David Hucklesby wrote:
The validator still needs a DTD though.
If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5
support.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
***
List Guidelines:
Can someone please tell me how to fix this so it'll show up in IE?
Hi Cole,
It does appear to be a bug in IE. The following CSS is turning off the
display of the icon in c_project_help_error.css:
span.smallHelpIcon span {
display:none;
}
By commenting that section out, the icon displays
Re: [WSG] First AttemptHi Susie,
I always have used Dreamweaver in split view. I can also get all 'Teach
Yourself' books from the libary tomorrow. Today I am going to study the links
people have sent and read .Dreamweaver MX Trainig from the Source'.
Thanks Susie!
Kate
- Original Message
Hello Mustafa,
I guess for a first one, well second really. My first was back in 2000 with not
even a table just images and text and someone gave me one or two awards lolol
This new one should be a big improvement as I have learnt quite a lot from the
lists I am on now. Its amazing how just
Dear all,
Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are
visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with
versions 3.1 or 3.2 on Windows. We need to know whether this is still a
problem with 3.2 on the Mac.
Clare
Hi Kate
You said: do need to study how frames work (naming) too.
Nononono!
Frames are awful for accessibility and usability (iFrames are arguably
better). I can't think of an example of a really good framed site (although
other list members may be able to offer some).
I used to
On Nov 25, 2008, at 1:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are
visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with
versions 3.1 or 3.2 on Windows. We need to know whether this is
still a problem with
On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote:
If I remember rightly if you are able to save the image with a
transparent background it keeps the file size lower because a
transparent pixel takes less space than a pixel with colour
information. You can put a coloured outline around
While I cannot help with the spacing issue I do strongly suggest using
png rather than gif.
File size is smaller especially when run through pngGauntlet.
Mike Foskett
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of tee
Sent: 25 November 2008 10:48
To:
I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and
use the @import method for style sheets and not link.
Mike Foskett
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave Hall
Sent: 24 November 2008 21:07
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Foskett, Mike wrote:
I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and
use the @import method for style sheets and not link.
Why?
Netscape 4 isn't an issue any more so using @import to hide CSS from it
is pointless, but it does trigger a FOUC in MSIE, which is undesirable.
No, I may have to disagree. GIF files are (a majority of them, if not all,
are) smaller. They have to be. Considering GIF only supports up to a maximum
of 256 colors. (it is 8-bit). Try
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/gif-jpg-png-whats-difference/
---or---
Ooh! Thanks for the link. Valuable reading. I do not, however, understand
the ETags. So, I guess I must do a lot more research. Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'd add a furtherance to Steve Sounders / Yahoo's recommendations and
use the @import
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
David Hucklesby wrote:
The validator still needs a DTD though.
If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental
HTML5 support.
And the W3C validator misinterprets XHTML5 to be some lesser XHTML
flavor...
Using the link tag prevents parallel downloads in the same manner as the
script tag for javascript.
The style tag with the @import method does not.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 25 November 2008 13:25
To:
Brett, i'm not sure if the previous recommendation of PNG was for the
8-bit pngs with transparency, but that's what I'd argue. I often check
between GIF and 8-bit PNG when i export, to see which looks the best
at the smallest size, and PNG often wins.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Brett
Sorry Brett, you're wrong.
The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit
which is the same as the gif format.
The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the
different methods of compression that a png will handle natively.
I suggest you try a few
Sorry,
I forgot to add that FOUC doesn't occur if the style tag is followed by
any other valid tag, eg script .../script which is opened and closed
separately.
Though to be honest I cannot remember the last time I incurred the bug.
Mike Foskett
http://websemantics.co.uk/
-Original
On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't
supported by the most used browser.
I'm going to risk venturing an opinion here.
The high hopes that many of us may have had for XHTML as the wave of
the future seem, sadly,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry Brett, you're wrong.
The png format will handle three levels of bit-depth including 8-bit which
is the same as the gif format.
The references you state are somewhat outdated and don't consider the
different
There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF
So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues
between the browsers
having said that I love PNGs myself
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Foskett, Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry Brett, you're
First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the
difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support
8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only supports
a maximum of 256 colors. Fourthly, Todd your argument is off subject,
wouldn't best practise for CSS sprites include image quality?
On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson wrote:
First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences.
Notice the difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png
did not support 8-bit, nowhere does it say
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, No I am not! Second I have tried out differences. Notice the
difference in file sizes. Thirdly, I did not say that png did not support
8-bit, nowhere does it say that, it does however say that GIF only
Please, could I ask you to take this discussion off-list if you
want to continue. It's really degenerated to an unresolvable cycle of
I'm right, No, I'M right... When it just comes down to Use the
best available solution for the problem at hand
All compressed image file formats have
* Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate
future, if ever, serving XHTML strict
* as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be
served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point?
