[WSG] Daniel Beckitt is out of the office.
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
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]
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
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
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]
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
***
