away from the website they were viewing. I personally prefer  
to have external links open in new tabs, sometimes even internal  
links if I want to finish reading the page but also want to view the  
contents of one or several links afterwards, and I frequently use  
ctrl + click when clicking on links.


As an extra consideration, I just went to a copyright training  
seminar yesterday where this (external links inside frames) was  
discussed in terms of the danger of copyright infractions, and other  
nasties. I think forcing external links to open in new windows is  
not an entirely bad idea (depending on the circumstances and your  
users)...


Jason

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Brad Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:

Thanks Nate for the links.

I really want to focus on the usability impacts of pop-ups.

I'd love to see the AGIMO research that was done - do you have the  
name of someone within the organisation that I could contact with  
regards to sourcing this?


~ brad

Ward, Nathan wrote:


Hi Brad,
I don't have any test data that shows this, however, below are a  
two articles from Digital Web Magazine that mention the topic.
I'm also fairly sure that AGIMO has some research on the topic but  
I couldn't find it this afternoon.
You could also check out the Vision Australia website (http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ 
).



http://www.digital-web.com/articles/accessible_by_design/
Avoid using links that create a new browser window. If you do use  
them, warn users.  Users may not be aware of the shift in their  
system's focus.  It may disorient or confuse them.  This is also a  
usability issue since users can't use the Back button to navigate  
back and revisit pages.  It's easy to accidentally close the wrong  
window and lose what you want to access.  Add a text warning  
message or place a small icon (with a warning in the ALT attribute)  
before links that will spawn a new window.


Avoid pop-up windows, when possible.  This has problems similar  
to creating a new window, but also has JavaScript complications.   
Access to the pop-up should be device independent.  More  
importantly, make the content in the pop-up accessible if  
JavaScript is turned off.



http://www.digital-web.com/articles/designer_user_partnership/
The other area designers overstep is in controlling the user  
environment. The Web behaves in ways that are predictable to users.  
For example, when a user clicks a link, the browser requests the  
page from the Web server, the Web server sends the page to the  
browser, and the Web browser renders the page. Sometimes designers  
get involved in this transaction by moving the cursor directly to  
the search input field or opening links in a new window. We, as  
designers, use these methods because we want to be helpful. We  
assume that most users will want to use the search feature on  
arrival; to make things easier, we put the cursor in the search  
input field. We assume that most users will want to keep in contact  
with our site while exploring other sites; to make things easier,  
we open external links in a new window.
But sometimes these helpful interventions wind up causing usability  
problems because they violate expectations. People expect to begin  
listening to or tabbing through a Web page from its beginning and  
will be disoriented if the cursor focus is not at the top of the  
page. People expect to use the Back button to retrace their  
navigation path and will not be able to return to the originating  
site if it is not in the window history. While these actions may be  
helpful to some, they will create usability problems for others.  
Moving the 

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Ian Chamberlain
My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows based web 
server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.

We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of habit.

I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been largely 
free from that limitation for well over  ten years.

Regards

Ian

- Original Message - 
From: Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html


The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.

But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from 
www.domain.com/file
  as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
the same level.

I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?

PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing
something?
Joe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
Rob Enslin wrote:
   
 I recently started noticing that our CMS system
 generated .htm pages where
 previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the
 support staff
 and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file
 extensions (or
 rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)
   
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to
 actually point out
where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...

  I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a
 carryover
  from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
  extensions up to 3 characters in length.
 
  If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.

 Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
 keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)

 http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.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] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

Exactly!

But as you know, old conventions die hard!

Joe


On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain wrote:

My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows  
based web

server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.

We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of  
habit.


I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been  
largely

free from that limitation for well over  ten years.

Regards

Ian

- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html


The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.

But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from
www.domain.com/file
 as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
the same level.

I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?

PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing
something?
Joe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:


On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]

wrote:

Rob Enslin wrote:


I recently started noticing that our CMS system

generated .htm pages where

previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the

support staff

and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file

extensions (or

rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)


Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to

actually point out

where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...



