Re: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict

2008-10-08 Thread Gareth Senior

Tesco.com doesn't validate.

The Becta one does, but it's PHP.

The challenge continues!

On 08/10/2008 09:33, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Both my previous and current employer are XHTML strict:
 
 http://www.tesco.com/
 http://becta.org.uk/
 
 Tesco is a .net site.
 
 Mike Foskett
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Anthony Milner
 Sent: 08 October 2008 03:23
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
 
 Hi,
 
 I was having a *chat* with some .NET developer colleagues and they
 challenged me to find a .NET site that achieves XHTML 1.0 strict
 compliance. Hoping to prove to them that it can be done.
 
 Does anybody know of some .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict (or even
 transitional)?
 
 Thanks,
 Anthony
 
  
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***
 
 
 
 ---Warning
 
 This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may
 monitor and record all e-mails.
 
 
 
  Disclaimer 
 This is a confidential email.  Tesco may monitor and record all emails.  The
 views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
 
 Tesco Stores Limited
 Company Number: 519500
 Registered in England
 Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL
 VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
 
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***
 



All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully 
executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This 
e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, 
subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and 
protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the 
use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others 
specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon 
receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, 
distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission 
in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not 
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet 
to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc.

GCap Media plc. Registered address: 30 Leicester Square, London WC2H 7LA.  
Registered in England  Wales with No. 923454


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



Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

2008-10-17 Thread Gareth Senior
 
Don¹t hold your breath for ogg support in all browsers.
I imagine microsoft will be more interested in pushing silverlight than
flash or ogg.
Audio and video is a key front in the next generation of browser wars, so it
won¹t be that simple.

As you note, Flash offers some useful stuff that¹s not yet core browser
functionality. I imagine it will continue to innovate and push browser
vendors.

On 17/10/2008 06:38, Johan Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't see flash becoming a dominant technology in the future. It's definitly
 not going to replace javascript.
 It wouldn't actually surprise me if it is going to die off really slowly...
 Only to be used in really specific cases.
 
 Flash gets used a lot today because the flash video codec is good and because
 it's the easiest way to integrate some video into the browser without needed
 any plugins that might not be on everybody's computer. Flash is on 99.9% of
 the computers.
 
 Now that might change as well in the next 3 or 4 years as the video and audio
 tag are going to be more and more available to easily integrate video and
 audio files into a page.
 We would still need plugins anyway, but browser could at least integrate open
 sources plugins, like ogg... etc...
 I only use flash for multiple file uploads, and some small animations in the
 page itself.
 
 Ow and damn flash 10 has broken my file uploader, I'll have to work on that.
 
 
 
 
 Cheers, 
 Johan Douma
 
 
 2008/10/16 Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Read the story on that page carefully. What has happened is that flash
 10 has increased restrictions over what features within the flash
 plugin can be invoked via javascript. This only applies to one
 specific feature (file uploads), and effects virtually no other flash
 features. It does not effect javascript's abilities in general, only
 the abilities of javascript to use flash in certain ways. This point
 will largely become moot once video/audio/3d/canvas becomes widespread
 and built into browsers, and flash as a result becomes less relevant-
 Particularly on low powered platforms like the iPhone, and Android
 which do not have flash- or the wii which only has an older and
 underpowered version of flash.
 
 So in my opinion, to the contrary- This news story is reporting on
 decreased ability of the flash plugin to play well with javascript- It
 will not make flash replace javascript- Except as a workaround in the
 specific case of file uploads.
 
 
 On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Charles Ling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi Guys/Gals,
 
  I would like to get some opinion from you all, that would Flash 10 or ++
  will replace JavaScript in the future?
  According to this blog :
  
 http://ajaxian.com/archives/flash-10-and-the-bad-news-for-javascript-interac
 tion.
 
  I found that alot of media website started to replace Javascript to play
  their audio/video and of course Flash required to be install as third
  party plugin and had to be updated (which is annoying). Did you guys/gals
  use alot of flash in your past projects that you were working with?
 
  Cheers,
  Charles.
 
  ***
  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]
 ***
 
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***



All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully 
executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This 
e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, 
subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and 
protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the 
use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others 
specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon 
receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, 
distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission 
in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not 
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet 
to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc.

GCap 

Re: [WSG] CSS editors

2008-10-20 Thread Gareth Senior
 
I use TextMate. Extensible for all kinds of use.
It has a good CSS bundle.

It¹s rubbish for printing though - I use textwrangler for printing out code.