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in IE vrs FF
So if you try to match a background with the PNG you may have issues
between the browsers
That's easily resolved by stripping the gamma correction data from the
image using pngcrush.
Hi,
Im new here not sure whats going on but as far as web performance goes a
handy little online tool is http://www.smushit.com/ ( It goes beyond
Photoshop customisation)
Heather
_
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la
part de Andrew Maben
Envoyé : mardi
Andrew Maben wrote:
XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival
somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then
shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML?
IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV.
Of course. We have choices and preferences :-)
Kepler Gelotte wrote:
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does
not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can
also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers
which read your web pages to pull specific content out of
Sorry Mike I do not have an example at the moment - just remember past
headaches with it - apparently there is a solution
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/
per a previous email on this thread -
you can google the issue I'm sure
Neal
There is an issue where a PNG will not look exactly the same in
Kepler Gelotte wrote:
Ø as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be
served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point?
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does
not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can
OK. So, lets agree that (Start here quoting you:::If you're not using a
decent compressor then png's are 15% - 20% oversized.:::end quoting you
here.) we are both right. I am simply stating as such without using a
compressor (Start quoting you:::If you're not using a decent compressor then
png's
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as
to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML
and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc.
So, is it a typo?
--
Brett P.
Brett Patterson wrote:
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone
would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say
XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0
or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo?
The HTML working group
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has
deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is,
Why was the name attribute deprecated?.
--
Brett P.
***
List Guidelines:
That is strange, the examples didn't show. Any idea as to why?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has
deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is,
Why
Brett Patterson wrote:
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples),
has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my
question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?.
Because (on the elements upon which it was deprecated) it did nothing
except
Thanks Heather for the link. I have taken a quick glance at smushit.com, and it
looks promising.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Heather [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:17
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] your best practise for
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements
document: that have no height declared
Brett Patterson wrote:
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone
would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say
XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit
1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo?
No typo, but I
Sorry, I'll have to take note of that point if I reference that
article again.
--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.petermount.com
On 25/11/2008, at 12:26 PM, rch lib wrote:
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!
...
Sorry, I'll have to make mention of that point next time I reference it.
--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.petermount.com
On 25/11/2008, at 12:26 PM, rch lib wrote:
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!
...
Things
Gif Vs PNG
If using PNG 8 / GIF, with the same amount of colours. Say 256.
Gif are often smaller than PNG in small sizes, less than 20px by 20px
example. I'll have to find out at what point a PNG is lighter. I suspect
it's around 500px.
In all the other cases PNG images will be lighter.
Thank you for saying that, Elizabeth, couldn't agree more about both
frames and Flash...
I strongly recommend customers against fully-flash sites due to the
inconsistent (compared to web conventions), usually non-spiderable, and
inaccessible navigation, but agree it can be useful for specific
Andrew,
Seeing you have not had any other ideas presented, how about:
a) Using the Web Style Guide as a basis for creating your own web style guide
for the agency? http://webstyleguide.com/ The 2nd Edition is available
online. The 3rd Edition is available for purchase.
b) You could also
Bruce, I couldn't agree more - the road is littered with web
developers who don't know how to write XHTML or CSS. We rescue their
customers frequently.
I'd say that, in order to learn how the web really works, write HTML and
CSS from scratch (yes, in a text editor). To get started, find a site
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Dave Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there are some who say that hand coding websites is too
inefficient... but the way to make hand coding more efficient *isn't* to
use Dreamweaver or [insert your favourite WYSIWYG HTML editor here].
Actually, as far
The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead
use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and
simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes
for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal.
I would not
But the ease of updating a site using a CMS such as Drupal or WordPress is
often what people are wanting. To code each page individually, for many
people would be a right pain in the ass, as well as looking after file
structures and all that. Using a CMS is just bleedingly obvious for most
people,
If we plan on working in the web design world, you'll find that the real
world (at least for the moment) is far from standardized.
Frames, iframes, flash, nested table madness - it's out there on both
old sites _and_ new. Sometimes you have to go in and fix something on
one of these
it's text-indent
Sundar
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:16 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 25, 2008, at 1:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
Help!!! - One of our developers is finding that hidden legends are
visible in safari with version 3.1.2 on Mac. It isn't a problem with
Actually, Michael
Michael MD wrote:
I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they
really do need a full-featured CMS.
Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed?
A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often
struggles to handle a large
53 matches
Mail list logo