I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a

carryover

from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
extensions up to 3 characters in length.

If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.


Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.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]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-06-20 Thread Dave Lane
I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web 
developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically 
generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end.


My colleagues and I have adopted sites built by such developers, and I 
can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html 
suffices were only the tip of iceberg.


If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then . 
might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away 
file suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability 
and SEO), but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent 
CMS, adding the .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in 
server OSs) to the end of URLs for dynamically generated content is 
painfully old school and, as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, 
quite unnecessary - sort of like a www on the front of a web URL is 
(or should be).


Dave

Rob Enslin wrote:

Hi peeps,

I recently started noticing that our CMS system generated .htm pages 
where previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the 
support staff and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard 
file extensions (or rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)


Is this true? Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Rob

--
Rob Enslin
Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


--
Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147
p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents
http://egressive.com  we only use open standards: http://w3.org
Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Rob Enslin

 Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I
 missing something?


Yes - should have been htm vs html.

And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we currently have
a *great* working relationship and don't want to upset that ;-) [sure you
understand]

Rob

2008/6/20 Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 Exactly!

 But as you know, old conventions die hard!

 Joe



 On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain wrote:

  My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows based web
 server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.

 We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of
 habit.

 I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been
 largely
 free from that limitation for well over  ten years.

 Regards

 Ian

 - Original Message -
 From: Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
 Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html


 The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
 what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
 agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
 php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.

 But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from
 www.domain.com/file
  as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
 the same level.

 I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
 convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?

 PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing
 something?
 Joe

 On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:

  On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 wrote:

 Rob Enslin wrote:

  I recently started noticing that our CMS system

 generated .htm pages where

 previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the

 support staff

 and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file

 extensions (or

 rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)


 Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to

 actually point out

 where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...


  I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a

 carryover

 from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
 extensions up to 3 characters in length.

 If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.


 Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
 keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)

 http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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


 ==
 Joe Ortenzi
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.typingthevoid.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]
 ***


 ==
 Joe Ortenzi
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.typingthevoid.com



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




-- 
Rob Enslin
Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin


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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

One can only ask.

JOe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 11:16, Rob Enslin wrote:

Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am  
I missing something?


Yes - should have been htm vs html.

And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we  
currently have a *great* working relationship and don't want to  
upset that ;-) [sure you understand]


Rob

2008/6/20 Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly!

But as you know, old conventions die hard!

Joe



On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain wrote:

My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows  
based web

server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.

We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of  
habit.


I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been  
largely

free from that limitation for well over  ten years.

Regards

Ian

- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html


The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.

But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from
www.domain.com/file
 as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
the same level.

I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?

PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing
something?
Joe

On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Rob Enslin wrote:

I recently started noticing that our CMS system
generated .htm pages where
previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the
support staff
and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file
extensions (or
rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to
actually point out
where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...

I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a
carryover
from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
extensions up to 3 characters in length.

If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.

Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.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]
***


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



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




--
Rob Enslin
Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-06-20 Thread Rob Enslin

 I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web
 developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated
 pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end.


Dave, it's not that they (CMS vendor) believes it needs to be done or indeed
compulsory, it's merely a case of 'this is what our system produces by
deflault'. I just happened to notice the change and flagged it up with them
as simply asked why?

Incidently, in the CMS I'm refering to it allows the administrator to remove
extensions if desired. So, I could have http://mysite.com/register as a web
page.

Rob

2008/6/20 Dave Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web
 developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated
 pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end.

 My colleagues and I have adopted sites built by such developers, and I
 can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html
 suffices were only the tip of iceberg.

 If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then .
 might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away file
 suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability and SEO),
 but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent CMS, adding the
 .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in server OSs) to the
 end of URLs for dynamically generated content is painfully old school and,
 as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, quite unnecessary - sort of
 like a www on the front of a web URL is (or should be).

