Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
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:

RE: [WSG] Vanishing icon within a Span Element in IE7

2008-11-25 Thread Kepler Gelotte
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 Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread kate
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread kate
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

[WSG] Safari Legend problems

2008-11-25 Thread ClareLewis
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

RE: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Elizabeth Spiegel
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

Re: [WSG] Safari Legend problems

2008-11-25 Thread tee
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread tee
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

RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Foskett, Mike
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:

RE: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?

2008-11-25 Thread Foskett, Mike
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

Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)

2008-11-25 Thread David Dorward
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.

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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---

Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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...

RE: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)

2008-11-25 Thread Foskett, Mike
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:

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Todd Budnikas
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

RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Foskett, Mike
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

RE: Link or @import (was Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?)

2008-11-25 Thread Foskett, Mike
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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Andrew Maben
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,

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Christian Montoya
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread neal
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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,

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Todd Budnikas
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Christian Montoya
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Andrew Maben
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

RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Kepler Gelotte
* 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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread David Dorward
[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.

RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Heather
Hi, I’m new here not sure what’s 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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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 :-)

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
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

RE: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread neal
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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread David Dorward
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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.

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread David Dorward
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

[WSG] the Name attribute

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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:

Re: [WSG] the Name attribute

2008-11-25 Thread Brett Patterson
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

Re: [WSG] the Name attribute

2008-11-25 Thread David Dorward
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Jierna Wheeler
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Dennis Lapcewich
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements document: that have no height declared

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-25 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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

Re: HTML reached end of life?? (Was: Re: [WSG] Sorry Link)

2008-11-25 Thread Peter Mount
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! ...

Re: HTML reached end of life?? (Was: Re: [WSG] Sorry Link)

2008-11-25 Thread Peter Mount
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

Re: [WSG] your best practise for CSS sprites for elements that have no height declared

2008-11-25 Thread Johan Douma
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.

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Dave Lane
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

Re: [WSG] Web governance

2008-11-25 Thread S.R. Emerson
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Dave Lane
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Blake
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Michael MD
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Andrew Barnett
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,

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Joseph Taylor
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

Re: [WSG] Safari Legend problems

2008-11-25 Thread Sundar
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

Re: [WSG] First Attempt

2008-11-25 Thread Dave Lane
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