[WSG] Rendering difference between Strict & Transitional doctypes in FF, IE8 & Safari

Heya, We've found a really strange issue with some CSS layout when serving a page with XHTML 1.0 Transitional vs. XHTML 1.1 (or XHTML 1.0 Strict), in Firefox 3, Safari & IE8. The exact same behaviour is seen using the HTML 4.01 versions of the doctypes too. >From what I've read

Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010

On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: ...the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! Microsoft have since responded to the campaign [1] and thrown this

RE: [WSG] website fonts

Angus MacKinnon related: > Internet Explorer defaults to a 12 point font and > Firefox defaults to a 16 point font. Of course, fonts are adjustable in the browser (with some exceptions for hard coded fonts) so a user's preferences may be an override in many cases. -- I made magic once. Now

Re: [WSG] website fonts

I have been following this thread with interest. Some fonts are thicker than others. You have character spaceing. For example, Arial Narrow takes up less room than Arial and Arial black. I have come across some low vision individuals that only rquire thicker fonts and a little more spacing betw

RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons

> On Behalf Of Rachel Radford > Sent: 24 June 2009 14:51 > Subject: RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons > I fear the only proper solution while using .Net is for the HTML that is > produced to change! Rachel, have you had a look at the CSS control adapters (http://www.asp.net/

RE: [WSG] Outlook 2010

Michael MD wroted: > WHY do I have to stuff around with regedit to be > able to do view source in current versions of > Outlook? Can you pass on that trick? I would love to be able to view source... -- The generation that took acid to escape reality is now taking antacid to deal with reali

Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010

On 24/06/2009, at 11:40 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: I think you are slightly missing the point... You might want to re-read (or read) my email. I was responding to Matthew, who was implying that Microsoft's decision to use Word as the rendering engine was due to Opera's complaint to The Euro

RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons

Hi Jens, Sorry for replying so late, just wondering if you found a solution? The only things I have found online have been to make .Net produce an which isn't ideal (the image is in the HTML, not the CSS), or a Linkbutton to then format with CSS more easily. I believe that Linkbuttons don't w

Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010

Nathan, I think you are slightly missing the point, I for one don't care too hoots if microsoft uses its own rendering engine or not. All I care is that they use one that works and I think this is the main point of the campaign. I pretty much left web design a few years back because I hat

Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010

On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: This is so stupid - the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! You can't have your cake and eat it too... You s

Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Joshua Street wrote: > We have a problem! Outlook 2010, according to Campaign Monitor [1], is > going to continue to use the crippled MS Word layout engine. FixOutlook.org > aims to collate the community's discontent with this decision using Twitter > to change Mic