On 20/10/2008 11:09, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Last time I used a Mac I edited with Text Wrangler
  
 http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/download.html
  
 It did the job
  
 
 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Gicela Morales
 Sent: 20 October 2008 10:51
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] CSS editors
  
 
 Hi Everyone,
 
  
 
 I've just migrated form PC to a new macbook  :-) but was wondering about the
 best xhtml/css editors for macs around that people can recommend?
 
  
 
 I can see that BBEdit is still around ( I used to use this back in the 90's)
 and CSSedit seem to have some good reviews. Any preferences?
 
  
 
 Kind regards,
 
 Gicela
 
  
 
 ***
 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]
 ***



All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully 
executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This 
e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, 
subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and 
protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the 
use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others 
specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon 
receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, 
distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission 
in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not 
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet 
to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc.

GCap Media plc. Registered address: 30 Leicester Square, London WC2H 7LA.  
Registered in England  Wales with No. 923454


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


Re: [WSG]WCAG 2.0 enlarging text to 200% ?

2008-12-12 Thread Gareth Senior
 
The way I read it, the 200% relates to 'twice the size the font appears at a
client browser's default setting'.

What if the
 websites default size is set in
percentage to 75% and then another website
 has default setting of 110%?

This 200% business is nothing to do with CSS font-size values. (Which depend
on the absolute baseline size of the font on your site, set by either you of
the  browser's default)

It's not measurable or testable. It's just there to highlight the fact that
users need to (and want to) resize the font and that sites should allow them
to do that. 

On 12/12/2008 11:19, Heather heat...@serensites.com wrote:

 Thanks for reply Patrick, very interesting - looking at that I do agree that
 it would be 6 steps according to the latest Firefox browser.
 
 I'm not really understanding this point very well and I'm not sure how this
 is measurable and testable across a wide range of platforms? What if the
 websites default size is set in percentage to 75% and then another website
 has default setting of 110%?
 
 --- Large scale (text) Note 4: When using text without specifying the font
 size, the smallest font size used on major browsers for unspecified text
 would be a reasonable size to assume for the font. If a level 1 heading is
 rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major browsers, then it would be
 reasonable to assume it is large text. Relative scaling can be calculated
 from the default sizes in a similar fashion.
 
 Heather
 
 
 -Message d'origine-
 De : li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] De la
 part de Patrick Lauke
 Envoyé : vendredi 12 décembre 2008 11:39
 À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Objet : RE: [WSG]WCAG 2.0 enlarging text to 200% ?
 
 Heather
 
 With WCAG 2.0 finally coming out yesterday - I was wondering how many
 ctrl + clicks in (firefox for example) 200% is?
 
 I would say it was 3 but some colleagues argue 2 or 4 ? Any
 suggestions?
 
 I'd say conceptually that's quite a nitpicky argument...say a page broke
 spectacularly after 4 resize steps...would they then argue but it
 passes WCAG 2.0's SC, because it's 3 steps that go to 200%? Also, by
 default, Firefox 3 has whole page zoom (text, images and all) enabled,
 and has to explicitly be set to only resize text.
 
 With that said, go to about:config and look for
 toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues, and this will show the various zoom
 factors at each step. In my case (which should be the default) these
 are:
 
 .3, .5, .67, .8, .9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.33, 1.5, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 3
 
 So, nominally 200% (which, according to the Understanding... bit for
 that SC, means 200%, that is, up to twice the width and height - so
 really a 400% increase in total area) is actually 6 steps, if you want
 to go purely by numbers.
 
 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
 webmas...@salford.ac.uk
 
 www.salford.ac.uk
 
 A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY
 
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***
 
 
 
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***
 



The information in this email and any of its attachments is intended solely for 
the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender, destroy any copies and delete it from 
your computer system.
The contents may contain information which is confidential and may also be 
privileged. Any part of this email may not be used, disseminated, forwarded, 
printed or copied without authorisation.
Liability cannot be accepted for any statements, views or opinions made which 
are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of any of the 
companies below.
Global Radio UK Ltd (6251684), Global Radio Holdings Ltd. (4077052) Registered 
Office, 30 Leicester Square, London,  WC2H 7LA
This is Global Ltd (6288359) / Global Talent Group Ltd (3601691) / Global 
Talent Publishing Ltd (3509421) / Global Talent Management Ltd (4631297) / 
Global Talent Records Ltd (3598411) / Global Talent Music Ltd (5522116) / 
Global Talent TV Ltd (4506139)  Registered Office, 73 Wimpole St, London. W1G 
8AZ


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org