 Dave

 Rob Enslin wrote:

 Hi peeps,

 I recently started noticing that our CMS system generated .htm pages where
 previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the support staff
 and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file extensions (or
 rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)

 Is this true? Any thoughts?

 Cheers,

 Rob

 --
 Rob Enslin
 Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***


 --
 Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147
 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents
 http://egressive.com  we only use open standards: http://w3.org
 Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


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




-- 
Rob Enslin
Blog: http://enslin.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin


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

[WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Mark Voss
I've always used:

html{min-height:100.1%;}

to force a vertical scroll-bar in Firefox for fixed width sites that are
centred in the browser window - it stops them jumping sideways when you
navigate between pages that are longer and shorter than the viewport.

With the release of Firefox 3 however, I've found that this no longer works
and I need to increase the minimum height percentage slightly:

html{min-height:100.2%;}

does the trick!
_

Regards,
Mark Voss




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



Re: [WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Алексей Тен
You should try

html { overflow-y: scroll; }


On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:53, Mark Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I've always used:

 html{min-height:100.1%;}

 to force a vertical scroll-bar in Firefox for fixed width sites that are
 centred in the browser window - it stops them jumping sideways when you
 navigate between pages that are longer and shorter than the viewport.

 With the release of Firefox 3 however, I've found that this no longer works
 and I need to increase the minimum height percentage slightly:

 html{min-height:100.2%;}

 does the trick!
 _

 Regards,
 Mark Voss




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





--
Алексей

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

RE: [WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Patrick Lauke
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 html { overflow-y: scroll; }

Ah, back in the days I tried it Opera wasn't playing ball. I now see that (at 
least Opera 9.5) understands this now.

Good stuff.

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise  Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK

T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.salford.ac.uk

A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY  

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

Re: [WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Gregorio Espadas
I use:

*html{ overflow:-moz-scrollbars-vertical; }*

... and it works fine for me :-)

Gregorio Espadas
http://espadas.com.mx



On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Алексей Тен [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You should try

 html { overflow-y: scroll; }


 On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:53, Mark Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I've always used:
 
  html{min-height:100.1%;}
 


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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about what
 file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will agree is still
 required as the server needs to know if it is an html, php, css, js, etc
 file doesn't it.

Nope, on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the
mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I
would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or
filepath as well.

You could do something like this in the Apache config to set the
default mime type used [1]:
DefaultType text/html

You could even fool people into thinking you were running static files
when you're actually using PHP [2]:
AddHandler php5-script html

Apache is a very powerful beast in that regard.

-Alastair

1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#defaulttype
2] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_mime.html#addtype


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



RE: [WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Patrick Lauke
 

 Mark Voss

 html{min-height:100.2%;}

even more subtle

html { min-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 1px; } 

http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/49/

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise  Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK

T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.salford.ac.uk

A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY  


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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread James Pickering

 Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
.. on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the
 mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I
 would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or
 filepath as well ...

James
--
http://jp29.org/
Semantic Web Page Authoring
...
Validated: HTML/XHTML/XHTML+RDFa ~ CSS ~ RDF/XML - DC Metadata/RSS Feed




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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread James Pickering
Excuse me, on my previous response to  Alastair Campbell I meant to include 
.

Also for  Zeus

James
--
http://jp29.org/
Semantic Web Page Authoring
...
Validated: HTML/XHTML/XHTML+RDFa ~ CSS ~ RDF/XML - DC Metadata/RSS Feed




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



Re: [WSG] Forcing a vertical scrollbar in Firefox 3

2008-06-20 Thread Matijs
Drawback is of course that only Mozilla based browsers understand this.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Gregorio Espadas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 I use:

 *html{ overflow:-moz-scrollbars-vertical; }*

 ... and it works fine for me :-)

 Gregorio Espadas
 http://espadas.com.mx



 On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Алексей Тен [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You should try

 html { overflow-y: scroll; }


 On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:53, Mark Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I've always used:
 
  html{min-height:100.1%;}
 



 ***
 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]
***