Kim Kruse wrote:
[sitecheck on http://www.mouseriders.dk/]
Hi Kim,
It's a clear and easy to navigate site. Some small remarks:
* In my Mozilla, the subheadings are smaller than the copy text. I
assume that is not your intent, but if it is I'd advice against it as
(descending) font-size is a key
Mark Harwood wrote:
Hey list,
Right im using the good old methord of nice pop-ups as shown by
by idol youngpup (http://youngpup.net/2003/popups) now as soon
as you use onClick in your HTML WebXACT and Bobby throw up a fit
saying that it does not pass AA thanks to 9.3 Make sure event
handlers do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been following this discussion (belatedly)
It's all in the MIME
http://www.juicystudio.com/all-in-the-mime.asp
first paragraph:
There have been a lot of articles recently about web standards; in
particular, using XHTML and serving it as text/html. Personally, I'm
Alan Milnes wrote:
So does anyone have a link to an article which can tell me how to
properly serve up application/xhtml+xml using PHP?
Jeroen Visser shared
http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/ as a link
before... that tells you how. The datestamp on the message was Thu, 11
Alan Milnes wrote:
Why is the content-type not sent? What errors or warnings does PHP
display? What content-type _is_ sent? What problems does Firefox have?
Some possible reasons for this script not to work:
- headers are already sent out by PHP;
- one ore more conditions are too narrow or wide
Paul Farrell wrote:
I have a series of floats in a header. In particular I have a string of text
on the right marking the spot for a date script output. I would like to know
if anyone knows a way I can maintain an alignment where the bottom of the
date string is aligned to the bottom of the text
russ - maxdesign wrote:
OK, we have decided to give the person who did the 10,000th post a prize
(thanks to Core member David McDonald for the idea).
Re: Web Standards Eye Candy: http://www.scottschiller.com/
By Nick Lo - Fri 12 Nov 2004 at 10:33 PM
So, what does Nick win? One free copy of Apache
Marilyn Langfeld wrote:
Hi folks,
My first post, since I've worked in print longer than web. In print, an
em (and en) are mostly used to describe dashes (of the width of M and N)
in a font. So they are appropriate to the task when used for that. They
have been slightly redefined for the web
Mary Krieger wrote:
Barring browser weirdness for a brief utopian moment, is this the way it is
supposed to work.?
In order for any text to appear, someone somewhere has to have chosen a
font face and size. So choosing to use relative rather than absolute units
for font size moves where the
Laurie Keith wrote:
Hi,
If any of you busy people have a spare 15 minutes, can you give me an honest
evaluation on our new corporate web site.
http://www.createwith.com
Hi Laurie,
Others have cracked down on the Flash thing, so I'll focus on some other
issues. Basically, it's a clean, neat site,
Lindsay Evans wrote:
In order to stop Russ from hassling me about it every time I see him,
I've thrown together a small demo/explanation of the latest greatest
image replacement method (well, 'fancy heading method', really):
http://lindsayevans.com/experiments/lindsaymethod_2/
Just to be somewhat
Felix Miata wrote:
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote:
'px' is the worst unit to define
font size in, as Internet Explorer still cannot increase or decrease the
size of fonts set in pixels.
pt is worse. IE can't resize it either, and it depends on both DPI and
resolution, not just resolution, making
Lindsay Evans wrote:
No Flash, works with scripting turned off, text is selectable (yes, I
know you can select the individual sIFR bits, but that just ain't the
same :)), colours, size, etc. are easily manipulated via. CSS,
As I have understood, you can select large text blocks with sIFR also;
Javier wrote:
I'm trying to develope a site with proportional font size.
I've seen people that apply a font small in body and then use em's in all
other settings. I've seen people that apply a 65% font-size in body, others
a 100%, etc.. and then use em's in other settings but others use
Felix Miata wrote:
Kristof Rutten wrote:
http://www.sportopolis.be
12px body is bad, bad, bad.
You make it sound like Kristof is your little puppy who has just taken a
leak on your precious new carpet. ;-/
A little explanation or a link to background info would've been nice.
For Kristof:
Dave Elkan wrote:
Fellow WebStandardites,
I've just finished my first site since moving over here to the UK from
Australia.
Unfortunately for that reason I don't have all of my equipment with me
and to make matters worse we don't have a mac testing station here at
work.
Is there any chance
Felix Miata wrote:
David Laakso wrote:
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote:
I myself set a base size on the body element (most of the time 76%
like Owen Briggs) and then use em's to set up the rest of the typography.
Hmm, 76% on the body element, thats 24% smaller than my default? Kinda
tough on us
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Terrence Wood wrote:
Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode?
Yes, always... :)
No, only if it's necessary and unavoidable, e.g. in Eric B. Bednarz's
fixed-positioning solution: http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/.
I have seen this done on a couple
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some
coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug
several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a
good browser should
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Wayne Godfrey wrote:
Enjoy your upcoming Mac, I know you will.
So I've been told by many. Hope to have an iMac up and running before
x-mas (have already paid for it). Now I only have a dual-processor high
speed multi-tasking workstation with multiple screens, and
Peter Tilbrook wrote:
[request for a 88x31px WSG button]
Get. A. Life.
I always find it funny that people who post such replies do not seem to
grasp the inherent reciprocal nature of them. Make my day! :-)
For Mike: if no button in that particular size exists, you could do a
proposal based on
David McDonald wrote:
Try the W3C as a good starting point:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/
And possibly --as 2.0 is in its final stages--:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
This second
John Allsopp wrote:
OK,
thanks for all the answers, I buy them :-)
That would be four cents then, please. Anything else?
;-)
Jeroen Visser
--
vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/
**
The discussion list for http
Lyn Patterson wrote:
Bert and Jeroen
Your advice much appreciated.
You're welcome.
Am blushing as I report that when I removed ALL the hacks, the site
stayed the same and it now validates perfectly. I think those hacks
came from a very early attempt at css and I just kept putting them into
David R wrote:
Andy Kirkwood | MOTIVE wrote:
I have come across a couple of instances of this where headings have
been enclosed in an anchor, i.e.
a name=anchor id=anchorh1Heading text/h1/a
This causes the text colour of the heading to change when moused-over
(although not a link). From an
David R wrote:
I do have a relevant question relating to this problem: Is there any
advantage in word-wrapping markup'd paragraphs?
The most important situation in which word-wrapping is useful is with
justified text. Good word-wrapping prevents awkward word spacing in such
text, rendering it
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely
compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you
remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues
should be resolved.
This is sooo untrue. If they require invalid HTML,
their product is NOT compiliant.
Funny you
Sam Brown wrote:
The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely
compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you
remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues
should be resolved. Using one of our older and
backwards compatible menu packages
Jacobus van Niekerk wrote:
Hi all,
I need the MAC girls guys ;) to help me out. Can you please send me a
screen grab of the following url
http://www.parachute.com/te/smallbusiness/
Heard of http://www.browsercam.com/ perhaps?
Jeroen
PS: your character encoding is going bazerk (windows-1250?),
On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote:
[From a PC mag article]
In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without
considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps
developed in this environment will work on just about any display,
from mobile phones
On Jul 31, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Justin Carter wrote:
IE7 will be far from a disappointment. Sure Beta 1 doesn't seem to
give us anything much new and the UI is a bit topsy-turvey but I think
it's mostly due to the fact that it has come straight out of Longhorn
(Vista).
From the IMPRESSIVE list
31 matches
Mail list logo
